DEA Rejects Witnesses For November Hearings On Two Psychedelic Compounds, Advocates Push Back

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has denied testimony from key witnesses ahead of scheduled hearings to discuss the potential classification of two psychedelic compounds, 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC), as Schedule I substances. According to Green Market Report, this rejection has sparked a backlash from advocates, notably Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), who argue the DEA is silencing critical scientific voices.

DEA Blocks Testimonies And Exhibits

In a Motion in Limine filed on September 26, the DEA moved to exclude witnesses and exhibits proposed by SSDP, Panacea Plant Sciences and Dr. Raul A. Ramos, citing that the evidence provided was “incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and/or unduly repetitious.” The motion also criticized the format of the exhibits, saying they were improperly paginated and lacked identification marks, further complicating their submission for the hearings scheduled for November 12-22, with a final meeting on November 25.

The DEA argued that some witnesses presented by SSDP lacked relevant expertise, particularly targeting Panacea’s CEO, David Heldreth. According to the DEA, Heldreth is "not offered as an expert" and has no scientific qualifications to testify about the pharmacological effects of DOI or DOC. The agency called Heldreth's potential testimony on the risk of abuse and diversion “strictly speculative.”

SSDP Fights Back

The rejection of witnesses has drawn fierce criticism from SSDP and their legal team. “What is the DEA so scared of that these leading scientists must be muzzled?” asked Robert Rush, a Denver-based attorney representing SSDP. He criticized the agency for attempting to block testimony from some of the world’s foremost experts in neuroscience and pharmacology.

SSDP’s Science Policy Committee chair, Elijah Ullman, also took issue with the DEA's rejection, highlighting that their witnesses bring substantial expertise to the table. “We have assembled a world-class international group of behavioral and molecular pharmacologists, chemists, neuroscientists, and a former Government Advisor on psychoactive drugs,” said Ullman, who is pursuing a Ph.D. in molecular and systems pharmacology at Emory University.

Ullman expressed frustration over the DEA's unwillingness to engage with the expert testimonies, accusing the agency of lacking confidence in its own data. “If the DEA believed their own rhetoric and description of the data, they would allow our proposed witnesses to testify in full. Otherwise, it appears to me that they are worried their dataset is lacking the scientific rigor to support their claims,” per the outlet.

Following this latest rejection, SSDP filed yet another motion in the DEA Administrative Court pushing back on the denial.

The Fight Over DOI And DOC

The DEA’s efforts to schedule DOI and DOC as Schedule I substances – reserving this classification for drugs deemed to have no medical use and a high potential for abuse – have been ongoing since April 2022. SSDP and Panacea Plant Sciences have been vocal in their opposition, filing lawsuits and arguing that these compounds hold promise for scientific research. Although the initial lawsuit was dismissed, the group has continued to contest the DEA's moves through these hearings.

What's At Stake?

The DEA’s proposed ban would severely limit the ability of researchers to study DOI and DOC, both of which are believed to have potential therapeutic uses in the field of psychedelic-assisted therapies. Advocates argue that the decision to place these compounds in Schedule I would hinder scientific advancements and close the door on exploring their benefits.

Cover image made with AI