A grassroots network of student activists called Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) are taking on the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), opposing its proposal to classify two psychedelics — 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC) — as Schedule I substances under the Controlled Substances Act. SSDP argues that the DEA’s move is based on flawed reasoning, and poses a significant threat to scientific research and medical advancement. According to Marijuana Moment, which first reported the news, the filing also points out that there are no documented cases of “distressing responses or death” from consuming DOI, nor any established evidence of high-risk dependence.
DOI and DOC are part of the 2C family of synthetic psychedelics and belong to the class of compounds called phenethylamines, which also include MDMA and methamphetamine. While DOI and DOC are used recreationally in underground circles, they have also attracted interest in the scientific community for their potential therapeutic uses. However, under the DEA’s proposed rule, both DOI and DOC would be classified as Schedule I drugs, which are defined as having a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. This classification would place them alongside drugs like heroin and LSD, severely restricting their availability for research purposes.
READ: You’ll Get Shamed in AA for Drinking Ayahuasca
This isn’t the first time that SSDP has faced off with the DEA. In April 2022, the DEA attempted to file DOI and DOC as Schedule I substances but withdrew its request after the student activist group opposed the move.
SSDP’s legal filing includes declarations from several experts in the field of psychedelics, who argue that the DEA’s proposed scheduling of these substances would harm ongoing research efforts. They contend that the Schedule I classification would impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on researchers, making it difficult to obtain the necessary approvals and funding to study these compounds. They also argue that this would stifle innovation and delay the development of potential treatments for conditions like depression, anxiety, and PTSD. In a press release, SSDP Science Policy Committee Chair Elijah Ullman described DEA’s campaign as “an anti-scientific tirade of ignoring facts.”
SSDP criticized the DEA’s process for evaluating the scheduling of new substances, arguing that it lacks transparency and does not adequately consider the views of the scientific community. The group points out that the DEA’s assessment of DOI and DOC relied heavily on data from animal studies, which may not accurately reflect the effects of these substances in humans. SSDP argued that the DEA has failed to consider alternative scheduling options that would allow for continued research while addressing potential public health concerns.
SSDP’s legal action against the DEA reflects a growing frustration amongst the research community towards the federal government’s scheduling policies, and what they see as outdated and overly restrictive drug policies. “The DEA’s current path is a disservice to science, health, and the principles of justice and compassion,” SSDP’s Executive Director Kat Murti told Filter Magazine. “Let’s stand together to advocate for sensible drug policy and ensure that potential treatments can reach those in need without undue government interference.”
