The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) recent proposal to ban two psychedelic substances, 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC), has ignited a significant backlash, particularly from student advocacy groups. Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), a national nonprofit organization, is at the forefront of this resistance, concerned that the ban will reduce access to drugs that could have useful medicinal purposes.

DEA’s classification intent

Specifically, the DEA aims to classify DOI and DOC as Schedule I drugs under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This classification is reserved for substances with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. In 2022, the DEA proposed a similar ban but faced significant pushback from the scientific community, leading to a temporary withdrawal of the proposal. The agency’s renewed efforts in December last year have reignited the debate, with the DEA arguing that these psychedelics pose significant risks to public health and safety, citing anecdotal reports of hallucinogenic effects and a few instances of harm when used in combination with other drugs. Despite these claims, there are no comprehensive studies proving a high potential for abuse or significant adverse health effects from DOI and DOC alone.

SSDP’s arguments against the ban

This is the basis of the arguments made by advocacy groups against the ban. SSDP, representing 20 academics, including graduate students, researchers, and professors, argues that the DEA has not provided any evidence demonstrating a high abuse potential for these substances. They emphasize that there are no documented cases of negative or addictive effects related to DOI and DOC in medical research so far and maintain that these substances are crucial for future research, especially in understanding the serotonin 2 receptor, which is involved in regulating learning, memory, and mood.

“DOI and DOC are available for purchase from legitimate chemical synthesis companies because they are used in scientific research, and there is no evidence of diversion from these companies,” SSDP said in their prehearing statement. The organization highlights that there is no evidence of illicit sales or significant misuse of these substances. Brett Phelps, SSDP alum and the group’s legal counsel reinforced this point, stating, “DOI and DOC are important research chemicals with basically no evidence of abuse.”

Potential therapeutic applications

But why are SSDP and other groups adamant that these substances shouldn’t be banned? Over the past 35 years, research has suggested that DOI and DOC might be effective in treating a range of conditions, including chronic pain, opioid and alcohol addiction, and various mental health disorders. SSDP argues that classifying these substances as Schedule I would severely hinder this research, ultimately depriving people of potentially revolutionary treatments. Elijah Ullman, chair of SSDP’s Science Policy Committee, noted that the DEA’s proposed rulemaking “defies scientific study and will make it more difficult for researchers to work on the serotonin 2 receptor.”

DOI and DOC have shown promise in various areas of mental health treatment. For example, clinical trials have demonstrated significant improvements in patients suffering from treatment-resistant depression when treated with regulated doses of DOI. Similarly, DOC has shown potential in MDMA-assisted therapy for individuals coping with severe PTSD symptoms. Psychedelic-assisted therapy using these compounds has also been noted to reduce anxiety levels in patients with terminal illnesses, offering a better quality of life during palliative care.

Impact on research and investment

The classification of DOI and DOC as Schedule I drugs would create significant barriers for researchers. It would complicate the process of obtaining the necessary approvals for studies, and it could put off scientists from exploring these substances further. The increase in obstacles and scrutiny that researchers would face could lead to a decline in innovative research and limit the potential for breakthroughs in understanding and treating mental health conditions. Additionally, there are economic implications to imposing the ban. The psychedelics sector has seen increasing interest from investors who recognize the potential for innovation and growth. It could stifle investment opportunities into psychedelic research opportunities, which would, in turn, reduce funding for studies and drug trials.

The need for a balanced drug policy

The DEA’s proposal to ban DOI and DOC and the opposition from student groups and the broader scientific community has sparked a debate that underlines the need for a balanced drug policy that considers both the potential for abuse and the therapeutic benefits of these substances. The outcome of this debate could have far-reaching implications for the future of mental health treatment and scientific research in the field of psychedelics. As public interest and awareness grow, the efforts of student advocacy groups like SSDP will play a crucial role in shaping sensible drug policies that support scientific exploration and therapeutic innovation. The goal is to ensure that promising treatments can reach those in need without undue government interference, ultimately preserving the integrity of scientific inquiry and advancing medical treatment for the betterment of society.