On November 12, 2024, Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), a student-led activist organization advocating for evidence-based drug policy, held a press conference outside the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. SSDP organized this event as part of its campaign to challenge the DEA’s proposed scheduling of two psychedelic research chemicals, DOI and DOC, under the Controlled Substances Act.
SSDP’s legal team, along with a group of scientists and advocates, is set to argue their case in a historic administrative hearing, the outcome of which could dramatically impact the future of psychedelic research. The hearing is scheduled to run through November 25, with SSDP making the case that the DEA’s proposed scheduling would stifle scientific progress and limit access to potentially life-saving treatments.
A Stand Against Scheduling DOI and DOC
Speaking to the crowd, Kat Murti, Executive Director of SSDP, explained the far-reaching implications of scheduling DOI and DOC.
“DOI and DOC are two crucial medical tools that have been used safely in laboratories for decades. Together, they have featured in more than 900 research articles and show promise for pain management, combatting anxiety and depression, preventing overdose, and treating substance abuse disorder,” Murti emphasized. “The future of psychedelics rests in our hands,” she continued, urging support for SSDP’s ongoing legal fight to prevent the scheduling of these compounds.
Murti argued that adding these compounds to Schedule I would be “a disservice to science, health, and the principles of justice and compassion,” framing the War on Drugs as an obstacle not just to criminal justice reform but to public health and academic freedom as well. She called on the DEA to “keep research legal”, stressing the integrity of scientific inquiry and the potential impact of these compounds on mental health treatments.
Legal and Scientific Community Rally Behind SSDP
SSDP’s legal counsel, Brett Phelps, also addressed the crowd, presenting the DEA’s case for scheduling DOI and DOC as unscientific and counterproductive. Phelps emphasized the substantial evidence demonstrating the low potential for abuse associated with these chemicals, along with their valuable role in research. “We know that the science is on our side, and we look forward to presenting that evidence,” he stated, adding a note of gratitude for the students and researchers advocating for change.
The DEA’s decision to consider scheduling these compounds has triggered concerns among scientists, who fear that a Schedule I classification would significantly disrupt current and future research efforts. Dr. Alaina M. Jaster, a postdoctoral scholar from Wayne State University and a member of SSDP’s Science Policy Council, highlighted her personal experience working with DOI, which she described as “an essential tool to probe potential treatment mechanisms for opioid use disorder.”
She noted that DOI and DOC have potential in treatments for anxiety, inflammation, and substance use disorders, suggesting that scheduling these compounds would bring vital research “to a halt.”
Research and the “War on Science”
One of the most notable comments came from Robert Rush, an attorney representing SSDP and its allies in the hearing. Rush pointed out the recent legal shift away from “Chevron deference,” which previously allowed administrative agencies like the DEA near-absolute authority in regulatory matters. With the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron, he argued, “the DEA no longer has free reign to do as they please with zero accountability.” Rush asserted that scheduling DOI “is not only unnecessary—it is fundamentally wrong and unethical,” framing it as a move that defies the intent of Congress, which had emphasized the importance of research in the Controlled Substances Act.
Dr. Elijah Z. Ullman, chair of SSDP’s Science Policy Council, reinforced the point that DOI has been a “vital compound” in research for over five decades. “Scientists have been using it for five decades, and the DEA themselves state there is no evidence of diversion from labs like ours,” Ullman remarked. He emphasized that the compound’s specific targeting of serotonin 2 receptors makes it an invaluable research tool in understanding brain mechanisms. The DEA’s classification of DOI as a public health threat, Ullman argued, is “misguided and without any merit.”
The serotonin 2 receptor, as Ullman explained, is involved in crucial brain processes like mood regulation, learning, and memory. He noted that restricting access to DOI would impair scientists’ ability to understand these fundamental aspects of brain function. “Without these compounds, Americans will suffer,” Ullman warned, highlighting the potential benefits DOI research holds for medical treatments addressing everything from mental health issues to chronic pain.
A Personal Story from the Lab
Adding a personal touch to the event, Dr. Raul A. Ramos of UC Berkeley shared his own story of navigating the complexities of Schedule I research. Initially granted a large research fund to study MDMA, he encountered prohibitive delays due to MDMA’s Schedule I status, which required him to secure a Schedule I license.
“If I were lucky, the process of getting this license would take about one year, one third of the funding period,” Ramos recounted.
Unable to wait, he pivoted his research focus to DOI, which was not under Schedule I at the time, and has since yielded promising data that secured him an additional $1.5 million in research funds.
Now, with DOI potentially facing the same classification as MDMA, Ramos expressed his frustration. “Scheduling of substances is a barrier to scientific research and an obstacle to progress,” he lamented, stressing that the policy is a setback for understanding the biological mechanisms that underpin these drugs. He called for “tearing down the barriers that hold back progress,” arguing that Schedule I classification ultimately benefits no one and only prevents valuable research from being conducted.
A Call to Action
SSDP’s Director of Strategy and Development, Gina Giorgio, concluded the press conference by framing the fight as part of a larger movement to challenge outdated drug policies. “This hearing isn’t just about DOI and DOC; it’s about our commitment to a future where research is guided by evidence and compassion, not fear or outdated policy,” she asserted. Giorgio highlighted the vital role young advocates play in shaping policies and emphasized SSDP’s mission of empowering student activists.
The DEA hearing is expected to draw attention from researchers, policymakers, and public health advocates who see the potential scheduling of DOI and DOC as symbolic of the larger struggle between scientific inquiry and government policy. SSDP’s members hope to persuade the DEA to acknowledge the substantial scientific and medical uses of these compounds, thus preserving a research pathway that could lead to breakthroughs in understanding the human brain and developing new therapies for a range of health issues. The hearing promises to be a landmark case in the fight for a drug policy that aligns with scientific evidence, public health, and the advancement of medical research.
