Politics
DEA Judge Denies Agency’s Request To Block Witnesses In Hearing Challenging Proposed Psychedelics Ban
A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrative judge has denied the federal agency’s request to block a series of witnesses and evidentiary exhibits in a forthcoming hearing on its plans to ban a pair of psychedelic compounds used for research purposes.
While Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Paul Soeffing granted DEA’s motion to keep certain proposed evidence out of the 10-day hearing, which is scheduled to begin on November 12, he denied the agency’s claim that certain witnesses and materials should be precluded on the basis that they were “incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and/or unduly repetitious.”
With respect to the witnesses, the ALJ said it was inappropriate at this time to block the testimony of experts, including those associated with Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and Panacea Plant Sciences (PPS), which have been fighting against DEA to ensure that the psychedelics can continue to be utilized in research.
However, Soeffing made clear that its denial of DEA’s motion doesn’t necessarily mean that the evidence and witnesses will be allowed to be entered into the record; rather, he said that in this preliminary stage, it’s too soon to determine whether those witnesses or materials will be relevant to the case.
The case concerns DEA’s push to place the psychedelics—2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC)—in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The currently unscheduled substances have been used in various research initiatives to explore their potential in the treatment of conditions such as chronic, acute and neuropathic pain, addiction to opioids and alcohol and other mental health disorders.
The government had asked the ALJ for “preemptive summary exclusion of proposed evidence” from researchers and advocates, the administrative judge said.
Part of the reason DEA sought to block certain witnesses from testifying is because of their focus on how a Schedule I designation would impede research initiatives, which the agency argued was irrelevant to the case at hand. But the ALJ disagreed, saying the tribunal does not find that ‘research harm evidence’…is per se irrelevant to these proceedings such that preemptive exclusion of such testimony is required.”
While the judge did side with DEA on a number evidentiary items it sought to be excluded, it denied the outright request. And that represents a partial but meaningful win for opponents of the proposed ban, including SSDP and PPS.
“Science prevails!” SSDP Executive Director Kat Murti told Marijuana Moment on Monday. “The DEA is trying to force medical research into the dark ages by criminalizing DOI and DOC—essential research chemicals in pre-clinical psychiatry and neurobiology whose status as unscheduled compounds has made them de facto tools for researchers studying serotonin receptors.”
“SSDP is proud to have brought together the world’s leading experts in neuroscience and pharmacology who will testify to the immense harm that will be caused by adding DOI and DOC to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act,” Murti said.
She added that the judge’s decision “is a victory not only for scientific integrity but for the tens of thousands of Americans suffering from depression, anxiety, and chronic pain, as well as those who are at risk of opioid overdose and their loved ones, all of whom stand to benefit from the 900+ published medical studies using DOI and DOC.”
PPS CEO David Heldreth told Marijuana Moment that the organization is “glad to see the judge denied the Biden and Harris administration’s DEA attempt to block our testimony,” adding that “we hope the rest of the hearing continues to go our way.”
Following a public comment period, DEA’s ALJ Soeffing in August set an administrative hearing on the matter from November 12-22, with a final meeting on November 25
This all comes as DEA separately scheduled a December hearing to gain additional input on the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal—a move that will delay that reform from potentially taking effect until after the presidential election.
Meanwhile, SSDP was among stakeholders who requested the psychedelics hearing, in hopes of challenging what they view as a lack of evidence justifying DEA’s proposed ban. Researchers have pointed out that DOI and DOC, as currently unscheduled substances, have been key components in psychedelics research that show potential in the treatment of anxiety and depression, for example.
Researchers have also argued that DEA has failed to meet the statutory burden of demonstrating that either psychedelic compound has high abuse potential. There are no documented cases in medical literature of “distressing responses or death” related to human consumption of DOI, nor has there been any established evidence of a high risk of dependence, SSDP said in a pre-hearing filing in July.
The initial scheduling of the administrative hearing came about two months after a federal court dismissed a case challenging the constitutionality of DEA’s process for adjudicating scheduling actions as the agency seeks to ban the two psychedelic compounds.
Prior to that ruling, DEA had formally cancelled the planned administrative hearing, which came in response to an agency administrative law judge staying the proceeding in light of the now-dismissed lawsuit.
PPS led the legal challenge, and its CEO David Heldreth told Marijuana Moment earlier this month that the psychedelics research company “is still fighting the constitutionality of the administrative law judge and hearing process,” with a pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
DEA first attempted to ban DOI and DOC in 2022, only to withdraw the proposal amid pushback from the scientific community. The agency separately withdrew from a proposal to ban five different tryptamine psychedelics in 2022.
Last December, DEA announced that it would be trying to enact the DOC and DOI ban again. The agency’s notice about the scheduling proposal still lacks evidence that directly connects the compounds to serious adverse health events or demonstrated a high abuse potential.
“To date, there are no reports of distressing responses or death associated with DOI in medical literature,” it said. “The physiological dependence liability of DOI and DOC in animals and humans is not reported in scientific and medical literature.”
DEA said that anecdotal reports posted by people online signaled that the substances have hallucinogenic effects, making it “reasonable to assume that DOI and DOC have substantial capability to be a hazard to the health of the user and to the safety of the community.”
It did point to one report of a death of a person who had used DOC in combination with two other unspecified drugs—as well as two reports of hospitalizations that it said were attributable to the use of DOC with other drugs—but scientists say that hardly constitutes reason enough to place them in the most strictly controlled schedule.
In the background of this development, the Justice Department’s public comment on its proposal to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA officially closed this past summer. The newly scheduled administrative hearing on that issue comes after multiple interested parties—including former DEA leaders and state attorneys general—made the request.
Those requests were seen by many reformers as a way not only to push back on the Biden administration’s rescheduling plan but also to potentially delay the formal implementation of the action amid an effort by opponents to shoot it down.
Read the DEA ALJ’s ruling on the psychedelics hearing below:
Image courtesy of Students for Sensible Drug Policy.
