In a document published in the Federal Register, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced it will hold a hearing on August 22, 2022, on its controversial proposal to place five psychedelic compounds in Schedule I.
The first plan to schedule the five tryptamines - 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET and DiPT - was published in January. Both the research and advocacy communities disavowed it during a public comment period and requested a hearing, which was ultimately granted.
This initial rulemaking filing would have been made considering research and recommendations from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stating that “these substances are being abused for their hallucinogenic properties,” after identified cases of hospitalizations related to the use of two of the tryptamines.
Yet, investigations were only able to cite one death where one of the compounds, 5-MeO-AMT, was found in the person’s system, in addition to alcohol and an antidepressant. The DEA acknowledged that it was unclear what role 5-MeO-AMT had played in that death.
Within the next audience, researchers and advocates will be able to present “factual information and expert opinion concerning the significance and reliability of the medical, scientific, and other bases that DEA provided in support of the proposed scheduling of the five tryptamine substances.”
Furthermore, any person who would be “adversely affected or aggrieved” by the agency’s presented project may request to testify.
A Bit Of History
In February 2022 and after the public backlash to the agency’s scheduling proposal, DEA’s Administrative Law Judge Teresa Wallbaum issued an order timelining the public hearings on the matter, starting with prehearing statements by the agency and stakeholders and a prehearing conference in May.
The Office of Administrative Law Judges is specifically in charge of cases related to DEA enforcement and regulations. Critics of the proposed ban hope the judge will recommend either a lower schedule or no schedule at all.
Nonetheless, the head of the DEA isn’t obliged to follow the judge’s recommendation, and past administrators have ignored them in similar cases.
As collected by Marijuana Moment, in 1988 DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young famously challenged the agency’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, arguing that cannabis is “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man” and “marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care.”
The Judge even went on to say that “It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record.”
The agency, however, ignored the judge’s position and kept marijuana in Schedule I.
The next hearing will no doubt involve some interesting discussion.
© 2022 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Ad Disclosure: The rate information is obtained by Bankrate from the listed institutions. Bankrate cannot guaranty the accuracy or availability of any rates shown above. Institutions may have different rates on their own websites than those posted on Bankrate.com. The listings that appear on this page are from companies from which this website receives compensation, which may impact how, where, and in what order products appear. This table does not include all companies or all available products.
All rates are subject to change without notice and may vary depending on location. These quotes are from banks, thrifts, and credit unions, some of whom have paid for a link to their own Web site where you can find additional information. Those with a paid link are our Advertisers. Those without a paid link are listings we obtain to improve the consumer shopping experience and are not Advertisers. To receive the Bankrate.com rate from an Advertiser, please identify yourself as a Bankrate customer. Bank and thrift deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Credit union deposits are insured by the National Credit Union Administration.
Consumer Satisfaction: Bankrate attempts to verify the accuracy and availability of its Advertisers' terms through its quality assurance process and requires Advertisers to agree to our Terms and Conditions and to adhere to our Quality Control Program. If you believe that you have received an inaccurate quote or are otherwise not satisfied with the services provided to you by the institution you choose, please click here.
Rate collection and criteria: Click here for more information on rate collection and criteria.