Media Report: DEA Bids to Exclude Expert Witnesses From Psychedelics-Ban Hearing | Cannabis Law Report | How to buy Skittles Moonrock online

Learn where to order Skittles Moonrock online. TOP QUALITY GRADE A++

Cannabyss Inc. is the best place online to buy top quality weed, cannabis, vape, marijuana and CBD products. Get your borderless orders delivered at the pickup spot with ease. Top Grade products for client satisfaction.

👉 Click here to Visit our shop! 🛒

Filter

The Drug Enforcement Administration is seeking to exclude what advocates say is key testimony from an upcoming hearing on the agency’s long-running bid to ban two psychedelic substances. Advocates opposing the ban have hit back with scathing countermotions, disputing the DEA’s latest move and threatening further legal action.

As Filter has previously reported, a coalition including Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and Panacea Plant Services has fought a years-long battle with the DEA over the legal status of  two substances widely used in psychedelic research: 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC).

The DEA wants to place DOI and DOC, which are currently unscheduled, in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act—the most restricted category, for drugs deemed to have “High abuse potential with no accepted medical use.” The agency revived these attempts in December 2023. In January, SSDP representatives filed a request for a public hearing on the matter.

On September 26, just hours before a deadline to do so, the DEA filed a motion to “exclude various witnesses, witness testimony, and exhibits.”

In August, following numerous bureaucratic delays and pre-hearing statements, the DEA’s administrative court responded by scheduling a historically lengthy nine-day public hearing period: to run from November 12-22, with an additional day on November 25 to accommodate the Thanksgiving holiday.

That didn’t signal a temporary ceasefire, however.

On September 26, just hours before a deadline to do so, the DEA filed a motion to “exclude various witnesses, witness testimony, and exhibits proposed by Panacea Plant Sciences (Panacea), the Science Policy Counsel, Students for Sensible Drug Policy and Dr. Raul A. Ramos (SSDP/Ramos).” The filing states that this is “on the grounds that much of the proposed testimony and exhibits are incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and/or unduly repetitious.”

SSDP representatives had previously submitted a 14-person list of proposed witnesses for the hearing. The size of this list was a significant factor in the administrative court scheduling such a lengthy public hearing.

The list of proposed witnesses includes “a world-class international group of behavioral and molecular pharmacologists, chemists, neuroscientists, and a former Government Advisor on psychoactive drugs,” according to SSDP Science Policy Committee Chair Elijah Ullman. The DEA is seeking to exclude some, though not all, of these witnesses.

Intriguingly, the DEA’s filing includes a particularly lengthy section dedicated to discrediting the proposed testimony of David Heldreth, the founder and president of Panacea Plant Services (PPS), a psychedelic research and development company. Despite Heldreth’s work, the agency claims “there is no indication that he possesses any expertise to aid the tribunal in resolving the issue.”

“The DEA is attempting to restrict the testimony of the only group representing Native American viewpoints.”

In response to the DEA’s attempt to disqualify his testimony, Heldreth filed a countermotion on October 3, disputing the agency’s argument and detailing plans for future legal action if its request is approved.

The countermotion described the DEA’s bid to remove Heldreth from the witness list as, “a disservice to the hearings and the American people.” It then set out further steps which, if Heldreth is excluded, could potentially mire the DEA’s plans for DOI and DOC in further legal struggles.

“If the judge in the hearing approves this motion by DEA,” it stated, “PPS plans to seek an interlocutory appeal of the non-final judgment ruling on the motion [which] would then have to be sent to the DEA administrator for review.”

Read the full report at

DEA Bids to Exclude Expert Witnesses From Psychedelics-Ban Hearing