DEA rejects speakers at November hearings on two psychedelic substances | Where to order Skittles Moonrock online
Learn where to order marijuana 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! 🛒
Students for Sensible Drug Policy has fought back to dismiss the rejections.
The Drug Enforcement Administration rejected the testimony and witnesses of a group that was fighting to keep two psychedelic substances out of Schedule 1. The agency will hold a meeting in November to discuss the possibility of banning these two drugs.
Green Market Report In August, I wrote that the DEA proposal to put 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC) in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, with the hearing scheduled to take place Nov. 12-22. The final meeting will be held on November 25.
Since April 2022, the DEA has tried to place these two compounds on Schedule I. Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and Panacea Plant Sciences have been fighting against the ban. They filed a suit, but it was dismissed. This cleared the way for DEA’s decision to ban DOI and DOC. Hearings were still scheduled.
Rejected witnesses, exhibits and evidence
On September 26, the DEA submitted a Motion In Limine that stated:
The government has moved to exclude witnesses, witness testimony, exhibits, and other proposed evidence proposed by Panacea Plant Sciences, the Science Policy Counsel and Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP/Ramos), on the basis that many of the proposed testimony and displays are incompetent or irrelevant, or excessively repetitious.
The motion continued to state that, while the group had also proposed to present 88 exhibits (SSDP/Ramos), none were properly paginated or identified as per the pre-hearing decision.
The DEA also noted that the witnesses were not specific about their planned testimony. The DEA stated that the summaries provided only “areas that would be covered” but did not provide the relevant facts the government needed to determine whether the testimony was related to the factors pertaining to the ban.
The government agency also accused certain witnesses of making unsupported conclusions versus factual statements. Some witnesses were criticized for giving speculative or unrelated testimony to the factors affecting the potential ban.
The DEA stated that Panacea CEO David Heldreth’s testimony would be excluded in its entirety because “Mr. Heldreth does not present himself as an expert or offer any expertise that could assist the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not have any basis to conclude that Mr. Heldreth has the qualifications to testify about the pharmacological effect of DOI or DOI. There is no basis for concluding that Mr. Heldreth has any expertise on the current state of scientific knowledge about either DOC or DOI or the risk of abuse or any other issues raised by the factors mentioned above.
The motion also called Hedreth’s potential statements about abuse or diversion as “strictly speculation.”
Push back
The SSDP filed a lawsuit against the a Motion In the DEA administrative court, the DEA rejects witnesses.
Robert Rush, a Denver attorney who works with SSDP to ensure that research using DOI or DOC is legal, asked: “What is the DEA afraid of?” “By trying silence the world’s top experts in neuroscience and pharmacology the DEA is attempting prevent the tribunal – and the public – from understanding the true potency of these substances.”
The group argued that the reasons for rejection, proper pagination and marking for exhibit purposes, were incorrect and that the final submission folder contained correct files. The filing acknowledged that earlier disclosed documents were not fully paginated or had exhibit identification, but complained about the DOJ’s document-submission system which does not allow petitioners to make changes to previous submissions.
The group also reacted to the rejection of witnesses by highlighting the credentials of each.
“We have assembled an international group of world-class behavioral and molecular scientists, chemists and neuroscientists as well as a former Government advisor on psychoactive drugs,” Elijah Ullman said, a Ph.D. student in molecular systems pharmacology and chair of SSDP’s Science Policy Committee.
Ullman said that if the DEA believes both DOI, and DOC, should be placed on Schedule I, then they should not have any problem allowing our witnesses testify fully. After all, they claim to have enough data to prove DOI, and DOC, are addictive, and a harm for the public.
If the DEA had believed in their own rhetoric and description, they would have allowed our witnesses to testify fully. It appears to me they are concerned that their dataset lacks the scientific rigor needed to support their claims.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!