How the Cannabis Industry Can Solve the Schedule I Drug Discovery Barrier Problem

This article originally appeared on Cannabis.net and has been republished with permission.

The “Psychedelic Train” has left the station, NIDA Director Nora Volkow said recently. Volkow, who has served as director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse since 2003, has been vocal in calling for more research into Schedule I drugs. She also believes that the use of psychedelics will inevitably increase in the coming years.

In fact, the evidence suggests that psychedelics have grown in popularity since the pandemic began, and they believe this could be a means of “escape” from the fears generated by the global situation. Nonetheless, Volkow believes that as research into the benefits of psychedelics increases, more people will start using psychedelics themselves, warranting accelerated research into usage, dose, effects, and so on.

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

This is where Schedule-I becomes a big problem. Volkov said:

“Researchers must obtain a Schedule I registration, which, unlike the registration of Schedule II substances (which include fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine), is administratively demanding and time-consuming. This process could discourage some scientists from conducting research on Schedule I drugs.”

She also acknowledged the DEA’s willingness to increase the research quota for certain psychedelics.

“It will also be important to streamline the process of obtaining Schedule I registrations to advance the science on these substances, including exploring their therapeutic potential,” she said.

This got me thinking about the research barrier – the Schedule I category. The entire system is designed to discourage anyone from researching these drugs that are considered “too dangerous to study”! Fortunately, we’re seeing resistance from the scientific community and the general public, who realize that the ban isn’t working.

RELATED: A look inside the head of Nora Volkow, the new head of NIDA

Because of this paradigm shift, the DEA was forced to change its stance on certain drugs. First with cannabis and now with psychedelics. The public had to twist the government’s arm to say, “Sure we’re thinking about making research easier… just give us time!”

And so one year turns into two, and finally a decade has passed and virtually no progress has been made in researching the therapeutic potential of these drugs, their potential risk factors, and so on.

You ask yourself: why do we have the Controlled Substance Act at all?

Photo by matt_benoit/Getty Images

Origins of the Narcotics Act

The Controlled Substance Act was the second policy element of a much larger piece of legislation entitled the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Nixon, who announced this during his short tenure as President until he was charged with obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress.

“While Nixon himself has not been impeached, his impeachment trial is the only one to date that has resulted in a president leaving office.” (source)

Nonetheless, Nixon essentially turned over the entire US drug market to the drug companies, which would be responsible for “certain types of drugs,” while the rest of the drugs that were deemed “unmarketable to the masses” under U.S. drug jurisdiction remained DEA, which would then begin using federal funds to fight a war that would last several decades.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about the law:

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, enacted October 27, 1970, is a United States federal law that, as amended, requires the pharmaceutical industry to maintain physical security and strict records of certain types of drugs.[1] Controlled substances are classified into five lists (or classes) based on their potential for abuse, recognized medical uses, and recognized safety under medical supervision. Substances on Schedule I have a high potential for abuse, no accredited medical use, and a lack of recognized safety. From Schedules II to V, the abuse potential of substances decreases. The schedule on which a substance is included determines how it must be controlled. Prescriptions for drugs on all lists must bear the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) physician approval number, but some drugs on Schedule V do not require a prescription. State schedules may differ from federal schedules.

RELATED: There’s no evidence that smoking weed occasionally is harmful, says top federal drug official

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, is the legal basis for the government’s fight against drug and other substance abuse. This law is a summary of numerous laws that regulate the manufacture and distribution of narcotics, stimulants, tranquilizers, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids, and chemicals used in the illicit manufacture of controlled substances. The law also provides a mechanism for substances to be controlled, added to a schedule, exempted from control, removed from control, rescheduled, or transferred from one schedule to another.[2]

Photo by CRYSTALWEED Cannabis via Unsplash

As you can see, the underlying mechanism here is as follows:

1. The pharmaceutical industry keeps records and stores all medicines
2. The DEA and FDA regulate the schedule
3. Congress has the power to add and remove substances

On paper, this seems like a good idea, considering about 75% of FDA’s budget comes from the biopharmaceutical industry. Science.org also found that the pharmaceutical industry pays for research with many “side effects” that may affect their judgments about certain drugs.

RELATED: GOP lawmakers introduce bill to streamline cannabis research after DEA showed support for White House plan

One way to look at this system after learning about the finances is that the US government has given the pharmaceutical industry monopoly over drugs and the FDA is involved in the regulatory process through funding. Furthermore, the DEA can actively use federal funds to literally wage war on any “black market competition” that the pharmaceutical industry may face.

Of course, the system isn’t as singularly oriented as described above, but if you were feeling a bit conspiratorial, this wouldn’t be a hard pill to swallow. Rather, the law signed by Nixon represents a conglomerate of special interests creating “special rules” for the status quo in the name of health and safety.

However, now that we learn about the therapeutic benefits of cannabis and psychedelics, we can clearly see that the research ban was not about public health and safety, it was all about control and finance.

So instead of trying to stitch the CSA together so that psychedelics and other drugs can be researched, perhaps it is time to repeal the CSA entirely and overhaul our global approach to drugs; a policy where we have chosen to stop arresting users, focus on education and prevention, while improving the safety profile of the drugs themselves.

Research Barrier SOLVED!

This article originally appeared on Cannabis.net and has been republished with permission.