Two previous posts have explored the ability of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) to shape cognitive flexibility. The authors of an important research paper summed it all up:

Our findings highlight the multifaceted nature of psychedelics’ therapeutic effects and their relevance for various mental health conditions. We suggest that these therapeutic benefits may not be solely dependent on the initiation of neuroplasticity but could also be influenced by the specific post-treatment experiential context.

Of course, the point that organically follows is that the insights gained thus far demand more study. Another branch of research that naturally suggests itself is learning how best to synergistically combine the ability of psychedelics to mold the mind like Play-Doh with “training-guided network reorganization, leveraging the increased plasticity induced by the drug.”

These researchers are not interested in developing just another pharmaceutical product for a lucrative market. They take for granted that an integrated approach offers the most potential benefit. Like clinical depression and acute anxiety, addiction involves resistance to change, plus the inevitable perseverative behaviors.

One of the most familiar quotations in our language (usually attributed to Einstein, but apparently there is plenty of room for doubt) goes like this:

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

There is a bright spot. The tendency to hold onto behavior with a perseverative grip might indicate that the individual is able, with the help of retraining, to abandon rigid cognitive patterns and develop a set of good habits as strong as the bad old habits used to be. For this and many other reasons, it seems strange that DOI and/or similar and perhaps even more effective psychedelics are not already the leading anti-addiction treatments.

What’s the holdup? According to writer Jacob Sullum, “The DEA Wants To Ban Scientifically ‘Crucial’ Psychedelics Because People Might Use Them.”

After suggesting that most people have probably never heard of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI), he goes on to say that the synthetic psychedelic is nevertheless “a promising research chemical that has figured in more than 900 published studies.” Using information obtained from Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), he points out the misconceptions under which the Drug Enforcement Administration is laboring.

First and foremost, there is no valid reason to classify DOI as a Schedule I substance, since that category allegedly includes only incredibly dangerous drugs with no medical applications but plenty of abuse potential. According to the appeal launched by SSDP, Schedule I would price academic institutions right out of the research market by imposing not only a steep financial cost but a ton of bureaucratic obstacles, aka red tape.

In actuality, they point out, there is no evidence that DOI is a drug of abuse, and even the government admits there is no indication that any of it has been diverted for purposes other than scientific research. Placement on Schedule I would bring all research to a screeching halt, which would be a shame because it is the best thing around for research into serotonin.

If conditions were as they should be, and if research was untrammeled, it could be undeniably shown that DOI just might be the best treatment to manage pain and reduce opioid cravings, which would certainly go a long way toward reducing the seeming epidemic of addiction. Furthermore, enticing clues have already led to exciting surprises that strongly hint at the eventual defeat of even the most stubborn addictions.

In presenting its evidence against DOI, the government agency seems confused. It believes that there is a high potential for abuse, and states that DOI has been “encountered by” law enforcement officers, which could mean just about anything. Also, they cite “anecdotal reports,” which is a pretty hazy basis for such draconian restriction. One glaring omission from what should constitute the evidence is the paucity of research on healthy human volunteers, which would surely go a long way toward providing a more complete picture.

Although the psychedelic is obviously available for legitimate researchers to buy, there is little evidence of it being diverted into unauthorized hands. According to Sullum, the federal agency considers any use of DOI or the similar drug DOC to automatically, by definition, be abuse. Here is an interesting paragraph:

From 2005 through 2022, the DEA adds, the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) collected 40 reports of DOI and 790 reports of DOC — an annual average of about two and 46, respectively. In 2022, the NFLIS collected nearly 1.2 million drug reports, so these compounds together would have accounted for something like 0.004 percent of the total.

Apparently, there is little actual evidence of recreational use, and there are only three published reports (in 2008, 2014, and 2015) of adverse response to DOI, and only one associated death. Over three decades, there have been only 40 seizures of the drug. Nevertheless, the DEA is adamant in its refusal to acknowledge any potential benefits. Meanwhile, SSDP and its lawyers want an admission from the government that the DEA has not come close to doing a good job in regard to DOI and similar substances.

Written by Pat Hartman. First published September 6, 2024.

Sources:

“Lasting dynamic effects of the psychedelic 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine ((±)-DOI) on cognitive flexibility,” Nature.com, February 2024.

“The DEA Wants To Ban Scientifically ‘Crucial’ Psychedelics Because People Might Use Them,” Reason.com, July 23, 2024.

Image Copyright: photographerpandora/Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic.