There is an ongoing debate around reviewing and potentially reforming laws around certain controlled substances that are currently illegal. While substances like MDMA, psilocybin, LSD and marijuana remain prohibited in most places, some researchers and advocates argue that they may have valuable medical applications that should be thoroughly studied and considered.
On one side are those who point to emerging research from institutions like Johns Hopkins, UCLA, NYU and others that has investigated compounds like psilocybin and MDMA for treating conditions like depression, anxiety, PTSD and addiction. They argue that prematurely making these substances completely illegal may be closing the door on potential breakthrough therapies.
For example, studies from Johns Hopkins have found that psilocybin can produce substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer diagnoses. Researchers at UCLA and USC have explored using MDMA to help treat PTSD by allowing patients to re-experience traumatic events in a secure setting.
Proponents argue that the current drug schedules are antiquated and based more on historical patterns than modern scientific evidence. They advocate for rescheduling certain substances to allow more research and close the gap between restrictive policies and emerging medical potential.
On the other side are those who contend that these substances are dangerous, addictive and unsafe for anything beyond very narrow and strict medical use. They point to a lack of large-scale clinical trials and the historical societal costs of more permissive drug policies. There are reasonable concerns around recreational use and abuse.
So there is debate around how to carefully thread the needle – allowing and enabling rigorous medical research into possible therapeutic uses, without making access too permissive for recreational use.
Many advocacy groups are pursuing strategic legal and legislative pathways to try and facilitate more research. Groups like MAPS, DPA and others have donated money to universities to fund FDA-approved clinical trials looking at the effects of MDMA, psilocybin and related compounds on mental health conditions. They are not distributing or encouraging illegal use.
The focus is on gathering reputable data from legitimate institutions to present to regulators. If and when this research meets the FDA’s standards, they aim to legally reclassify compounds to allow prescription use for specific therapeutic applications.
Some localities have taken action on a smaller scale around certain compounds. For example, cities like Denver, Oakland and others have decriminalized small amounts of psilocybin mushrooms and deprioritized enforcement. While not legalizing, this creates more of an environment conducive to research.
Oregon has gone a step further, becoming the first state to legalize psilocybin for therapeutic use after voters approved Measure 109 in 2020. This will allow administration of psilocybin at licensed facilities after undergoing approved treatments.
At the federal level, there has been increasing bipartisan efforts pushing for rescheduling and more research. The 2022 Congressional spending bill essentially legalized federal research on Schedule 1 drugs like MDMA and psilocybin. While not commercializing anything, it creates an avenue to apply for research licenses.
There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this complex issue that intersects healthcare, public safety, individual freedoms and ethics. But there does seem to be increasing mainstream momentum toward facilitating more research into potential therapeutic uses through proper medical and legal channels.
The ultimate solutions may involve rescheduling certain compounds to allow prescription use while maintaining tight restrictions around recreational use. Or keeping current restrictions but creating streamlined pathways for research and drug trials. There are various policy knobs that could be tuned.
This remains an active debate playing out through public advocacy, lobbying efforts, legislative action, regulatory filings and robust scientific research. As more data emerges, it may bring more clarity around appropriate policies. But it’s a conversation that will likely continue for some time.