The DEA publishes its final order Emergency Scheduling 2C-T-7
Oct 2003
Originally published in Erowid Extracts
Citation: Erowid F. "The DEA publishes its final order Emergency Scheduling 2C-T-7". Erowid Extracts. Oct 2003; 3:21.
On September 20, 2002, the DEA placed 2C-T-7 into Schedule I by emergency order. 2C-T-7 is now illegal to buy, sell, or possess in the United States without a DEA license.
Two months earlier, on July 19th, they published, in the Federal Register, their intent to emergency schedule 2C-T-7. Once the DEA declared this intent, there was a mandatory 30 day comment period during which the public was given the opportunity to provide comment or feedback on the proposed scheduling. The fact that the DEA proceeded with the scheduling suggests no serious objections were filed.
In describing their decision to place 2C-T-7 into Schedule I, the DEA cited evidence from 'Pikal' (sic) and 'the internet' that 2C-T-7 has effects similar to 2C-B (a Schedule I substance). They report a wide variety of 'evidence of abuse', including websites and internet forums, availability through online companies, illegality in other countries (Sweden, Germany), and seizures of 2C-T-7 in two states (Texas & Wisconsin). In addition, they mention the three 2C-T-7 related deaths that have previously been mentioned on Erowid (see 2C-T-7 Deaths).
Along with 2C-T-7, the DEA also emergency scheduled two relatively obscure piperazines: BZP and TFMPP. While the popularity of these two chemicals is quite low, especially when compared to other Schedule I drugs, it appears that justification for their emergency placement in Schedule I comes in part from their repeated appearance in ecstasy tablets.
The emergency scheduling of these three substances will last up to one year with the option to extend by six months at the end of that year. During that time, the status of these substances is functionally equivalent to that of full Schedule I. During the period of emergency scheduling, the DEA must gather enough scientific evidence to be able to justify 'permanent' scheduling. In the case of a substance like 2C-T-7, this means they will contract with researchers to provide them with evidence that 2C-T-7 is similar enough to another Schedule I drug to claim it is highly abusable and has no approved medical use.
One way to obtain this "proof" is to use rat discrimination studies. In these studies, rats are trained to discriminate a psychoactive drug from saline (salt water). They are trained to press one bar when they are given, for example, 2C-B and to press a different bar when they are given saline. After the rats are reliably trained to do this, the 2C-B is then replaced with the substance in question, in this case 2C-T-7. If the rats reliably press the 2C-B bar when they are given 2C-T-7, the new substance is determined to "act similarly to 2C-B”. While rat discrimination can be a very useful investigative screening technique for new compounds, it is an ill-founded misappropriation of science to use it to support such politicized definitions. Experts in rat discrimination, however, argue that these types of discrimination studies are valid ways to compare drugs. If, during the emergency scheduling period, the DEA is unable to show that 2C-T-7 is highly abusable", the substance would revert to an unscheduled status. There is effectively no chance this could happen and we are unaware of any substance which has been emergency scheduled that did not subsequently become "permanently" scheduled.
When the DEA is ready to place these substances formally into Schedule I (within the next 12-18 months), the FDA must write an Eight Factor Analysis backed by scientific evidence recommending whether or not the drug should be scheduled. If the DEA were to disagree with the FDA's analysis, it is unclear whether the DEA could override the FDA's recommendation. However, at least in this case, the FDA is quite likely to find that 2C-T-7, BZP, and TFMPP should all be placed in Schedule I.
Read the DEA's scheduling notices at: Erowid.org/chemicals/2ct7/2ct7_law1.shtml.
Two months earlier, on July 19th, they published, in the Federal Register, their intent to emergency schedule 2C-T-7. Once the DEA declared this intent, there was a mandatory 30 day comment period during which the public was given the opportunity to provide comment or feedback on the proposed scheduling. The fact that the DEA proceeded with the scheduling suggests no serious objections were filed.
In describing their decision to place 2C-T-7 into Schedule I, the DEA cited evidence from 'Pikal' (sic) and 'the internet' that 2C-T-7 has effects similar to 2C-B (a Schedule I substance). They report a wide variety of 'evidence of abuse', including websites and internet forums, availability through online companies, illegality in other countries (Sweden, Germany), and seizures of 2C-T-7 in two states (Texas & Wisconsin). In addition, they mention the three 2C-T-7 related deaths that have previously been mentioned on Erowid (see 2C-T-7 Deaths).
Along with 2C-T-7, the DEA also emergency scheduled two relatively obscure piperazines: BZP and TFMPP. While the popularity of these two chemicals is quite low, especially when compared to other Schedule I drugs, it appears that justification for their emergency placement in Schedule I comes in part from their repeated appearance in ecstasy tablets.
The emergency scheduling of these three substances will last up to one year with the option to extend by six months at the end of that year. During that time, the status of these substances is functionally equivalent to that of full Schedule I. During the period of emergency scheduling, the DEA must gather enough scientific evidence to be able to justify 'permanent' scheduling. In the case of a substance like 2C-T-7, this means they will contract with researchers to provide them with evidence that 2C-T-7 is similar enough to another Schedule I drug to claim it is highly abusable and has no approved medical use.
One way to obtain this "proof" is to use rat discrimination studies. In these studies, rats are trained to discriminate a psychoactive drug from saline (salt water). They are trained to press one bar when they are given, for example, 2C-B and to press a different bar when they are given saline. After the rats are reliably trained to do this, the 2C-B is then replaced with the substance in question, in this case 2C-T-7. If the rats reliably press the 2C-B bar when they are given 2C-T-7, the new substance is determined to "act similarly to 2C-B”. While rat discrimination can be a very useful investigative screening technique for new compounds, it is an ill-founded misappropriation of science to use it to support such politicized definitions. Experts in rat discrimination, however, argue that these types of discrimination studies are valid ways to compare drugs. If, during the emergency scheduling period, the DEA is unable to show that 2C-T-7 is highly abusable", the substance would revert to an unscheduled status. There is effectively no chance this could happen and we are unaware of any substance which has been emergency scheduled that did not subsequently become "permanently" scheduled.
When the DEA is ready to place these substances formally into Schedule I (within the next 12-18 months), the FDA must write an Eight Factor Analysis backed by scientific evidence recommending whether or not the drug should be scheduled. If the DEA were to disagree with the FDA's analysis, it is unclear whether the DEA could override the FDA's recommendation. However, at least in this case, the FDA is quite likely to find that 2C-T-7, BZP, and TFMPP should all be placed in Schedule I.
Read the DEA's scheduling notices at: Erowid.org/chemicals/2ct7/2ct7_law1.shtml.
| A substance is place in Schedule 1 if it is found, by the DEA, to have: | Once a substance is placed in Schedule I, it becomes: |
|
|