Rick Doblin

And it's been tragic when we think about the number of veteran suicides, for example, that are happening every year. And if the Drug Enforcement Administration, when they made MDMA illegal, in 1985. They did that on an emergency basis. We were in the middle of a lawsuit against the DEA, what's called an administrative law judge lawsuit.

And we were challenging this argument for making it into a Schedule I drug. And we actually won the case. Wow. The judge said it should be Schedule 3, which means it should be available as a medicine, but it should be illegal otherwise for recreational use. But administrative law judges only give advice to the agencies that they're working in. They don't compel.

And we were challenging this argument for making it into a Schedule I drug. And we actually won the case. Wow. The judge said it should be Schedule 3, which means it should be available as a medicine, but it should be illegal otherwise for recreational use. But administrative law judges only give advice to the agencies that they're working in. They don't compel.

And we were challenging this argument for making it into a Schedule I drug. And we actually won the case. Wow. The judge said it should be Schedule 3, which means it should be available as a medicine, but it should be illegal otherwise for recreational use. But administrative law judges only give advice to the agencies that they're working in. They don't compel.

You have to get out of that into the civil courts. So the judge said Schedule 3, and the Drug Enforcement Administration said, no way, we're not going to do that. And their rationale was so wrong. So we sued them in the appeals court. What they said initially was that only the FDA could make a drug into a medicine, not the DEA.

You have to get out of that into the civil courts. So the judge said Schedule 3, and the Drug Enforcement Administration said, no way, we're not going to do that. And their rationale was so wrong. So we sued them in the appeals court. What they said initially was that only the FDA could make a drug into a medicine, not the DEA.

You have to get out of that into the civil courts. So the judge said Schedule 3, and the Drug Enforcement Administration said, no way, we're not going to do that. And their rationale was so wrong. So we sued them in the appeals court. What they said initially was that only the FDA could make a drug into a medicine, not the DEA.

But the law was clear that it could be the attorney general could do that. So the appeals court, when they review agencies' decisions, they don't tell them what to do. They say, you did something wrong. Now rethink it. So then the DEA said, okay, we're going to rethink it. And then they came up with a new reason why they were against it.

But the law was clear that it could be the attorney general could do that. So the appeals court, when they review agencies' decisions, they don't tell them what to do. They say, you did something wrong. Now rethink it. So then the DEA said, okay, we're going to rethink it. And then they came up with a new reason why they were against it.

But the law was clear that it could be the attorney general could do that. So the appeals court, when they review agencies' decisions, they don't tell them what to do. They say, you did something wrong. Now rethink it. So then the DEA said, okay, we're going to rethink it. And then they came up with a new reason why they were against it.

And this was this eight-part standard that was essentially the same as the FDA. So then we sued them again the second time. And we won again in the appeals courts. And so they went back to the DEA and said, you have to come up with another rationale. This one doesn't work either. And then they came up with a five-part standard that was sufficiently different but still had phase three studies.

And this was this eight-part standard that was essentially the same as the FDA. So then we sued them again the second time. And we won again in the appeals courts. And so they went back to the DEA and said, you have to come up with another rationale. This one doesn't work either. And then they came up with a five-part standard that was sufficiently different but still had phase three studies.

And this was this eight-part standard that was essentially the same as the FDA. So then we sued them again the second time. And we won again in the appeals courts. And so they went back to the DEA and said, you have to come up with another rationale. This one doesn't work either. And then they came up with a five-part standard that was sufficiently different but still had phase three studies.

So it's essentially the same as FDA approval. And finally, the courts upheld that. And that's during this process, it was clear to me that the DEA would not do anything to make this available as a medicine, that we would have to go through the FDA. And that's where MAPS began as a nonprofit psychedelic pharmaceutical company focused entirely on donations.

So it's essentially the same as FDA approval. And finally, the courts upheld that. And that's during this process, it was clear to me that the DEA would not do anything to make this available as a medicine, that we would have to go through the FDA. And that's where MAPS began as a nonprofit psychedelic pharmaceutical company focused entirely on donations.

So it's essentially the same as FDA approval. And finally, the courts upheld that. And that's during this process, it was clear to me that the DEA would not do anything to make this available as a medicine, that we would have to go through the FDA. And that's where MAPS began as a nonprofit psychedelic pharmaceutical company focused entirely on donations.

And the intention was to turn it into a generic drug because MDMA had been invented by Merck. In 1912, it was in the public domain. It was used as a therapy drug before I even knew about it. And then it turned out that the emergency scheduling that DEA did in 1985 was itself illegal.

And the intention was to turn it into a generic drug because MDMA had been invented by Merck. In 1912, it was in the public domain. It was used as a therapy drug before I even knew about it. And then it turned out that the emergency scheduling that DEA did in 1985 was itself illegal.

And the intention was to turn it into a generic drug because MDMA had been invented by Merck. In 1912, it was in the public domain. It was used as a therapy drug before I even knew about it. And then it turned out that the emergency scheduling that DEA did in 1985 was itself illegal.

It turned out that the Congress had given the Attorney General the power to emergency schedule drugs, but the Attorney General had never sub-delegated that power down to the DEA. So they didn't have the authority to do that. So the people that got busted in the first year were all let go once their lawyers figured this out. So the first move to criminalize MDMA was a crime, you could say. Wow.