Government urged to speed research into psychedelic drug to treat depression

The government has been urged to relax restrictions on a psychedelic substance to allow more research into whether it could be used to treat depression.

A new report by the neoliberal think tank the Adam Smith Institute argues psilocybin, a class A compound which naturally occurs in more than 100 species of mushroom, should be reclassified under the list of less harmful drugs.

This would permit companies currently testing if it can help treat people with depression complete clinical trials and more quickly bring a working treatment to the public, the free market think tank argues.

The proposal has won the backing of the Conservative backbench MP Crispin Blunt, who wrote in the foreword to the report that psilocybin was the victim of “absurd” over-zealous regulation which had led to a “scientific blackout lasting nigh on 50 years, precluding new treatments and, with them, the prospect of a better life for millions of people”.

Also backing the cause is the Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group, a lobby group dedicated to persuading Tory voters and MPs to shift towards an evidence-based drug policy which primarily addresses it as a health issue.

The authors of the report, among them a consultant psychiatrist, clinical scientist and professor of psychopharmacology, argue there is “overwhelming scientific consensus” that the current legal status of psilocybin – it is listed as a class A substance in the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1971 – is not the result of scientific study but exaggerated assumptions about its harmfulness.

When humans take psilocybin it activates serotonin receptors in the brain, prompting visual and mental hallucinations, euphoria, and other changes in perception, similar to drugs such as LSD or mescaline.

However, the Adam Smith Institute report argues evidence suggests those who take it do not become dependent on the drug and neither do they become involved in crime or other harmful activity.

Although it is strictly controlled by the government, medical research into psilocybin is possible with certain restrictions and early stage trials have suggested it could have lasting therapeutic benefits to some mental health patients.

However, to confirm these findings a larger scale controlled clinical trial is needed and the current designation of psilocybin as a class A and schedule one drug means additional costs and regulatory barriers to completing these trials, according to the report.

If the government reclassified psilocybin as a schedule two drug under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, along with drugs such as morphine, researchers could save money and time in trying to bring actual treatments based on the psychedelic to the NHS.

This would be in line with the precedent set in 2018 when the government moved cannabis products into schedule two before they had been authorised as a medicine to make research into their therapeutic use easier.

Drugs listed under Schedule 2 are those which are addictive or otherwise potentially harmful but also have legitimate medical uses and include diamorphine (heroin), methamphetamines and cocaine.

Mr Blunt said the coronavirus pandemic was likely to exacerbate the already “staggeringly high” rates of depression worldwide, meaning there was an even greater need for new treatments.

“As we emerge from the pandemic, we have the opportunity to stimulate the UK economy, position ourselves as a world leader in the field of psychopharmacology and drug development, and facilitate the provision of treatment to those who need it most.

“We call for nothing more than this opportunity be taken. Doing nothing is senseless, morally wrong and frankly incomprehensible.”

A spokesperson for the Home Office said: “We need to strike the right balance between enabling legitimate research to take place in a secure environment while ensuring that harmful drugs are not misused and do not get into the hands of criminals.

“The current classification of psilocybin under schedule one does not prevent research or clinical trials under a Home Office licence.”