The federal government is moving to place 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), SR-17018, and tianeptine into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act — three very different compounds with different pharmacological profiles, patterns of use, and bodies of scientific evidence.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) is calling on Congress to intervene.

Tell your members of Congress to oppose the Schedule I placement of 7-OH, SR-17018, and tianeptine.

Three Different Compounds. One Failed Approach.

7-OH, SR-17018, and tianeptine are not the same drug. They should not be treated as though they are.

Each raises different scientific, medical, and regulatory questions. Each deserves an individualized assessment of its risks, benefits, patterns of use, and therapeutic potential.

Instead, the federal government is once again reaching for one of the bluntest instruments available under the Controlled Substances Act: Schedule I prohibition.

Schedule I doesn’t make these questions disappear. It makes them harder to answer.

Placing substances in Schedule I creates significant barriers to scientific and medical research, making it more difficult and expensive for researchers to study their risks, benefits, mechanisms, and potential therapeutic applications. SSDP has spent years documenting these research harms and fighting for policies that allow science to proceed rather than criminalizing substances before we fully understand them.

7-OH: Don’t Repeat the Mistakes of Kratom Prohibition

7-hydroxymitragynine, or 7-OH, is a naturally occurring alkaloid associated with the kratom plant.

Millions of Americans use kratom, including people who report using it to manage chronic pain, improve their quality of life, or reduce their reliance on prescription and illicit opioids. Yet federal regulators are moving toward Schedule I controls before the scientific and public-policy questions surrounding 7-OH have been adequately resolved.

The kratom community has been here before.

In 2016, the DEA announced its intention to place kratom’s primary active compounds into Schedule I. More than 23,000 public comments, sustained grassroots organizing, and bipartisan pressure from Congress helped force the agency to withdraw its proposal.

That victory demonstrated something important: when the people affected by drug policy are given a voice, they can change it.

We need that grassroots power again.

SR-17018: Why Criminalize Research Into Safer Pain Treatment?

SR-17018 presents an especially troubling example of prohibition getting ahead of science.

Researchers developed the compound while investigating whether pain relief mediated through the mu-opioid receptor could be separated from some of the dangerous effects associated with conventional opioids. Preclinical research has produced promising findings involving respiratory depression, tolerance, and withdrawal.

American taxpayers have already helped fund this research.

Now, rather than allowing scientists to continue investigating whether SR-17018 can become a useful medicine, Schedule I placement threatens to make that research substantially more difficult.

At a time when Americans continue to struggle with chronic pain and an unpredictable illicit opioid supply, we should be expanding research into potentially safer treatments — not shutting it down before scientists can determine whether they work.

Tianeptine Deserves Science, Not a Shortcut to Prohibition

Tianeptine is different from both 7-OH and SR-17018.

It is an atypical antidepressant that has been prescribed medically in other countries and investigated for potential therapeutic applications. Its risks deserve serious attention — but acknowledging risks is not the same thing as concluding that Schedule I prohibition is the appropriate response.

Drug policy should be based on evidence and proportional to risk.

Congress should insist that regulators evaluate tianeptine on its own scientific record rather than treating Schedule I as the default response to substances that present complicated public-health questions.

The American People Deserve a Voice

There is another issue at stake here that extends well beyond these three compounds.

The federal government should not be able to make sweeping decisions about what Americans may research, possess, or put into their own bodies without giving the people affected a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Emergency scheduling allows enormously consequential drug-policy decisions to move forward with limited public participation. The people most likely to bear the consequences — patients, consumers, researchers, caregivers, veterans, people who use drugs, and their families — deserve more than a policy imposed on them after the government has already decided prohibition is the answer.

This is precisely why Congress must exercise oversight.

Tell Congress: Science Before Schedule I

For more than half a century, the War on Drugs has repeatedly followed the same pattern: identify a substance as dangerous, criminalize it, restrict research, punish the people who use it, and only later confront the unintended consequences.

We do not have to repeat that cycle.

SSDP is asking Congress to stop the Schedule I placement of 7-OH, SR-17018, and tianeptine and demand a transparent, science-based regulatory approach that protects public health while preserving research, access, and meaningful public participation.

We’ve made it easy to contact your lawmakers. Our action tool will identify your members of Congress and provide a letter you can personalize and send directly.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Congress to Stop the Criminalization of 7-OH, SR-17018, and Tianeptine

If you use one of these compounds, conduct research involving them, care for someone who does, or have otherwise been affected by these policies, please personalize your letter and tell your story. Members of Congress need to understand that decisions made in Washington have consequences for real people.

The War on Drugs is a War on Us.

Make your voice heard.