Details

Published: 17 June 2026

Hits: 54

A New York Times podcast on the global drug crisis raises urgent concerns, but leaves the most important questions unasked.

There is something almost cinematic about the way The New York Times framed its recent investigation into the synthetic drugs crisis. A mysterious death in a Chicago jail. A criminal investigator who says “keister” instead of something cruder. A “Rosetta Stone” of ten overlapping substances on a single sheet of paper. Drug-soaked mail laundered through Amazon packaging. A paper baron operating out of the South Side.

The episode of “The Daily” features NYT international investigations correspondent Azam Ahmed in conversation with host Natalie Kitroeff. It is gripping journalism. Ahmed spent more than a year embedded in the world of synthetic drug trafficking, and his reporting is serious, detailed and built on sustained access. The Cook County jail investigation is a genuinely revelatory piece of work.

But what the episode reveals about contemporary drug-policy thinking is, in some respects, more troubling than what it reveals about the drugs themselves. It is worth examining closely, because the gaps are not random – they follow a concerning pattern.

The Reporting at the Heart of the Episode

The conversation covers substantial ground. Ahmed describes a paradigm shift in global drug markets: the move from plant-based substances to synthetically manufactured ones. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has catalogued more than 1,450 new psychoactive substances, a figure that has tripled in a single decade. As Ahmed puts it, making a new drug is now “like chefs testing new recipes,” because the chemistry can be altered endlessly in a lab.

He traces the Cook County jail story from a 2023 death that left no visible contraband, only burned paper fragments. Investigators eventually found that people were smuggling synthetic drugs by dissolving them into liquid and soaking sheets of paper. Mail, personal visits and Amazon third-party sellers all served as entry points. One sheet recovered in August 2024 carried ten different synthetic compounds, from cannabinoids to opioids to substances found in rat poison.

Ahmed also discusses nitazenes, a class of opioids developed in the 1950s but never brought to market because of their extreme potency. He says they can be 20 to 40 times stronger than fentanyl, and that authorities now find them across Europe and the United States. Methamphetamine production in Southeast Asia, he reports, operates at a scale that dwarfs cartel output in Mexico. Enforcement pressure on fentanyl precursor chemicals, he argues, simply pushed criminal networks toward even more dangerous alternatives.

From this, Ahmed draws his own clear and not unsurprising conclusions:

• Enforcement-focused approaches have failed and may have made the crisis worse.
• Harm reduction, he suggests, must form part of any serious response. 
• The policy conversation, in his view, should move away from what he calls “retrograde rhetoric” about cracking down.

That is the frame – the lens this ‘investigation’ wants us to look at and through, Ah, but this deserves closer examination than the episode gives it.

“The War on Drugs Has Failed”: A Claim, Not a Finding

Throughout the episode, Ahmed treats the failure of the war on drugs as the starting point rather than the conclusion. He says it plainly: “We all know the war on drugs has failed. We also know it not only failed, it kind of made things worse.”

That is a significant claim to present as settled fact, and not unsurprisingly with confirmation bias leaning investigations, the episode never tests it. 

What evidence does it actually offer? 

• Enforcement operations that failed to permanently disrupt drug markets. 
• The arrest of a South Side paper baron that did not reduce overdoses at Cook County. 
• Cartel crackdowns that did not stop fentanyl. 
• Precursor restrictions that appear to have driven innovation toward nitazenes. 

These observations are real, however, all these examples do is show the limits of supply-side enforcement in isolation. They do not show that the entire framework of drug control made things worse, and no one in the room considers what conditions would look like with no enforcement infrastructure at all.

There is also a circularity that this conversation never challenges. The argument runs: Enforcement suppressed fentanyl, so criminals built something worse, therefore enforcement made things worse. Apply that logic to any regulation and it collapses. Restricting dangerous products sometimes drives innovation toward replacements, but that is not an argument for ceasing to restrict dangerous products.

The War FOR Drugs

Here is the larger omission. The episode scrutinises the “war on drugs” relentlessly, while ignoring its mirror image entirely: the war for drugs being actively, no, assiduously and relentlessly being waged.

If there has been a fifty-year campaign to suppress supply, there has also been a sustained, well-resourced and increasingly successful campaign to expand demand, normalise consumption and lower the social and legal cost of using. It has commercial backers, advocacy organisations, lobbying budgets, friendly media framing and a cultural tailwind. The legal cannabis industry, growing rapidly across multiple jurisdictions, has a direct financial incentive to enlarge its user base. Organised pro-drug movements actively work to expand the acceptability of a range of substances, influencing legislation and public opinion. Entertainment, music and social media steadily frame intoxication as ordinary, even desirable, particularly to the young.

That campaign has arguably been far more effective than the constantly undermined enforcement effort it is so often contrasted with. Yet it appears nowhere in the episode as a named actor. When you examine one side of a conflict with forensic attention and treat the other as if it does not exist, the analysis is incomplete by definition. The honest question is not only whether the war on drugs failed – it is whether the war for drugs has been quietly winning.

The Demand Nobody Discussed

This points to the deeper gap. Why do so many people, in so many societies, actively want these substances?

Half an hour on one of the most serious public health crises of the modern era produced almost no examination of the forces that create and sustain demand. To the episode’s partial credit, Kitroeff does eventually raise the consumption side, asking about “the alternate route here… addressing demand.” But watch what happens next. Ahmed immediately reframes the question as “legalisation, or decriminalisation,” and from there moves to harm reduction. Demand is raised, and then redirected, away from any discussion of reducing it.

That redirection is the whole problem in miniature. Demand reduction received no real attention. Early intervention did not feature and school, community and family-based prevention went unmentioned. Recovery appeared only briefly, framed through harm reduction of course. Nobody asked why people begin using, or what might reduce initiation or facilitate active recovery. The cultural normalisation of drug use, the commercial expansion of markets, the social conditions that make chemical escape attractive: none of it was scrutinised.

Inmate Rashad Rowry came closest to the heart of it when he described becoming “addicted to not caring,” to the drug’s power to make him indifferent to his circumstances, his future and the deaths around him. That is profound hopelessness, and it is a demand-side statement of the first order and it deserved far more than a passing moment of reflection. The question it begs, what produces that hopelessness and how might it be prevented, is precisely the one the episode does not ask.

Drug-Soaked Paper Is Not New

The episode presents drug-soaked paper as an apparent startling recent innovation, encountered with bewilderment, defeating existing detection methods. The framing suggests a genuinely novel threat. The chemistry is new, however, the method is not.

Drug-infused paper has been a street staple for more than half a century. LSD was distributed on absorbent sheets so commonly that one of its enduring street names was simply “blotter.” It was also known as “sacrament,” because users would soak it into wafers, sugar cubes, or any medium that would hold the liquid, and then consume it. The principle, dissolve a potent compound into liquid and carry it on an absorbent material, is decades old. What is genuinely new is the range of synthetic compounds now being used, and the deployment of the method in jails specifically to defeat detection of more conventional contraband.

That distinction matters for policy. If drug-soaked paper looks entirely novel, it seems to demand entirely novel responses. Seen accurately, it is a modern chemistry applied to an old smuggling method, one more turn in a long cycle of adaptation and counter-adaptation. Emphasising novelty at the expense of that history distorts the conclusions that follow from it.

Harm Reduction and the Assumption of Inevitability

When Kitroeff asks what can actually be done, Ahmed centres his answer on harm reduction and wheels out an increasingly misrepresentative ‘chestnut’. He parrots a well worn pro-drug activist mantra in describing the issue as a public health matter rather than a criminal one, something “Europe is really focused on.” That can be a legitimate perspective, but again, only half the story, but the episode simply never interrogates the assumptions inside it.

If you listen to the interview  you will hear how Ahmed defines the approach: “We understand people are going to use drugs. We understand that we’re never going to be able to fully reduce all of the demand.” There is that sabotaging apriori assumption – that sentence does a great deal of quiet work. It accepts as given that drug use is permanent and that reducing demand is a lost cause. From there, the only sensible goal becomes managing the consequences. That is a coherent position. It is not a neutral one, and it is not the only one available.

Three assumptions sit inside it, each worth the same scrutiny the episode reserves for enforcement. 

• First, that abstinence and recovery are unrealistic for most users, a claim that research on natural recovery from substance use disorders directly challenges. 
• Second, that reducing initiation will not work, which effective school-based prevention and the long decline in tobacco and drink-driving both contradict. 
• Third, that the cultural forces driving demand are beyond intervention, which the public health practitioners who turned the tide on smoking would dispute.

There is a subtler risk too. A comprehensive harm reduction framework can function as a “permission model,” accommodating drug use as normal and ongoing in ways that lower the perceived cost of starting. E.g Needle exchange cuts HIV transmission – Naloxone saves lives. These tools have a genuine evidence base and a real place, but a framework that manages the consequences of use while showing little interest in reducing the number of people who start is not a comprehensive public health strategy – it is at best, containment. And containment, as the jail reporting itself shows, tends to fall behind the adaptive capacity of the thing it is trying to contain.

The Question Nobody in the Room Asked

Investigative journalism is most credible when it applies its scepticism consistently, including to the views it finds congenial.

Early in the episode, Kitroeff notes, in passing, that she has “a special interest reporting experiences in this world.” The phrase is left to hang – no elaboration, no clarifying question. In a half-hour conversation about who uses drugs and why, that is a curious thing to skip past.

It raises a question the episode never asks of itself; Contemporary drug-policy discourse leans heavily on the “living experience” of drug use as a source of insight and authority. If living experience is treated as a qualification when it belongs to the people being studied, then transparency about the living experience of the people doing the studying matters at least as much. Did anyone in that room, the guest, the host, the producers shaping the framing, use these substances recreationally? It is not an accusation, it is the obvious question, and its absence from a conversation that prides itself on “dispassionate, brutal honesty” is conspicuous. A genuinely sceptical investigation would have asked it of everyone present, not only of the inmates.

A War FOR Sobriety

Ahmed’s reporting, on Cook County, on nitazenes, on Southeast Asian meth, on the sheer adaptive sophistication of these networks, is serious and important. The reporting is far more rigorous than the policy analysis wrapped around it.

The “war on drugs has failed” narrative functions as settled truth rather than a contested claim. The war for drugs, the organised commercial, cultural and political effort to expand use, goes unmentioned. Demand is raised once and immediately redirected into legalisation and harm reduction. Prevention, early intervention and demand reduction are essentially absent. Harm reduction receives sympathy but no scrutiny. And the most basic question, why so many people in so many societies are reaching for these substances at all, goes almost entirely unasked.

That omission is not incidental. When demand is treated as a fixed constant rather than something that can be reduced, prevention disappears and containment becomes the only strategy left on the table. And containment, as this episode’s own reporting demonstrates, tends to generate the very innovation it is trying to suppress.

The real crisis may not be that the war on drugs has failed. It may be that no one has yet seriously attempted a war for sobriety.

Dalgarno Institute (WRD News)

Source: How A Drug Cocktail Made of Paper Is Killing Inmates

Details

Published: 10 June 2026

Hits: 107

Building a Healthier Future Through Conscious Choices

Making choices that support personal health and long-term well-being is one of the most empowering journeys a young person can embark upon today. In a world full of academic pressures, social media expectations, and peer influences, deciding to look after your mind and body is a profound act of self-reliance. Choosing to live a life free from intoxication provides massive advantages for your personal growth. By exploring the fundamental substance abstinence benefits, we can understand how steering clear of intoxicants alters your life path for the better.

Many people think that experimenting with drinking or using drugs in a ‘recreational’ context is just a standard part of growing up. However, deciding to completely avoid these substances creates a solid foundation for your future career, relationships, and physical vitality.

The Crucial Substance Abstinence Benefits for Brain Development

The human brain continues to grow and refine its neural pathways until a person reaches their mid-twenties. The prefrontal cortex is the specific region responsible for planning, emotional balance, impulse control, and rational decision-making. When alcohol or illicit drugs enter a developing brain, they disrupt this intricate wiring process.

Choosing sobriety allows the brain to develop to its full intellectual and emotional capacity. Young people who maintain a lifestyle free from chemical interference consistently demonstrate sharper memory retention, better concentration, and superior problem-solving skills. Staying away from peer pressure and chemical habits means you avoid the cognitive fog that frequently holds people back from achieving their top marks at school or university.

How Sobriety Safeguards Mental Health and Stability

There is a massive connection between substance consumption and emotional difficulties. Many individuals mistakenly believe that a drink or a drug can help ease social anxiety or stress. In reality, chemical substances alter your brain chemistry and actually worsen underlying mental health struggles over time.

Choosing to avoid drugs and alcohol entirely helps keep your emotional baseline stable. It prevents the sharp mood swings, sleep disruptions, and heightened anxiety that toxic substances cause. By developing healthy, natural coping mechanisms like exercising, writing, or playing music, young people build true psychological resilience. You learn to handle life’s inevitable challenges with a clear mind rather than relying on a temporary chemical escape.

Enhancing Physical Health and Freedom from Chemical Habituation

The physical rewards of avoiding toxic substances are immediate and long-lasting. Alcohol and recreational drugs place a heavy burden on your vital organs, especially the liver, heart, and kidneys. According to official UK health data published by the Office for National Statistics, there were 10,473 deaths from alcohol-specific causes registered across the United Kingdom in 2023 alone, representing the highest number on record. This stark statistic highlights the severe toll that toxic substances take on the human body.

Choosing a chemical-free lifestyle ensures your energy levels remain high and consistent. Your sleep patterns improve, your immune system stays strong, and your body recovers much faster from physical exertion. Furthermore, preventing the initial use of addictive substances is the most effective way to eliminate the danger of chemical habituation altogether. When you never open the door to substance misuse, you never have to face the difficult, painful path of trying to break an addiction later in life.

Reaping the Long-Term Substance Abstinence Benefits in Daily Life

Choosing to live without reliance on intoxicants impacts every single aspect of your daily existence, leading to deeper social connections and greater financial freedom.

• Authentic Relationships: Socialising without chemical stimulants forces you to develop genuine communication skills. The friendships you build are rooted in shared interests, mutual respect, and real conversations rather than shared intoxication.
• Financial Independence: Maintaining a lifestyle centered on health saves an incredible amount of money. The financial capital that would otherwise be spent on nights out, alcohol, or illicit substances can be redirected toward meaningful goals like buying a car, travelling, or funding a business venture.
• Unlocking True Potential: When you are not held back by the physical or mental exhaustion of hangovers and comedowns, you have the focus required to pursue your passions. Whether your goal is mastering a sport, learning a complex instrument, or launching a career, clarity of mind is your ultimate advantage.

Cultivating a Supportive and Healthy Social Environment

Embracing the primary substance abstinence benefits does not mean isolating yourself from social activities. It simply means choosing a lifestyle that puts your future first. Across the United Kingdom, a growing number of young people are choosing to stand up against peer pressure. Recent lifestyle data indicates that around 25% of young individuals aged 18 to 24 in the UK now choose to be completely teetotal. This positive shift shows that sobriety is increasingly recognised as a modern, forward-thinking choice.

You can actively protect your path by seeking out peer groups that value wellness, fitness, and authentic creativity. Surrounding yourself with individuals who respect your choices makes it much easier to stay committed to your personal goals.

Ultimately, avoiding drugs and alcohol is an active investment in your future happiness. By keeping your mind sharp and your body strong, you maintain full control over your decisions and unlock your true potential.

(Source: JAMAnetwork)

Details

Published: 29 May 2026

Hits: 116

Scientists at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) have raised serious concerns about the vaping effects on young people after a new study found that e-cigarettes pump toxic metals directly into the lungs. Published in the journal Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, the findings show this happens even after brief use, at levels well below what most people vape in a typical day.

Researchers detected lead, copper, and nickel building up in lung tissue. They also found organometallic compounds linked to tin and mercury. These forms are more bioavailable than standard inorganic metals, meaning the body absorbs and reacts to them more quickly.

The Device, Not Just the Liquid, Is to Blame

Lead researcher Dr Dayanne Bordin, a lecturer in analytical chemistry at UTS, said the device itself drives much of this exposure.

“The metal profiles are consistent with emissions from heating coils and electrical components,” she said. “Unlike cigarettes, which are relatively consistent products, manufacturers often produce e-cigarettes with poor quality control. The materials and components carry unknown toxicological risks.”

Most safety assessments focus on e-liquid ingredients. But this research shows the hardware generates its own harmful emissions. Regulators have largely ignored this side of the problem.

Users Cannot See or Smell What They Are Inhaling

This is what makes e-cigarette risks for youth so difficult to address. No visible smoke. No obvious warning sign. People have no way of knowing they inhale trace metals with every puff.

“Vaping can deliver toxic metals directly into the lungs, even after short-term use,” said Dr Bordin. “These metal exposures are largely invisible and rarely discussed, which makes them especially important to flag for young people.”

The study found that even sub-daily exposure levels produced measurable metal accumulation in lung tissue. The harm threshold appears lower than researchers previously thought.

Youth Vaping Rates Keep Climbing

Understanding the vaping effects on young people matters now more than ever. In Australia, e-cigarette use among young adults jumped from 5.3% in 2019 to over 21% in 2023. Adolescent rates followed a similar trajectory. Globally, aggressive marketing has normalised vaping as a low-risk activity. Millions of young people now vape without understanding what they actually inhale.

The appeal is not hard to understand. Vaping looks cleaner and carries fewer obvious signals of harm than tobacco. Yet the science keeps building a more troubling picture, one that goes well beyond nicotine dependence or throat irritation.

Researchers Push for New Regulations

Dr Bordin and her team want regulators to act. Current frameworks require no routine testing of metal or organometallic emissions from heating coils or device components. That needs to change.

“There is a need for standards and routine testing of metal and organometallic emissions from e-cigarettes, particularly from heating coils and internal components,” she said. “Risk assessment frameworks and public health guidance must incorporate metal exposure and bioaccumulation.”

The researchers also want manufacturers to meet higher material standards. Right now, companies can sell devices built from components with no formal safety review for inhalation risks.

What Parents and Young People Need to Know

The e-cigarette risks for youth extend well beyond what most people associate with vaping. Metal accumulation in lung tissue at a young age carries consequences researchers are only beginning to map. Young people start earlier, vape more frequently, and face decades of potential exposure ahead.

The belief that vaping is safer than smoking has never had solid scientific grounding. Studies like this one keep adding new weight to that concern. Regulatory bodies, manufacturers, and the public all need to take the evidence seriously.

For young people especially, the message from this research is clear. What you cannot see can still cause serious harm.

Source: technology

Details

Published: 08 May 2026

Hits: 246

Youth vaping in Australia has reached levels that demand urgent action. New research shows one in five young adults aged 18 to 25 now uses e-cigarettes. Those with mental health difficulties face a significantly greater risk.

The findings come from the International Journal of Drug Policy. Researchers analysed data from three waves of the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, covering 2016 to 2022/23. Each wave surveyed more than 20,000 people across Australia. The results reveal how quickly vaping has taken hold among young people. Many had never smoked a cigarette before picking up a vape.

Youth Vaping in Australia: A Near-Tenfold Rise in a Decade

Current vaping among 14 to 25 year olds climbed from 2% in 2016 to 4% in 2019. By 2022/23, it had jumped to 17%. Daily vaping rose even more sharply, from 0.7% to 7% over the same period. That is a tenfold increase. By 2022/23, nearly half (49%) of 18 to 25 year olds had ever vaped.

Australia is not alone. In England, youth vaping reached new highs by 2022. In New Zealand, daily vaping among 14 and 15 year olds rose tenfold between 2015 and 2023. Canada and the United States saw similar surges after a brief dip during the early pandemic.

What stands out in Australia is how many young people started vaping without ever smoking. In 2022/23, 62% of 14 to 25 year olds who had ever vaped had never smoked at initiation. That figure was just 42% in 2019. Among those aged 36 and over, the equivalent figure was only 13%.

Curiosity Drives E-Cigarette Use Among Young Australians

Young people vape for very different reasons than older adults. Among 14 to 25 year olds in 2022/23, the top reason was simply curiosity, cited by 70% of respondents. Around 27% preferred the taste over traditional cigarettes. Only 13% mentioned wanting to cut down or stop smoking.

Among adults over 35, the picture looks very different. Some 53% vaped to reduce or quit smoking. This gap matters for policy. Messages aimed at adult smokers seeking a cessation tool simply do not fit the young people now driving the rise in e-cigarette use among young Australians.

Young people also tend to source their vapes informally. In 2022/23, 58% of 14 to 25 year olds who vaped obtained them from a friend or family member. Retail restrictions alone will not solve this.

Youth Vaping in Australia and the Mental Health Connection

The link between youth vaping in Australia and poor mental health stands out as one of the most serious findings. In 2022/23, 20% of young people with a diagnosed mental health disorder vaped at least weekly. That compares with 8% of those without such a diagnosis. Among those with high to very high distress scores on the Kessler K10 scale, 18% vaped at least weekly. Just 5% of those with low distress levels did the same.

Researchers adjusted for sex, sexuality, and Indigeneity. Even then, young people with a mental health disorder had roughly three times the odds of weekly vaping (odds ratio 2.81). Those with high psychological distress showed similar risk (odds ratio 3.03).

Youth mental health has also worsened overall. In 2022/23, 34% of young people reported high to very high distress on the K10, up from 21% in 2016. Some 22% reported a diagnosed mental health condition, up from 14%.

Researchers do not claim vaping causes mental illness, or vice versa. The relationship is likely bidirectional. What is clear is that the two overlap heavily. Any meaningful response to youth vaping must address mental health at the same time.

Nicotine Dependence and the Struggle to Quit

Nicotine dependence is a growing concern. In 2022/23, more than half (54%) of those who vaped said their last vape contained nicotine. Nearly a quarter were unsure. Of those using nicotine vapes, 87% used unprescribed products.

Over 15% of young people who vaped tried to cut down or stop in the past year and could not. Among those who used e-cigarettes to help quit smoking, 52% still could not stop vaping. Only 1 to 3% gave up both smoking and vaping entirely.

Overall cessation figures tell a mixed story. Among all ages using e-cigarettes to quit smoking in 2022/23, 32% achieved smoking abstinence. That compares with 25% among those using other methods. Yet only 6.5% stopped both smoking and vaping. E-cigarettes may help some people step away from tobacco. But they often become a lasting habit of their own.

A New Generation and the Rise of E-Cigarette Use Among Young Australians

Research suggests e-cigarette use among young Australians may be creating a new cohort of nicotine-dependent people who would otherwise never have smoked. Between 2016 and 2022/23, exclusive smoking among young people fell from 12% to 3%. That sounds positive. But over the same period, the share of young people who smoked or vaped rose from 14% to 19%. Vaping drove that increase. Overall nicotine use among young people has not fallen. It has simply shifted form.

The idea that vaping replaced smoking has also come under scrutiny. Cohort studies show that young people who vape face a higher risk of later taking up cigarette smoking. The decline in tobacco use and the rise in vaping appear to be coinciding trends rather than cause and effect.

What Needs to Change

Researchers call for action that goes well beyond restricting access. Australia introduced new vaping laws in 2024, banning disposable vapes and limiting sales to pharmacies. These are meaningful steps. Their impact on vulnerable groups, however, remains unknown.

Four priorities stand out clearly. Young people must help design public health responses. Their reasons for vaping bear little resemblance to those of adults seeking to quit smoking. Peer-led programmes and youth advisory groups could help shape more relevant approaches.

Clinicians need training to identify and respond to vaping, especially in mental health and primary care settings. With 34% of young people showing high distress levels in 2022/23, vaping presentations are now common. School-based prevention also needs strengthening. Effective programmes should address the social and sensory appeal of vaping rather than lean on fear-based messaging, which evidence shows has limited effect on young people.

Policy evaluation must also become routine. Tracking dual cessation rates, monitoring vaping initiation among non-smokers, and measuring outcomes for young people with mental health conditions should all form part of ongoing national surveillance.

Youth vaping in Australia is no longer a fringe concern. For too many young people, particularly those already struggling with their mental health, it has become a serious and deepening problem. The response must match the scale of the challenge.

(Source: WRD News)