Tag: moral panics

UK Gov’t Promises More Social Media “Restrictions”

While embattled PM Sir Keir Starmer takes a pointless grilling on the even more pointless existence of Peter Mandelson, other members of his cabinet were busily paving the way for the next construction phase of our increasingly dystopian society.

Speaking to Sky News earlier today, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson promised…

“more action to keep young people safe online, including around social media”.

Which is delightfully vague.

Education Minister Olivia Bailey kept her cards similarly close to her chest, whilst trying to sound forceful:

“It is a question of how we act, not if, but to put this beyond any doubt, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State ‘must’, rather than ‘may’, act […] We are clear that under any outcome, we will impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16.”

So we know they’re going to do something…we just don’t know what. And, if I had to guess, neither do Bridget or Olivia. Neither seems like the kind of people that get kept in the loop, and that flavour of waffle is usually the reserve of those who have no idea what’s going on.

Many commenters – both for and against – have interpreted this promised action as an Australia-style social media ban for children. Certainly, that’s what Conservative MP Laura Trott seems to think in her champagne-popping tweet:

…but the signs might be pointing in another direction.

After all, the Social Media Ban is practically on the books. It was introduced as an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools bill, and has already passed the Lords four times. It could have become law already, but Ministers and MPs have repeatedly overturned the vote, declaring the need for further consultation.

Then, earlier today and coinciding with this government pledge to take action, the Independent published a report that suggests Australia’s social media ban doesn’t work.

Two thirds of Australian teens still using social media despite under-16s ban

Keep reading

The Top Ten Marijuana Myths That No One Should Believe

Even today, with 80% of states legalizing cannabis in some form, and half the country legalizing it for medical purposes, I have been called a lunatic for ever thinking that cannabis would be recognized for the miracle plant that it is. Shockingly enough many have yet to see through the mainstream media facade to the ruling puppeteers behind. 

Many still hold fast in their belief that cannabis is dangerous and not medically efficacious, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary backed by scientists and industry leaders alike. The only ones, it seems, that are not reconciling their incorrect beliefs, and intentionally so, are the politicians with their hands in Big Pharma’s back pocket, also known as, the American political elite. 

They continue to stand on their podium of lies broadcasting their misinformation, casting aside what little integrity they retain while making the conscious decision to sell out their constituents, their country, and themselves, all for a little extra paper, that they most likely did not truly need in the first place.

Despite the onslaught of ridiculous claims and outright lies reminiscent of the days of “Reefer Madness” that have been cast into minds of unsuspecting Americans, it would seem that We, as a nation, or rather as the people of a nation, have chosen to see past the obvious attempts by the government to misdirect our attention and feed us State-sponsored comforting lies, that only benefit an elite few, and perpetuate a Deep State agenda. 

We, as the American people, have shown this country’s ruling masters that we see though their half-hearted attempts to coral us into an aligned way of thinking and viewing the world, a way of thinking that primarily benefits those in control and casts what little remains down to those of us still scrabbling for the scraps from their table. We have shown them, that we will think for ourselves. 

As there are most definitely more pressing issues facing this nation, and the world for that matter, the topic of cannabis and its subsequent legalization is, in my opinion, one of the primary catalysts that began the awakening we are currently experiencing. It showed every American citizen that when the people stand together, truly unite, our voices are all that matter.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Blocks Arkansas Social Media Law on First Amendment Grounds

A federal judge blocked Arkansas Act 900 today, one day before the law was set to take effect, handing the state its second courtroom defeat in the same fight over who gets to decide what people can see and say online.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

US District Judge Timothy L. Brooks granted NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction, freezing enforcement of a statute that would have imposed strict liability on social media platforms for a growing list of “addictive practices,” forced default settings on anyone in Arkansas the platform couldn’t verify as an adult, and required platforms to build parental dashboards tracking minors who don’t even have accounts. The ruling came in the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division.

The First Amendment problem is obvious. The government wrote a law that restricts what platforms can say, who they can say it to, and when. It restricts what minors can see and post. Then it backed those restrictions with $10,000-per-day fines and rules so vague that platforms cannot tell in advance what will trigger liability. Each of those features is a constitutional problem on its own. Act 900 combined all of them.

Keep reading

3 Disasters That Legal Weed Didn’t Unleash—Despite the Forecasts

Happy 4/20 to the millions of people across the country who celebrate, including much of the Reason staff. As someone who’s never been interested in pot—save for one summer in college—or drugs in general, I’ve always found the day a bit strange. But as I’ve grown older (and more libertarian), I’ve come to appreciate it as a celebration of personal freedom. 

I’m not the only one who has changed his mind. In 2025, 64 percent of Americans thought marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use (up from 31 percent in 2000), according to Gallup. Meanwhile, 40 states have legalized medical use of cannabis, including 24 that also allow recreational use. Late last year, President Donald Trump ordered that marijuana be reclassified from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act, putting it in the same category as prescription drugs such as “ketamine, anabolic steroids, and Tylenol with codeine,” explains Reason‘s Jacob Sullum.

Prohibitionists warned that legalization would have dire consequences. Here are some of their predictions that have yet to come true. 

Keep reading

OneTaste Founder Nicole Daedone Gets 9-Year Prison Sentence

Nine years in prison for preaching unpopular ideas about sexuality? That’s the sentence that a judge imposed today on Nicole Daedone of OneTaste, a company built on orgasmic meditation (OM) and other unconventional wellness practices. Daedone has also been ordered to forfeit $12 million—which is how much she got for selling the company in 2017—and to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution.

The government will say that this is about human trafficking. But that’s just a sign of how “human trafficking” has become a catchall term for sex-tinged antics that prosecutors want to punish.

In this case, no one has accused Daedone and her colleague/co-defendant Rachel Cherwitz of violence. No one has accused them of confining victims, or of withholding identity documents or other items that employees might have needed to get away.

The alleged victims in this case could come and go as they pleased. They were adult women. They had college degrees, outside professional opportunities, and sometimes even independent wealth. They testified in court that they remained affiliated with OneTaste—some as employees, some as volunteers, some simply as people who took classes from the company or lived in group houses that it maintained—because they believed in its mission, believed in Daedone and Cherwitz, or wanted to maintain social status within the OneTaste community.

The government’s assertions about how Daedone and Cherwitz employed “coercion” in this case are a huge affront to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. Prosecutors suggested that the ideas Daedone and Cherwitz spread served as a form of brainwashing. These supposedly dangerous ideas include such things as being open to new sexual experiences and the notion that engaging in daily OM—a 15-minute, partnered, clitoral stroking session—could focus the mind and help empower practitioners, especially women. Daedone and Cherwitz appear to sincerely believe these ideas, which they saw as rooted in both Buddhism and feminism.

The government’s case was also a huge affront to the idea that women are fully agentic people capable of consent, sexual and otherwise. Prosecutors suggested that anxiety about being shunned by the OneTaste community was a harm so powerful that grown women were effectively “trafficked” by it. They argued that these women’s consent—to OM, to participate in sexual fantasy scenes, to enter into and out of relationships, to engage in sex acts with OneTaste members or donors, or to pay for OneTaste classes—was rendered null by the force of fear of social exclusion and/or fear that stopping OM and other OneTaste practices would have a negative impact on their lives.

Ultimately, the case portends a dangerous new standard for what counts as forced labor and what counts as harm under federal trafficking statutes.

Sentencing for Daedone started this morning, following a June 2025 conviction on one count of conspiracy to commit human trafficking. Cherwitz, convicted of the same, is scheduled to be sentenced this afternoon.

The government sought 20 years in prison for Daedone and more than 15 for Cherwitz—basing calculations in part on alleged conduct for which they were not even charged, let alone convicted. Judge Diane Gujarati denied the government’s request for a sexual abuse enhancement based on untried conduct.

The government’s star witness was to be a woman named Ayries Blanck, whose journals were a big part of the prosecutors’ case (and, also, of a Netflix documentary). Prosecutors would eventually disclose that Blanck had fabricated evidence, producing journals she said she had handwritten in 2015 but had actually composed much later. After heavily featuring Blanck and her journals in their arguments leading up to the trial, prosecutors declined to call Blanck as a trial witness and said they no longer believed in the authenticity of portions of her journals. The case nevertheless proceeded, and now a woman is heading to prison for nearly a decade.

Keep reading

Republicans Are Twice As Likely As Democrats To See Marijuana Use As Morally Wrong, Poll Shows

Americans across every demographic—age, gender, religion and political affiliation—all agree that using marijuana is not morally wrong, according to a new polling report from the Pew Research Center. However, Republicans are still twice as likely as Democrats to say consuming cannabis is a moral no-no, the survey results show.

The analysis was based on a recent poll that asked Americans about their views on the morality of a variety of behaviors and policies. Overall, 76 percent of U.S. adults said using marijuana is either morally acceptable or not a moral issue at all, compared to 23 percent who said the activity is immoral.

That puts marijuana use in roughly the same moral standing as getting a divorce and spanking children, at least from the average American perspective.

More Americans believe using marijuana is not morally wrong than those who feel the same about gambling, watching pornography, having an abortion, being gay, the death penalty and more.

Cannabis is considered decidedly less moral than alcohol, however, with only 16 percent of respondents calling it morally wrong to drink.

That said, a closer look at the demographic data on the marijuana question shows that, by and large, the prevailing opinion is that smoking marijuana doesn’t make someone a bad person.

The age breakdown for those who said cannabis use isn’t morally wrong shows little deviation among younger and older adults: 18-29 (79 percent), 30-49 (76 percent), 50-64 (77 percent) and 65+ (73 percent).

There’s also general uniformity in the belief that cannabis use is not morally wrong among people who subscribe to different religious denominations: Christian (72 percent), Protestant (73 percent), Catholic (74 percent), Jewish (85 percent). Atheists and agnostics were even less likely to regard marijuana use as immoral, with 98 percent and 94 percent percent describing the activity as morally acceptable or not a moral issue, respectively.

Men and women were equally likely to say using cannabis isn’t immoral, at 76 percent.

Keep reading

Politicians Want To Ban Gambling Ads To Stop Youth Addiction. What Do the Data Say About Teens and Betting?

Are young boys everywhere on the verge of being pulled down into the abyss of online gambling? 

If you’ve been reading the news lately, you might be tempted to think so. Young men are all addicted to sports betting, and now the industry’s incessant advertising is luring in kids, so say some media outlets. If something isn’t done to limit ads for gambling apps, some argue, kids will continue to be taken advantage of. 

These dire predictions have reached Colorado lawmakers, who are now considering Senate Bill 26-131, which would place major restrictions on sports betting in the state. In addition to barring adults from making more than five separate deposits with an individual betting operator within a 24-hour period, the bill would also make it illegal to broadcast an ad “for a sports betting operation from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. or during a live broadcast of an athletic competition.” . 

The bill’s supporters defend this prohibition by saying it’s necessary to protect kids. In reality, gambling ads pose very little threat to children. Even for those who find ways around age restrictions, the data show that they make bets only occasionally (similar to most adults). While gambling can and does ruin lives for the small fraction of adults who become addicted to it, it’s a relatively harmless form of entertainment for the vast majority of users. And for those who do have a genuine gambling problem, advertisements for legitimate betting apps can help direct them toward well-regulated companies and steer them away from dangerous, illegal gambling operations. 

The moral panic over online sports betting has made some people wildly overestimate the power of TV commercials. State Sen. Matt Ball (D–Denver), one of the bill’s sponsors, compared sports betting ads to those for cigarettes. “The whole point is we try to restrict that advertising from getting to kids,” he told Denver 7, a local ABC News affiliate. “At the end of the day, gambling is an addiction. It’s like alcoholism. It’s like substance abuse.” The theory seems to be that, if kids see ads for gambling apps, they’ll start gambling themselves and immediately develop an addiction that will destroy their lives. 

A recent survey by Common Sense Media on gambling amongst minors is helping to fuel those concerns. The survey found that 36 percent of boys aged 11 to 17 said they gambled online within the past year.    

Keep reading

‘Sexy Suicide Coach:’ OpenAI Delays AI Porn Feature over Safety Uproar

OpenAI has postponed the launch of its controversial “adult mode” feature following intense pushback from its own advisory council and concerns about technical safeguards failing to protect minors.

The Wall Street Journal reports that CEO Sam Altman first proposed the feature last year, arguing for the need to “treat adult users like adults” by enabling erotic text conversations. Originally scheduled for Q1 this year, the rollout has been pushed back by at least a month.

The proposal triggered fierce opposition from OpenAI’s own handpicked advisory council on well-being and AI. At a January meeting, advisers unanimously expressed fury after learning the company planned to proceed despite their reservations. One council member warned OpenAI risked creating a “sexy suicide coach” — a reference to cases where ChatGPT users had developed intense emotional bonds with the bot before taking their own lives.

The technical problems are just as serious. OpenAI’s age-prediction system — designed to block minors from accessing adult content — was misclassifying minors as adults roughly 12 percent of the time during internal testing. With approximately 100 million users under 18 each week on the platform, that error rate could expose millions of children to explicit material. The company has also struggled to lift restrictions on erotic content while still blocking nonconsensual scenarios and child pornography.

Internal documents reviewed by the Journal identified additional risks: compulsive use, emotional overreliance on the chatbot, escalation toward increasingly extreme content, and displacement of real-world relationships.

Keep reading

DEA Admits Teen Cannabis Use Has Drastically Decreased Since 1995, Despite Dozens of States Legalizing Cannabis

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is acknowledging that teen cannabis use has fallen sharply over the past three decades, despite 40 states legalizing medical cannabis and 24 legalizing adult-use cannabis within that period.

The admission comes through DEA’s Just Think Twice platform, where the agency includes an online quiz covering drug trends, overdose risks and substance use. One of the questions asks whether past-year marijuana use among adolescents and teens declined between 1995 and 2025. DEA says that statement is a fact.

According to the agency, past-year cannabis use among 8th grade students dropped from 15.8% in 1995 to 7.6% in 2025. Among 10th graders, it fell from 28.7% to 15.6%. For 12th graders, it declined from 34.7% to 25.7%.

Those figures undercut one of the most common arguments used by prohibitionists for years: that allowing marijuana to become legal at the state level would inevitably cause youth use to rise. DEA’s own materials now make clear that the opposite trend has played out over time.

That matters because the legalization movement expanded dramatically during the same period. California became the first state to legalize medical cannabis in 1996. Since then, 39 other states have followed with medical marijuana laws, and 24 states have also legalized cannabis for adult use.

In other words, marijuana laws have loosened in dozens of states since the mid-1990s, while teen use has moved in the other direction.

DEA says the figures come from the Monitoring the Future survey, a long-running national study backed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Keep reading

New analysis shows ideology, not science, drove the global prohibition of psychedelics

A recent study published in Contemporary Drug Problems argues that the strict global prohibition of psychedelic drugs was driven more by political ideology and media panic than by scientific evidence of medical harm. The historical analysis reveals that the 1971 United Nations decision to heavily restrict these substances relied on cultural anxieties rather than genuine public health risks. These findings suggest that current international drug laws may need to be reevaluated to remove unnecessary barriers to modern medical research.

Psychedelics are a diverse class of substances that alter a person’s perception, mood, and cognitive processes. This category includes naturally occurring compounds found in certain plants and mushrooms, like psilocybin and mescaline, as well as synthetic drugs like lysergic acid diethylamide, commonly known as LSD. Medical professionals generally consider these substances to be physiologically safe, and they tend to have a very low risk of causing addiction.

The United Nations is an international organization founded to maintain global peace, security, and cooperation, which includes creating treaties to regulate the global trade of various drugs. In 1971, the United Nations adopted the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. This international treaty classified psychedelics under the strictest possible level of legal control, lumping them together with highly addictive substances.

A psychotropic substance is simply any chemical that alters how the brain functions, causing changes in mood or awareness. In recent years, medical interest in psychedelics has returned. Early research suggests they could help treat severe mental health conditions.

However, the strict international laws established in 1971 continue to make modern medical research very difficult. The scientists conducted this study to understand exactly how international diplomats originally decided to place psychedelics under such extreme restrictions. They wanted to uncover the historical and political forces that shaped these long-standing global drug policies.

“My legal background, an interest in history, and involvement in an organisation that promotes research into the risks and potential benefits of psychedelic compounds coalesced into my wanting to conduct this research,” explained study author Måns Bergkvist of Uppsala University.

To reconstruct the history of UN drug policy, the researchers examined primary historical documents spanning from 1963 to 1971. They gathered archival records from three specific locations: the United Nations Archives, the Swedish National Archives, and the United States National Archives. The scientists analyzed a vast collection of meeting minutes, official negotiation records, internal reports, and diplomatic resolutions.

Keep reading