Tag: moral panics

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

When 7‑OH Fears Drive Policy by Anecdote

For generations, communities in Southeast Asia have used the leaves of Mitragyna speciosa — kratom — brewed as a drink to relieve pain and steady mood. Its principal alkaloids, mitragynine and the more potent 7‑hydroxymitragynine, act on opioid receptors and produce analgesic effects.

Kratom has since gained a significant presence in the United States, where consumers often use it as an alternative to prescription opioids or as a self-directed aid in managing withdrawal. It is sold in teas, capsules, powders, and concentrated extracts, with purified 7‑OH products increasingly appearing in vape shops, convenience stores, and online markets.

Regulators are now moving toward prohibition. Last July, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced plans to urge the Drug Enforcement Administration to place 7‑OH in Schedule I — the same legal category as heroin.

Supporters of these efforts argue that kratom — especially high-potency 7‑OH — could fuel the next wave of overdose deaths. But the data tell a different story.

Fatal overdoses in which 7‑OH has been implicated are exceedingly rare, and deaths linked to kratom more broadly are rarer still. In the limited cases where coroners listed kratom or 7‑OH as contributing factors, polysubstance use was the norm. Roughly two-thirds of decedents had fentanyl in their systems. About one-third had heroin present, and just under one-fifth had prescription opioids or cocaine. Around 80% had documented histories of substance misuse, and about 90% were not receiving clinical care for pain.

Each of these deaths is tragic, and any loss of life linked to psychoactive substances deserves careful scrutiny.

Keep reading

Teens Didn’t Just Discover Weed. So Why Is The Wall St. Journal Acting Like They Did?

The Wall Street Journal has a new teen-cannabis panic on offer: vape clouds in school bathrooms, sneaky hits during class and administrators playing cat-and-mouse with students who keep finding ways to get high. The gadgets are newer. The hardware is newer. The hiding spots may be newer, too. But the underlying behavior? Please. American teenagers did not just discover weed because a dispensary opened in town. What the Journal really found is an old adolescent ritual in updated packaging, then stretched it into a referendum on legal cannabis.

Let’s get the obvious part out of the way. Teen cannabis use is real. The risks are real. THC can be harmful to developing brains, and schools have every right to care about what students are doing on campus. But that is not the same as proving legalization created some brand-new youth cannabis crisis. That leap is where the piece gets slippery.

Because once you leave the anecdote and look at the trendline, the panic starts to wobble. The University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future report shows past-year marijuana use among 12th graders at 26.0% in 2024, down from 35.7% in 2019. Among 8th graders, it was 7.0% in 2024, down from 11.8% in 2019. That is not an explosion. That is a decline.

Zoom out further and the same pattern holds. A 2026 Addictive Behaviors paper, “Trends in US adolescent cannabis use, 1991–2023”, found that youth cannabis use rose through the 1990s, peaked in 1999 and then broadly declined. Lifetime use fell from 47.3% in 1999 to 30.1% in 2023. Recent use dropped from 27.1% to 17.8%. Early initiation fell too. In other words, if you want to tell a dramatic story about teen cannabis, the most inconvenient fact is that the peak is a quarter-century behind us.

And if the argument is specifically that legalization caused kids to start using more, the best recent policy literature does not back that up either. A 2024 JAMA Psychiatry study, “Recreational Marijuana Laws and Teen Marijuana Use, 1993-2021”, found no evidence that recreational marijuana laws were associated with current or frequent teen use. A separate 2024 JAMA Pediatrics study, “Recreational Cannabis Legalization, Retail Sales, and Adolescent Substance Use Through 2021”, found no net increases in adolescent cannabis, alcohol, cigarette or e-cigarette use tied to recreational legalization or retail sales. That does not mean every concern is fake. It means the Journal is hinting at a causal story the evidence does not support.

That is the framing trick. The article keeps pointing to real things, then attaching them to the wrong villain. Teens getting THC vapes from older friends? Real. Peer-to-peer sales through Snapchat? Real. Bad packaging that looks too much like candy? Also real. But none of that means adult legality itself is the root problem. If a kid gets cannabis from an older sibling, a sloppy adult or some classmate running a side hustle through social media, that is a diversion problem. A safeguards problem. An adults-failing-kids problem. It is not proof that legal access for adults was the mistake. If an eighth grader grabs a parent’s car keys and takes off, the problem is not that cars are legal for adults. The problem is access, supervision and adults failing to secure something meant for grown people.

Keep reading

AI is ushering in a new era of Satanism, exorcists warn religious leaders: ‘A great power’

Is it the Tech-corcist?

With religious rifts widening around the globe, an enterprising Christian leader has potentially devised a way to unite the faiths against a common foe.

A Mexican priest named Father Luis Ramirez Almanza is inviting rabbis, imams and evangelical preachers to join a special exorcism training course that, among other evils, specializes in battling the scourge of AI-fueled Satanism, the Times Of London reported.

“Artificial intelligence is a great power — a force for both good and evil — and can therefore be used for devil worshipping,” he warned at a press conference announcing his “Course on the Ministry of Exorcism and Prayer of Deliverance.”

Held at the Ateneo Pontificio Regina Apostolorum, a Vatican-affiliated university, this niche training draws over 170 participants interested in performing exorcisms.

While participants aren’t granted the authority to conduct a demon-ectomy — that license can only be bestowed by a diocesan bishop, per Catholic Canon Law — the university promises on its website to “deepen their knowledge of the ministry of exorcism and deliverance prayer in a serious and interdisciplinary way.”

This year, there will be a special emphasis on AI’s use among Lucifer enthusiasts. 

Father Fortunato Di Noto, a Sicilian priest who fights child sexual abuse and is speaking at a session in May, claims that some satanic groups are already experimenting with the tech.

“We believe these groups are using AI to generate images of children involved in satanic rites,” Di Noto told The Times Of London.

Keep reading

Scientists warn against crappy age verification: ‘if implemented without careful consideration… the new regulation might cause more harm than good’

As age verification becomes more commonplace across the web, there are some trying to oppose its rollout on security and privacy grounds. An open letter signed by over 400 researchers and scientists arguing the many reasons why age verification (and most especially the current age assurance technology) isn’t all it’s cracked up to be is now available to read in full.

Here’s a precis on the whole thing: Governments across the world are adopting legislation to ensure usage or compliance with age assurance methods, in the name of keeping kids off the bad parts of the web. That sounds like a good idea until you look into the details. Those details suggest these are often haphazardly applied and with little regard for privacy and data protection.

The open letter outlines a few key arguments:

How easily age verification can be bypassed. This being evident by Discord’s age verification, provided by K-id, which could be bypassed by using Sam’s face in Death Stranding. As the open letter points out, it’s possible to lie about one’s age, trick a system, or buy age-verified credentials online. VPNs are also widely available and prove an easy way to bypass any and all age assurance methods, even if access to said VPNs is age-restricted.

How unreliable age estimation can be. All while potentially necessitating large-scale and invasive data collection or widespread use of government IDs at every online interaction for any semblance of effectiveness. As the letter notes, “We conclude that age assessment presents an inherent disproportionate risk of serious privacy violations and discrimination, without guarantees of effectiveness.”

How it necessitates a global trust infrastructure. This being one of the main goals of the EU’s digital identity wallet, though only pan-EU, being used as a common foundation for all member states to meet one another for age assurance. Though as the letter suggests, “even if such a trust infrastructure would exist, checks can be circumvented by acquiring valid certificates or using VPNs, as long as age assurance regulations are not universally enforced by all affected services.”

How it can push users to lesser-known, potentially dangerous websites. By enforcing age assurance, and with the larger, more responsible websites complying, there is a chance of pushing users to lesser-known, potentially dangerous or scam websites. Following the rollout of the UK’s Online Safety Act, one of the first investigations it launched was into porn websites that did not immediately comply with the new rules for age verification checks. Other websites chose to turn off services to the UK altogether.

Keep reading

Xbox UK Age Verification Launch Locks Out Thousands of Players

Xbox’s mandatory age verification rollout in the UK was a disaster almost immediately, locking thousands of players out of games, voice chat, and apps like Discord with no clear path back in.

The failures started overnight. Players report being ejected mid-session to complete age verification checks that then took hours, stalled indefinitely, or simply refused to work regardless of what identification they submitted.

Government ID, mobile numbers, and live video age estimation; the system rejected them all for many users. Others made it through verification only to find their accounts still restricted with no explanation and no recourse beyond contacting Xbox support.

Microsoft’s support page now carries a notice confirming it is “aware of the issue and working to fix it.” That’s the extent of the official guidance.

The verification requirement exists to comply with the UK’s new censorship law, the Online Safety Act, legislation mandating that platforms facilitating online communication verify user ages. The actual system XBox built to deliver that compliance forcibly disconnected players from games in progress, stripped away chat functionality with anyone outside their friends list, and blocked access to third-party services.

Users who have held Xbox accounts for over 18 years found themselves flagged for verification anyway. The system doesn’t consider account age, history, or any contextual signal that might indicate an adult user. Everyone gets treated as potentially underage until they hand over documentation.

“The amount of times I’ve tried to do any method of the verification tonight is stupid,” wrote one user. “Can’t change privacy settings on my Xbox to allow me to see mods on games too. Can’t chat on Discord. Utterly broken.”

“Been trying to verify my ID for the past few hours,” added another. “It finally worked but I can’t access anything still. No Discord access at all.”

Keep reading

The Atlantic Busted Fabricating Dead Kid Measles Story

Last Thursday, The Atlantic published a heart-wrenching story about an 11-month-old child who died of measles. Written in the second person from the perspective of a mother whose two unvaccinated children fell ill with the disease, the story is rich with personal detail;

“You plant her on the couch with a blanket and put Bluey on the TV while she drifts in and out of sleep…” 

“While the kids are napping, you tap a list of your daughter’s symptoms into Google and find a slew of diseases that more or less match up…”

“Her cough wracks her whole body, rounding her delicate bird shoulders. She does not sleep well. And as you lift up her pajama top to check her rash one morning, you see that her breathing is labored, shadows pooling between her ribs when she sucks in air.” 

Turns out, NONE OF THAT HAPPENED. The Atlantic‘s Elizabeth Bruenig simply made it up, leading to mass confusion.

As Laura Hazard Owen of NiemanLab – who initially busted Bruenig – writes:

When I initially read Bruenig’s story, I was stunned: An Atlantic staff writer’s unvaccinated child had died of measles in the 2020s, and now she was writing about it? At the end of Bruenig’s piece, though, there’s an editor’s note: “This story is based on extensive reporting and interviews with physicians, including those who have cared directly for patients with measles.” That was the point when I sent a gift link to my mom group: “as far as I can tell this piece is fiction. What do we think about this choice? I am very conflicted!!!” My conflict stemmed from my concern that, though the piece was heavily researched, it was not a true story. I wondered if the key people whose minds might be changed by it — people who don’t vaccinate their kids — would brush it off as fiction, or fake.

Following the publication, two journalists reached out to Owen to let her know that they were similarly confused, as there “was not an editor’s note/disclaimer on the piece at all.” 

What’s more, The Atlantic’s own spokesperson told one of the journalists: “This is based on a mother’s real account,” – after which the outlet added a disclaimer. 

Keep reading

40 State Attorneys General Want To Tie Online Access to ID

A bloc of 40 state and territorial attorneys general is urging Congress to adopt the Senate’s version of the controversial Kids Online Safety Act, positioning it as the stronger regulatory instrument and rejecting the House companion as insufficient.

The Act would kill online anonymity and tie online activity and speech to a real-world identity.

Acting through the National Association of Attorneys General, the coalition sent a letter to congressional leadership endorsing S. 1748 and opposing H.R. 6484.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Their request centers on structural differences between the bills. The Senate proposal would create a federally enforceable “Duty of Care” requiring covered platforms to mitigate defined harms to minors.

Enforcement authority would rest with the Federal Trade Commission, which could investigate and sue companies that fail to prevent minors from encountering content deemed to cause “harm to minors.”

That framework would require regulators to evaluate internal content moderation systems, recommendation algorithms, and safety controls.

S. 1748 also directs the Secretary of Commerce, the FTC, and the Federal Communications Commission to study “the most technologically feasible methods and options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.”

This language moves beyond platform-level age gates and toward infrastructure embedded directly into hardware or operating systems.

Age verification at that layer would not function without some form of credentialing. Device-level verification would likely depend on digital identity checks tied to government-issued identification, third-party age verification vendors, or persistent account authentication systems.

That means users could be required to submit identifying information before accessing broad categories of lawful online speech. Anonymous browsing depends on the ability to access content without linking identity credentials to activity.

Keep reading

“Kids Off Social Media Act” Opens the Door to Digital ID by Default

Congress is once again stepping into the role of digital caretaker, this time through the Kids Off Social Media Act, with a proposal from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna that seeks to impose federal rules on how young people interact with the world.

The house companion bill (to go along with the senate bill) attempts to set national limits on who can hold social media accounts, how platforms may structure their systems, and what kinds of data they are allowed to use when dealing with children and teenagers.

Framed as a response to growing parental concern, the legislation reflects a broader push to regulate online spaces through age-based access and design mandates rather than direct content rules.

The proposal promises restraint while quietly expanding Washington’s reach into the architecture of online speech. Backers of the bill will insist it targets corporate behavior rather than expression itself. The bill’s mechanics tell a more complicated story.

The bill is the result of a brief but telling legislative evolution. Early versions circulated in 2024 were framed as extensions of existing child privacy rules rather than participation bans. Those drafts focused on limiting data collection, restricting targeted advertising to minors, and discouraging algorithmic amplification, while avoiding hard access restrictions or explicit age enforcement mandates.

That posture shifted as the bill gained bipartisan backing. By late 2024, lawmakers increasingly treated social media as an inherently unsafe environment for children rather than a service in need of reform. When the bill was reintroduced in January 2025, it reflected that change. The new version imposed a categorical ban on accounts for users under 13, restricted recommendation systems for users under 17, and strengthened enforcement through the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general, with Senate sponsorship led by Ted Cruz and Brian Schatz.

Keep reading