Details

Published: 01 April 2026

Hits: 5

The landscape of substance use is shifting beneath our feet. Public conversation remains fixed on the tragedy of the opioid epidemic. However, a quieter surge is occurring in the background. Stimulants like cocaine and methamphetamine have returned to the illicit market. This is not a repeat of the 1980s. The substances found on the streets today are more potent. They are also more unpredictable and lethal. Understanding these stimulant abuse risks is the first step toward effective prevention.

The Changing Face of Chemical Dependency

For years the narrative surrounding drug use was segmented. People were often categorised as either heroin users or cocaine users. This distinction has largely vanished in recent years. The current crisis is defined by a crossover of substances. This creates a volatile environment for the human body. Between 2016 and 2023 cocaine related fatalities in the US nearly tripled. Deaths rose from approximately 10,000 to nearly 30,000 annually. This sharp increase highlights the severe dangers of drug misuse. The purity of a substance is now a relic of the past. Today the risk includes an unknown chemical cocktail.

The Biological Strain and Stimulant Abuse Risks

Stimulants work by forcing the central nervous system into hyper arousal. The immediate effect might be a surge of energy. However the internal cost to the body is immense. These substances place an extraordinary burden on the heart. When a person consumes high potency stimulants their blood pressure skyrockets. This forces the heart muscle to work at an unsustainable pace. Over time this leads to permanent scarring of the cardiac tissue. It also creates a heightened risk of stroke or heart attack. These events occur even in young individuals with no prior health issues. The dangers of drug misuse extend far beyond the initial high.

Why Modern Cocaine Increases the Dangers of Drug Misuse

One terrifying aspect of the stimulant resurgence is synthetic additives. Many individuals believe they are purchasing traditional cocaine. Forensic testing increasingly reveals the presence of synthetic opioids like fentanyl. This unintentional co-use is a primary driver of rising death rates. Stimulants mask the sedative effects of opioids at first. A person may not realise they have ingested a lethal dose. Their respiratory system then begins to fail suddenly. There is often no second chance in these scenarios. The unpredictability of the supply chain makes every instance a gamble. Every use is a risk to a person’s life.

The Lack of a Medical Safety Net

A common misconception exists about modern medicine and drug emergencies. People believe doctors have a quick reversal agent for every crisis. This is dangerously false regarding stimulants. The world is now familiar with Naloxone for opioid overdoses. No such equivalent exists for cocaine or methamphetamine. Medical professionals cannot simply administer a spray to stop the process. If a person suffers a cardiac event they must manage symptoms manually. They can only try to cool the body or steady the heart. This lack of a direct intervention makes prevention the only reliable way to survive.

Recognising the Signs of Stimulant Abuse Risks

Education is a vital tool in preventing the worst outcomes. It is crucial to recognise when a person enters a medical crisis. Common indicators include a rapid and irregular heartbeat. An extreme rise in body temperature is another major warning sign. Erratic or aggressive behaviour may also occur suddenly. Some individuals experience hallucinations or lose touch with reality. These symptoms are not just part of the experience. They are clear warnings that the body is reaching a breaking point. Physical signs like dilated pupils and heavy sweating precede cardiovascular collapse. Recognising these stimulant abuse risks early can save a life.

Prioritising Mental and Physical Wellness

The goal of a healthy society is to foster drug free environments. People should not feel the need to turn to chemical escapism. The path to long term health is built on connection and resilience. A clear understanding of the dangers of drug misuse is also essential. As the potency of illicit substances rises the margin for error disappears. Choosing a life free from these substances protects the brain. It also ensures the longevity of the heart. By focusing on biological realities we empower individuals. We help them make choices that support a vibrant and healthy future. (Source: WRD News)

Also see Global: The 'Drug of Choice' for the Cashed Up! It's Past Time to 'D' Brand Cocaine?

Details

Published: 26 March 2026

Hits: 114

Imagine you have tried everything. You have been through the antidepressants, the talking therapies, the adjustments to lifestyle and sleep and diet that well-meaning clinicians suggest. Nothing has worked. You are still depressed, still suffering, and still looking for something that will help. Then you read the headlines. Psychedelics, they say, are transforming the treatment of mental illness. Magic mushrooms are producing breakthroughs. Researchers are excited. Regulators are responding. But before relief feels finally within reach, one question demands an honest answer: is psychedelic therapy safe?

This is the story being told to some of the most vulnerable people in the country. So is psychedelic therapy safe? And is it effective? Those questions deserve honest answers.

A New Way to Approve a Drug

There has always been a formal process for deciding whether a medicine is safe and effective enough to give to patients. Regulators designed it to be slow and demanding. Treatments have to prove themselves through rigorous clinical trials before they reach the public. That process exists because the history of medicine is also a history of treatments that seemed promising and turned out to be harmful.

Something different is happening with psychedelics. Rather than evidence, a combination of advocacy, media attention, and commercial investment is driving their legitimacy, and building its own kind of momentum. Call it the “vote for medicine” model: if enough people believe in a treatment strongly enough and push hard enough for access, the evidential bar quietly drops to accommodate them.

In 2023, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration rescheduled psilocybin and MDMA, making them more accessible as therapeutic medicines. The decision came after years of optimistic media coverage and intense lobbying from researchers, patient groups, and a rapidly growing psychedelic industry. Researcher Jack Wilson, a research fellow at the University of Sydney, noted the parallel with medicinal cannabis: “Medicinal cannabis originally had many hoops to jump through, like psychedelic-assisted therapies do in Australia now. But in 2021, things streamlined and it became much easier to access.” His concern is that psychedelics are heading down the same road, with access expanding before the evidence is ready to support it.

What Three New Studies Found

This week, three studies landed that should prompt serious reflection from everyone involved in that push.

Two studies published in JAMA Psychiatry examined the effectiveness of psychedelics against traditional antidepressants. The first reviewed clinical trials across LSD, psilocybin, peyote, and ayahuasca, and found that none of these performed better than conventional antidepressants for treating depression. The second, a clinical trial of psilocybin specifically, returned inconclusive results. In that trial, 86 per cent of participants could accurately identify whether they had received the drug or a placebo. When patients know they have taken a drug they have been told is revolutionary, the results cannot be cleanly separated from the power of expectation.

A third study, published in The Lancet, reviewed 54 clinical trials on cannabis and cannabinoids and found no evidence they effectively treat depression, anxiety, or PTSD. Doctors in Australia prescribe cannabis most commonly for exactly those three conditions. More striking still: across all 54 trials, not one randomised controlled study had looked specifically at cannabis for depression. “Those three are quite important because they’re three of the leading mental health conditions for which they’re prescribed,” Wilson said. “In fact, there was actually not a single randomised controlled trial that examined cannabis use for the treatment of depression, which is really concerning.

Randomised controlled trials are not a bureaucratic preference. They are the most reliable tool medicine has for distinguishing treatments that actually work from treatments that people believe work. Their absence is a serious problem, not a detail.

The Research Is Weaker Than the Headlines Suggest

The problem runs deeper than three studies. Researchers Michael van Elk and Eiko Fried at Leiden University have documented ten methodological problems that recur across psychedelic research. These are not obscure statistical concerns. They are fundamental failures that undermine the reliability of findings across the field.

Many studies have no control group at all. Without a comparison group, a result is almost meaningless. Van Elk and Fried highlight a 27-person psilocybin study in which 60 per cent of participants were no longer depressed after a year. That sounds encouraging until you learn that other research shows more than half of people with depression would recover without treatment within the same period. The study could not distinguish the drug’s effect from natural recovery.

Financial conflicts of interest pervade the field. Pharmaceutical companies fund most psychedelic research, and researchers with those ties are five times more likely to report a positive drug effect than those without them. Researchers also routinely switch outcomes: when a drug fails on its pre-registered measure, they quietly swap in a new one and present it as though it were always the point. One ketamine study found that only two of fourteen patients showed lower suicidal ideation at three months. The study’s title still called it “sustained” improvement.

Sam Moreton, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Wollongong, said what the data supports: “The hype around psychedelic therapy has consistently run ahead of what the evidence actually supports. There are good theoretical reasons to think psychedelic-assisted therapy could help with depression and other mental health conditions, and I think it’s absolutely worth researching properly. But the field has serious methodological problems that have been well documented.”

The honest summary is that we do not yet know whether these treatments work, for whom, under what conditions, or at what risk. Asking whether psychedelic therapy is safe is not a fringe concern. It is the most basic question medicine requires us to answer before widespread use. Science cannot yet provide that answer.

What Happens Outside the Trial

There is a further gap that rarely makes the headlines. When people ask whether psychedelic therapy is safe, clinical trials always qualify their answer: safe under these conditions, with these patients, in this setting. Trials run as controlled environments. Researchers screen participants carefully, excluding anyone with histories of psychosis, suicidality, or multiple diagnoses. Staff measure every dose. Trained therapists stay present throughout. When things go wrong, help stands ready.

This is not how most people will encounter these drugs if access continues to expand.

A Canadian study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal examined what happens to people who present in emergency rooms after severe psychedelic reactions. Researchers found these individuals were 2.6 times more likely to die within five years. Suicide was the most common cause of early death in this group, followed by unintentional drug poisoning. Dr Daniel Myran, the study’s lead author, was direct about the gap between clinical settings and real-world use: “You’re in a controlled environment with help standing by [in trials]. That is very different from the experience for people outside of these trials.”

Dr Charles Raison, a psychiatry professor and expert in psychedelic studies at the University of Wisconsin, noted that adverse outcomes sometimes persisted well beyond the initial episode: “Maybe one in 20 people report having ongoing difficulties they ascribe to the psychedelic experience. A year later, they say, ‘I had an experience so distressing it messed up my ability to function, alienated me from my family, or gave me PTSD.'”

The patients most likely to be screened out of clinical trials are also, not coincidentally, many of the patients most desperate for help. The people who read optimistic headlines are not always the people who would qualify for a supervised trial.

The Harm in False Hope

There is a version of this argument that sounds uncompassionate, so let us be clear about what this argument actually says. No one is arguing that psychedelics can never help anyone. Some researchers, including Professor Susan Rossell of Swinburne University of Technology, believe that properly conducted trials, with rigorous psychotherapeutic support alongside drug treatment, may eventually produce stronger evidence in their favour. That view is worth taking seriously. But “is psychedelic therapy safe” is not a question that goodwill and optimism can answer. Only evidence can.

But Professor Rossell also said this: “We’ve had a couple of people come through our programs and actually relapsed. So I guess we could say that we’ve made them worse, which is awful.”

This is a researcher who believes in the work, running trials with proper supervision, still producing outcomes that harmed people. The question of what happens to patients outside that level of care, chasing a treatment promoted with confidence the evidence does not yet support, is not a small one.

When desperate people are given inflated hope, they do not just feel disappointed when the treatment fails. Worse, they may delay pursuing treatments with stronger evidence. Unregulated access without proper support becomes more likely. And some emerge worse than they went in, with fewer resources and less trust in the health system that was supposed to help them.

Lowering evidential standards in the name of compassion is not compassionate. It is a way of making the people pushing for access feel that they are doing something, while the patients themselves carry the risk.

The Standard Worth Keeping

Caution here is not a stance against hope or research. It is a demand for honesty. Is psychedelic therapy safe? Right now, nobody can reliably answer that question. The science remains immature, methodologically compromised, and unable to support the claims advocates make on its behalf. The patients most likely to seek these treatments rank among the most vulnerable people in the health system. They deserve straight answers about what we know, what we don’t, and what dangers they face.

Good medicine has always had to hold the line between what patients want to hear and what the evidence actually shows. That line is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. It is the thing that separates medicine from false hope.

The vote for medicine model feels generous. In practice, it transfers risk onto the people least equipped to bear it. That is not a reform. It is a failure.

(Source: WRD News)

Details

Published: 25 March 2026

Hits: 25

Cannabis, cocaine and amphetamines all raise the risk of stroke significantly. That is the central finding of the largest study ever conducted on recreational drugs and stroke risk, drawing on data from more than 100 million people. Researchers at the University of Cambridge published their findings in the International Journal of Stroke in March 2026. The study concludes that these substances do not merely correlate with stroke. They appear to cause it.

The Statistics on Drug Use and Stroke Risk

The study found cocaine use raises stroke risk by 96%. Amphetamines raise it by 122%. Cannabis, often seen as the softer option, still increases the risk by 37%. Researchers found no significant link between opioid use and stroke.

Among adults under 55, the numbers become even more striking. Amphetamine use raises stroke risk by 174% in this age group. That is nearly three times the average person’s risk. Cocaine use in younger adults still carries a 97% elevated risk. Cannabis raises it by 14% in the same group.

Stroke is the third leading cause of death and disability combined worldwide. Most people associate it with older age, high blood pressure or poor diet. This research now adds drug use and stroke to that list of major, modifiable risk factors.

In England and Wales, around 2.9 million adults aged 16 to 59 reported using a recreational drug in 2024. That represents 8.8% of that age group. In the United States, more than half of all people over the age of 12 report having used cocaine, cannabis or opiates at least once.

Recreational Drugs and Stroke Risk: Moving Beyond Correlation

Earlier studies could show a connection between drug use and stroke. But they could not confirm the drugs were the actual cause. Other lifestyle factors among users clouded the picture.

The Cambridge team used a method called Mendelian randomisation to dig deeper. This technique looks at naturally occurring genetic variants linked to drug use and to stroke. It tests whether a true causal relationship exists between the two. The results pointed clearly toward cause, not just correlation.

Cocaine use disorders showed a strong connection to brain haemorrhage and cardioembolic stroke. In cardioembolic stroke, a blood clot forms in the heart and travels to the brain, cutting off blood flow. Cannabis use disorders linked most strongly to large artery stroke.

Dr Megan Ritson from the Stroke Research Group at the University of Cambridge said the research “provides compelling evidence that drugs like cocaine, amphetamines, and cannabis are causal risk factors for stroke.”

Dr Eric Harshfield, an Alzheimer’s Society Research Fellow at the Department of Clinical Neurosciences, was equally direct. He stated that the analysis shows it is the drugs themselves driving the elevated risk, not simply the broader lifestyle of those who use them.

How Recreational Drugs Damage the Brain

The body reacts to these substances in several ways that are known to trigger stroke. Blood pressure spikes sharply and suddenly. Blood vessels go into spasm and constrict. Heart rhythm becomes disrupted. Cannabis use promotes increased blood clotting. Amphetamines can cause inflammation of blood vessel walls.

Each of these reactions is a recognised pathway to stroke. They can lead to ischaemic strokes, which blood clots cause, and to haemorrhagic strokes, which involve bleeding in the brain. The danger does not require years of heavy use. These effects can strike acutely, even in otherwise healthy adults.

What the Research Means for Public Health

Drug use and stroke share a relationship that public health policy can no longer ignore. Dr Harshfield emphasised that reducing substance use would carry a meaningful benefit beyond addiction itself: a measurable reduction in stroke cases.

The research received funding from the British Heart Foundation, with additional support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.

The evidence now speaks plainly. For more than 100 million reasons, recreational drugs and stroke risk belong in the same sentence.

Source: WRD-News

Details

Published: 02 March 2026

Hits: 159

Rectal drug use (“boofing”, “plugging” or “booty bumping” if you like?!?) is sold as a clever hack for a faster high, but it’s basically playing Russian roulette with some of the thinnest, most vulnerable tissue in your body. It can feel cleaner or “safer than injecting”, yet the mix of high‑dose drugs, fragile rectal lining and zero margin for error is exactly how people end up in, A&E’s,  Eds, ICUs – or not waking up at all.

What “boofing” actually does

When you put drugs into your anus (No, not the planet you may be trying to reach virtually!) they absorb through a dense network of blood vessels and can hit your bloodstream fast, often more directly than if you’d swallowed them. But by ‘by-passing’ the digestive filters like mouth, stomach and liver, you may speed up your potential hi-hit (mainly the mouth, which alcoholics might do to negate the ‘booze breath’) yet that short-cut creates a new set of serious issues, not least being that the dose that seemed fine by mouth can be way too much rectally.

Butt Poison of Choice?

• Stimulants (cocaine, meth, “bath salts”) for a faster, harder rush.
• MDMA at festivals/parties to “make it kick in quicker”.
• Opioids (including strong synthetics) to chase euphoria without injecting.
• Alcohol or GHB/GHB‑like drugs, sometimes mixed with lube.

On the surface it can look controlled – measured dose, a clean ‘syringe barrel’, some lube – but the pharmacology underneath is absolutely not controlled. The same amount can hit you much harder than you expect, and you can’t  expel it – you know “vomit it up” once it’s in – that option is gone and ipecac or stomach pumping is of no value in triage.

Why the risk of overdose explodes

Rectal use is often framed as “harm‑reduction compared with injecting”, but overdose risk usually goes up, not down. (Yet just one more example of why ‘harm reduction’ isn’t!)

Key reasons:

• Rapid absorption, tiny safety margin: The drug crosses a thin membrane and blood levels can spike quickly, faster than your brain has time to say “this is too much.”
• Oral doses don’t translate: People copy their usual pill/line dose and push it rectally; what was mild by mouth can become overwhelming via the rectum.
• Redosing trap: If the high feels “slow”, there’s a strong temptation to add more, only for both doses to kick hard together 10–20 minutes later.

With stimulants like meth or cocaine, that spike can mean arrhythmia, heart attack, stroke, seizure and extreme agitation or psychosis. With opioids, it means respiratory depression: simply not breathing deeply enough to stay alive. With alcohol or GHB, you’ve removed vomiting as an emergency safety valve, so you can slide straight from “buzzed” to unconscious, not breathing and needing resuscitation.

What it does to your body, specifically the Butt Hole

The rectum isn’t designed to be a loading dock for powders, crushed pills, crystals or concentrated alcohol (or any foreign object for that matter!) It’s thin, delicate and packed with blood vessels.

Regular or heavy rectal use can cause:

• Tears and bleeding: Small fissures from rough tips, un-dissolved particles, or just repeated irritation, which can be brutally painful and bleed.
• Ulcers, infections, abscesses: Local tissue damage becomes an opening for bacteria, leading to deep infections or pus‑filled pockets that sometimes need surgery.
• Serious structural damage: Repeated trauma can contribute to long‑term problems like incontinence or even rectal prolapse.

Because the lining is thin and highly vascular, it’s also an efficient doorway for blood‑borne infections, including HIV and hepatitis C, especially if equipment is shared or there’s any bleeding

If rectal use intersects with anal sex – before or after – you stack the risks: microscopic injuries from one activity make it easier for infections to cross during the other.

Mental health and the “how did I get here?” moment

By the time someone is boofing, they’re often not at the beginning of their spiralling dysfunctional relationship with drugs. It can signal an escalation: chasing faster, stronger effects as tolerance builds or other routes become harder or feel too embarrassing.

Rectal use doesn’t just affect your body:

• It can amplify anxiety, paranoia and mood swings, particularly with stimulants.
• It can feed into a pattern of secretive, compulsive use – hiding paraphernalia, using alone, and pushing past your own internal “this feels too far” line.

If you’ve ever had a clear, sober moment of “I can’t believe I’m doing this” around drugs and your body, that’s a signal worth listening to. We would posit that even if you don’t get that internal psycho-social alarm, the fact that you’re reading this should become that alarm… yes,  you heard right, we used the word should, because it has been stolen from the protective lexicon and it needs to be put back in for your safety and well-being.

When Stupid People Don’t Want to Stop Dumb Acts?

Abstinence is always the safest option, but concerningly harm‑reduction exists precisely because people (for a number of reasons, mostly hedonic idiocy) use drugs in the real world and not in ideal conditions – Durr, ‘partying without purpose’. One damage management public health response is to emphasise reducing preventable harm but still warning people about dumb acts. Are you listening?

If someone chooses to boof despite the risks, potentially (not guaranteed) lower‑risk practices may include things like:

• Avoiding alcohol or GHB rectally entirely (the risk–reward ratio is terrible) There’s that abstinence option!
• Never guessing doses – especially with powders of unknown strength – and not matching oral doses one‑for‑one rectally. When in doubt – don’t! Hey, there’s the abstinence option, again!
• Using clean, dedicated equipment, not sharing, and not using makeshift objects that can scratch or tear.
• Leaving long gaps between doses to see the full effect before even thinking about more. Oooh! Interim abstinence at play – just keep the gap longer and longer.
• Getting regular STI and blood‑borne virus checks and using condoms/PrEP/PEP where relevant.

These strategies do not make boofing “safe” by any stretch; they just reduce some of the more predictable ways it goes very wrong.

When to seek help – immediately

Call emergency services or go to A& E or E.D if, after rectal use, anyone has:

• Trouble staying awake, very slow or strange breathing, blue lips or fingertips.
• Chest pain, palpitations, severe headache, collapse, seizure or extreme agitation/confusion.
• Severe rectal pain, heavy bleeding, fever, or a painful swelling near the anus.

You don’t have to tell staff every detail to get life‑saving care but being honest about the route and substance can help them treat you faster and more effectively.

If some part of you is already uncomfortable with how far your use has gone – or you’re supporting someone else who’s there – that discomfort is actually a healthy signal. It’s a good moment to reach out to a trusted health professional, local alcohol and other drug service, or a confidential helpline to talk through options before the next line, pill or plug pushes you past the point you can come back from.

(Source: Dalgarno Institute)