An article at the BBC talks about the rise of young people preferring illegally obtained prescription drugs to alcohol:
To enjoy a night out with friends, Matt once had to drink until he felt sick.
If he didn't, the 22-year-old from the north of England would spend the night silent, terrified of saying the wrong thing. The warehouse worker says it felt like there was "just no way into" the conversations everyone else seemed to be enjoying.
Then, two years ago, he swapped pints for prescription drugs he discovered through social media.
As he gets ready to go out on a Friday, Matt, whose name has been changed, now takes a medicine he purchases illegally online that usually treats epilepsy and nerve pain; alongside a beta blocker designed to slow a racing heart and relax trembling muscles (physical symptoms of anxiety).
He says it gives him the effects of alcohol without the hangover.
"The amount of alcohol you have to drink to replicate the effects of these is really unhealthy and it doesn't feel good," he says. Matt says the drugs he takes leave him feeling "euphoric," quietens his anxious thoughts and makes socialising easy, he says.....
Around the world, evidence shows that young people are turning to medications and experimental substances as alternatives to alcohol. Some of them come in pill form - like pregabalin and propranolol, the ones Matt takes. And some are injected - like peptides, a type of protein that's becoming increasingly popular online.
It's part of an effort to quell social anxiety, which seems to affect Generation Z particularly sharply: more than a quarter (28%) of people in their early 20s in England report high levels of anxiety, according to a study published last year by University College London, which found that serious mental illnesses are far more common among members of Generation Z than they were among millennials at the same age.
The trend is alarming scientists - and prompting them to ask why some young adults feel they can only socialise with chemical help.
As much as I enjoy pondering the moral downfall of England over my lifetime, the article does say that the drug (which I wasn't aware of until now) is internationally popular:
In Jordan, Ukraine and India, researchers have also noted an uptick in pregabalin abuse.
In China, the government tightened controls of the drug earlier this year by banning most online sales, and setting limits on how much of the drug can be manufactured in each province.
As to its dangers:
A study published in the journal Nature Communications estimated that global consumption of the drug more than quadrupled between 2008 and 2018.
Meanwhile, there has also been a sharp increase in deaths involving pregabalin. Office for National Statistics data show pregabalin was mentioned on 2,360 death certificates for drug-related poisonings in England and Wales between 2020 and 2024, compared with 768 between 2015 and 2019.
One of those deaths was Alex Cottam, a 27-year-old software engineer from Eccles described by his mother, Michelle, as "lovely, clever, and popular". He was prescribed pregabalin to treat his anxiety, but his mother says he "became addicted" and started boosting his supply by buying the drug from illicit websites. "I can't help thinking every day that pregabalin killed my son", she told the BBC in 2024.
And, of course, the "soft on drugs" school is hanging around saying "it's not so bad as it seems":
Prof David Nutt, a neuropsychopharmacologist at Imperial College London who has long campaigned for looser drug laws, argues that the drugs Matt takes may be less harmful than heavy drinking, even if they carry risks of their own.
"Propranolol and pregabalin are undoubtedly safer than alcohol, but not perfectly safe," he says.
But he says the picture changes when pregabalin is used in large doses for intoxication (as Matt says he is doing). "If they're using it as a sort of intoxicant to get drunk, then they are at risk of dependence," he says. "It's not a free lunch in that sense."
I will remain stubbornly old fashioned and argue that, at least with alcohol, it is well understood and (rarely) does the consumer have any good reason to be concerned over the purity of the product being consumed. Buying tablets on the black market has always got this cloud of uncertainty over it.
As for the rise of youthful anxiety - kind of ironic that as national comfort has increased, so has anxiety.
Bring back national service! (Ha ha).
3 comments:
Much of this is about economics. A few months ago I went for a walk during the night. Hadn't been to a pub in years so dropped in for a pint and engage in some social observation. The pint cost me $13.50, the people were boring. One drink is a beginning. For $20-$30 the youngin's can buy a drugs that will keep them going all night.
The drugs above are GABA agonists, typically used to treat anxiety.
Professor Nutt lost his position as UK Drug Czar when he wrote a paper arguing horse riding is more dangerous than MDMA. It is. Rugby League, AFL, and Soccer are more dangerous than the occasional drug. A recent Aus study argued that in AFL even cumulative non-concussive hits that are a risk factor for CTE. Thirty years ago I co-authored presentations at the Annual Society for Neuroscience on concussion and warned people about the dangers but still people enjoy watching men give each other brain damage.
Go on, have a drink. Alcohol isn't a drug it is a toxin. Damages the liver, the brain, the blood vessels, continued use alters neurotransmitter balance, and it is strongly associated with domestic violence and suicide. Alcohol is not well understood by the young. Even with adults it is only recent that repeated media reports about the cancer risk have raised awareness.
I don't really care about any of this.
"...the occasional drug" is carrying a bit of weight there.
Your point about the cost of alcohol in pubs and eating palces is valid. Mind you, I still think wine drinking at home is remarkably good value for good quality in Australia. (In the interests of disclosing personal use - I would estimate I have between 4 to 6 standard drinks in any one week, usually wine and the occasional beer.)
The whole comparison of risk in voluntary human activity is a tricky, multi factor exercise, isn't it? For example, I would think it's a good thing if boxing and MMA type fights were banned, since the point of it is to inflict blows which either cause concussion or damage which accumulates from "sub concussive" blows. But then you have some arguing that the boxing or fighting gym is a good way to teach delinquents self discipline and valuing rules, and I wouldn't be completely dismissive of that. Not that I have hung around boxing gyms to witness the atmosphere - but it makes sense that it helps some people.
It's also interesting to visit relatively "dry" countries (say, Indonesia) and see how the limited use of alcohol or virtually any mood altering drug (except for tobacco) affects how people socialise or get entertainment. I mean, both alcohol and marijuana there have smallish rates of use, so they don't have the ill health effects of it; but then you can see a ridiculous riot at a soccer match killing more than a hundred people and think "maybe it would be better if some of these guys got a bit drunk at the pub watching this on TV rather than coming fully hyped up to the match!"
So it's complicated, I know.
My bias is that long before the concussion issue came up I was perplexed by how devoted people became to watching grown men chase a ball and run into one another. Now I accept that humans engage in so many behaviors we should be very reluctant to demand adherence to our preferred cultural imperatives. I was using the concussion example as a means of illustrating how we collectively and individually make risk assessments that typically are biased by our culture and personality.
The big problem with GABA agonists is exemplified by Jordan Petersen. On YT a psychiatrist argued he developed BIND: benzodiazepine induced neurologic dysfunction. Petersen has admitted that. That requires sustained use and probably at higher doses than the kids are using. However benzos are very addictive and we might be witnessing the beginning of another social drug disaster. Remember GHB? Potent GABA agonist. I don't know. My impression is the youngin's have very specific intentions about drug use. Whereas alcohol and cannabis have a strong cultural impetus the use of these relaxation drugs seems more like a transient experience than an ongoing habit. That reminds me of a very old British study where they were surprised to learn that so many professional people were using drugs like MDMA but only on the weekend. Not a lifestyle, more like a long weekend. There will be subsequent addictions and fatalities but, perhaps optimistically, I believe modern generations have a different stance to drug use than my generation.
Post a Comment