Based on the World Youth Report 2025 (Insights from 3,000 youth across 137 countries)

One in seven young people aged 10 to 19 experiences a mental health condition. That’s millions navigating anxiety, depression, and other challenges whilst trying to figure out life.

The World Youth Report 2025, based on consultations with nearly 3,000 youth from 137 countries, examines how to support young people in building resilience through prevention, support systems, and evidence-based interventions.

This isn’t another lecture about being ‘tough’ or ‘resilient’. It’s about the real factors shaping mental health outcomes, from substance use to economic pressures, and creating systems that genuinely support us.

“If best practice isn’t sought and in place, then a lesser system will emerge and young

people will subscribe to the dominant cultural voice in the absence of the best practice.

Identifying and deploying these best practice principles must at least be in the offering to

develop community wellbeing.”

Download PDF

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)

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

A groundbreaking study from The University of Texas at Arlington has revealed a disturbing reality: one in four American adolescents is exposed to violence in their neighbourhood. Moreover, these young people are more than twice as likely to turn to cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs as a coping mechanism. This pattern of teen substance use represents a critical public health challenge that demands immediate attention.

The research, published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, analysed responses from 20,005 adolescents aged 12 to 18 using data from the 2023 Youth Risk Behaviour Survey. Furthermore, the findings shed light on alarming patterns connecting environmental trauma to risky behaviours.

How Neighbourhood Violence Fuels Teen Substance Use

Professor Philip Baiden led the study at UT Arlington’s School of Social Work. He emphasised that violence is far from rare in young people’s lives. “Youth exposed to neighbourhood violence often carry the psychological weight of chronic stress, fear, and trauma,” Dr Baiden explained. Consequently, many turn to alcohol, marijuana, vaping, or other substances to self-medicate or numb the emotional impact.

The study examined five categories: cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, electronic vaping products, marijuana use, and prescription opioid misuse. Notably, exposure to neighbourhood violence was associated with higher odds of using all five substances. Additionally, researchers controlled for demographics, mental health symptoms, physical activity, and bullying involvement.

Youth Drug Abuse Reaches Crisis Levels

According to the 2024 National Institute on Drug Abuse annual report, 58.3% of individuals aged 12 or older reported using tobacco, vaping nicotine, alcohol, or an illicit drug in the prior month. This widespread youth drug abuse contributes to preventable illness and death across the nation.

Dr Catherine LaBrenz is the study co-author and associate professor at UTA’s School of Social Work. She noted that previous research has shown neighbourhood violence can fundamentally alter how the brain processes emotions. “When teens experience chronic fear or trauma, it can increase vulnerability to substance use,” she said.

Cyberbullying Drives Adolescent Drug Abuse

The research uncovered several surprising patterns beyond neighbourhood violence. Indeed, cyberbullying emerged as more strongly linked to adolescent substance use than traditional school bullying. This finding carries profound implications for prevention strategies.

“Cyberbullying is distinct in that it follows adolescents everywhere,” Baiden explained. “There is no escape. When it is cyberbullying, it spreads widely and persists indefinitely. You don’t know who has access to it, which makes its emotional impact even more traumatic. You can’t just delete it.”

The Sports Paradox

In a nuanced finding, the study identified that students participating in team sports tend to report higher rates of alcohol use. Team sports offer structure, belonging, and social support. However, they also expose adolescents to peer cultures where drinking may be normalised.

“That helps explain why we see increased odds of drinking amongst youth who participate,” Baiden noted.

Pathways to Prevention

The researchers emphasise that documenting these adverse effects is only the beginning. Therefore, the team plans to focus future research on identifying specific interventions. Counsellors, mental health professionals, and social workers can implement these when working with youth who experience neighbourhood violence.

Understanding the connection between environmental trauma and teen substance use represents a crucial step towards developing targeted prevention programmes. By addressing the root causes rather than simply treating the symptoms, communities can better support vulnerable adolescents.

The study’s findings highlight the urgent need for comprehensive approaches. These must consider young people’s lived experiences, including exposure to violence, online harassment, and peer influence. Consequently, only through such holistic understanding can effective strategies emerge to protect adolescents from the devastating cycle of trauma and substance misuse.

Statistics tell a sobering story. With one in four teens exposed to violence and 58.3% of young people aged 12 or older using substances, the scale of this crisis cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, armed with this research, communities now have a clearer roadmap for intervention.

UTA Social Work professors Angela J. Hall and Joshua Awua were contributing authors to the study.

(Source: WRD News & UTA)

(This is just another outcome of Harm Reduction Only Ideology – The ever-increasing permission models that enable and EQUIP (like Needle Distribution Programs) ongoing drug use isn’t seeing drug use and its intensity reducing, only increasing. This is not only bad policy practice, it is contrary to all the aims of national and international drug policy intents – Welcome to drug use normalisation 101)

A recent national study has revealed serious health consequences tied to a practice many people underestimate. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at UNSW Sydney published the research in January 2026. It examined the co-injection of drugs among people who regularly inject substances across Australia. The findings show just how widespread this behaviour has become, and who faces the greatest risk.

What Is Co-Injection of Drugs?

Co-injection means mixing two or more drugs inside a single syringe before injecting them. This differs from using multiple substances on the same day. With co-injection, the body receives everything at once, in the same dose. That simultaneous intake puts the body under serious pressure. It must process several substances at the same time, with no ability to manage the combined effects.

The 2025 Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) surveyed 865 people across all Australian capital cities. The study found that 18% of participants had combined two or more drugs in the same syringe within the month before their interview. Most of them did this more than once. For a significant number of people, co-injection is not a one-off event but a repeated pattern.

The Most Common Drug Combinations

Among those combining drugs in the same syringe, the top combination was methamphetamine crystal mixed with heroin. This makes sense given the data. Opioids and stimulants already rank as the two most commonly injected drug classes in Australia. Research from Melbourne between 2017 and 2019 confirmed a similar trend. Studies in Seattle also recorded a sharp rise in the co-use of methamphetamine and opioids over the same period.

The data also picked up diphenhydramine, an antihistamine with sedative effects sometimes found in over-the-counter sleep capsules. GHB, ketamine, and various pharmaceutical stimulants showed up as well. Of those who combined drugs in the same syringe, 84% mixed two substances. Around 13% used three drugs at once.

Who Is Most Likely to Co-Inject?

The study linked several factors to a higher likelihood of co-injection of drugs. Men reported this practice at notably higher rates. Daily injectors stood out too. They held roughly four times the odds of combining substances in a single syringe compared to those who injected less often.

Needle sharing played a significant role as well. People who shared syringes in the past month were more than twice as likely to have co-injected. Researchers also identified “bingeing” as a key risk factor. Bingeing means using drugs continuously for 48 hours or more without sleep. Those who had binged were around four times more likely to combine substances in one syringe. Together, these patterns show that co-injection tends to cluster among people with the most intense and high-risk drug use habits.

Why Co-Injection of Drugs Is So Dangerous

Mixing stimulants and opioids in the same syringe puts major strain on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. When someone takes two substances at different times, the body can begin to clear one before the other arrives. Co-injection removes that buffer entirely. A stimulant pushes the heart rate up and sharpens alertness. At the same time, an opioid suppresses breathing and slows the central nervous system. That direct conflict between the two substances makes certain combinations deeply unpredictable and potentially fatal.

Earlier studies connected the co-injection of methamphetamine and opioids to poorer physical and mental health outcomes over time. They also flagged an elevated risk of overdose. The 2025 IDRS data tell a similar story. The behaviour clusters tightly around other high-risk patterns, especially daily use and binge episodes. Both of those patterns carry their own serious long-term health consequences.

Understanding the Bigger Picture

Co-injection of drugs is not a fringe activity. A meaningful number of regular injectors in Australia engage in it. It tends to happen among people whose drug use is already the most intense. The mix of stimulants and opioids in a single syringe represents one of the more dangerous forms of polydrug use seen in the country today. The health consequences, both immediate and long-term, need far greater public awareness.

Drug use patterns keep shifting across Australia. The risks tied to co-injection of drugs will stay relevant as long as that shift continues. Understanding exactly what people put into their bodies, and how, stays critical. The 2025 IDRS data give us a national snapshot. It is both timely and relevant, not only for researchers and clinicians, but for anyone who cares about public health.

(Source: WRD News)