The Rebranding of Drugs Onlin
The way in which young people are exposed to drugs online has changed, and it's as mystifying as it is scary.
Discussion of drugs in pop culture is nothing new; whether that's the Beatles referencing 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' or the infinite list of 'lean'-adjacent media from the 'dirty South', drug references have been a facet of mainstream culture for a long time.
However, what we're starting to see is a completely different relationship, one that is framed entirely as a form of self-improvement.
The Biohacking Movement
Let's start by looking at the 'biohacking' movement. People like Bryan Johnson have popularised this, espousing a level of agency over one's decay and a way to reverse ageing.
The argument is relatively straightforward: your body is a broken, decaying husk, and only through taking agency of its destruction can you reverse ageing, live longer, and be healthier.
This manifests in a myriad of different online grifts, all designed to be as clickbaity as possible: strange chemical names for supplements, weird blood-filtering procedures, and, of course, the infamous peptide bubble.
For those of you unfamiliar, peptide usage is a consistent part of the modern internet ecosystem and Silicon Valley culture.
Peptides, often sold as 'signalling molecules', are short-form amino acid strings that are sold to consumers in experimental, injectable doses. The argument for these is simple: these proteins instruct your cells to perform specific actions.
Most peptides are sold with claims such as improving your libido, anti-ageing, energy improvements, or mental clarity.
The most important thing to know about peptide use is the fact that this is a legal grey area, with most peptides sold under the label 'not for human consumption' or 'research chemical'.
Peptide usage has become synonymous with Silicon Valley; the product is sold to software engineers and tech company execs with a simple marketing message: 'This is a software update for your body'.
This overly simplistic rhetoric avoids the dangerous truth: injectable black-market peptides have no long-term research associated with them.
The evidence that is commonly used to justify experimental peptide usage is all pre-clinical studies. It's nothing that holds up to any real, peer-reviewed clinical research.
The risks of taking these experimental chemicals are endless, as I'm sure you can imagine:
Hormone disruption: Peptides can manipulate the endocrine system; as a result, the delicate balance our body puts in place is disrupted. Many peptides are sold as mimicking human growth hormone as a modern-day, performance-enhancing drug. There are real long-term complications that can come from manipulating one's endocrine system.
Cancer risks: There's a significant portion of talk from medical experts about higher cancer risks as a result of peptide usage. The theory goes that if one has a very early-stage tumour that is undetected, a peptide could feed it, causing it to grow at an exponential rate.
Autoimmune reactions and injection complications: Injecting anything into your body is bound to have some form of risk. Whether that's an autoimmune response or injection-site infections, our homes and experimental chemicals are rarely sterile.
Now consider the fact that all of these risks are multiplied exponentially if you are a teenager engaging in these black-market chemicals bought from a 'plug' on Snapchat.
Performance enhancing drugs have moved from the gym culture forums and dark web marketplaces to something openly discussed on every conceivable online platform, peptides have successfully transitioned into the wellness space and are pseudo-legitimised by their constant platforming on popular podcasts.
Microdosing
The other side of this is figures like Joe Rogan; Rogan has famously espoused his love of 'microdosing' mild psychedelics.
(Microdosing refers to the concept of taking drugs in small doses, particularly psychoactive substances and psychedelics. It was popularised by Joe Rogan on his ever-popular podcast The Joe Rogan Experience.)
The arguments for microdosing are simple: it helps awaken your unconscious, increases well-being, and helps achieve a modern-day form of enlightenment.
Is there a discussion of the real harms that we associate with taking any kind of psychoactive substances? No, of course there isn't, there's no impartiality because many of the figures discussing both Microdosing and peptides have financial interests in legitimising these drugs.
There are real risks associated with microdosing, many of which are rarely discussed:
Psychological risks: There is significant evidence to show that, as a microdose is essentially taking a long-term mild stimulant, this can negatively impact your emotional well-being and mental health, increasing anxiety and frequently leading to bouts of insomnia among other mental health difficulties.
Heart disease: The chemicals present in notable psychedelics bind to a serotonin receptor in your body; this receptor is particularly concentrated in the valves of our heart. Long-term microdosing can degrade these leading to a myriad of heart problems.
The other side of Microdosing is the normalisation of substance usage, this has become particularly common among many of the wealthiest in our society:
Drugs like ketamine are prescribed for off-label usage by concierge doctors. This has been a well-known phenomenon in Silicon Valley as well as the City of London. With prescribed medications now overtaking other illicit substances, particularly in the area of finance.
There is a real glamorisation of some substances:
Ketamine: The unfortunate reality of modern-day street drug use particularly with teenagers is the rise of ketamine. One of the things that we don't talk about is how commonly it is espoused online and abused by some of the wealthiest in our society.
Modafinil: A medication prescribed for daytime sleepiness or narcolepsy. It is regularly discussed by members of the online 'grifting' community. This prescription medication is abused; being sold as increasing concentration, helpful when pulling all-nighters to study or streaming into the late hours.
When something has a chemical name or is a prescription medication, it has an air of legitimacy that street drugs don't. This is something that is deliberately capitalised on by nefarious actors online.
CM: (think Breaking Bad) CM is discussed in a number of communities online most notably by looksmaxxing enthusiasts, it is marketed as decreasing weight loss by halting hunger, giving you unlimited energy to work out or 'graft'. I'm increasingly seeing stream chats debating whether influencers have taken the substances off camera.
Algospeak and what we get wrong
The other factor in the way we talk about drugs online that we miss is the way in which Algospeak plays a part in this.
Algospeak commonly refers to a form of self-censorship online, where words are changed so the algorithm doesn't pick up on something illicit that many advertisers wouldn't want their products associated with.
This knowledge is capitalised on by influencers who are pro-drug; it's clipped and farmed through Kick streams on accounts that can easily be taken down and replaced within a day.
Common Algospeak for drugs include:
Ketamine – Kitty (cat emoji) or Horse meds
CM – Tina (Spoken about often as a fictional person e.g. 'Tina is a big part of my life')
Peptides – Pep or Research Chems
Being high on drugs – Spun and Wonky
When influencers use these slang terms and emojis they trick the algorithm into not censoring their content, we don't do this.
They have successfully capitalised on live streaming in particular as a form of content that is notoriously 'unhinged' and hard to censor, they use slang terminology or emojis to bypass censorship or the eyes of safeguarding professionals and parents/carers.
When drug use is spoken about in a frank and honest way, we are hesitant to self-censor, which has a paradoxical effect, where the content designed to protect our young people and help them understand the dangers of drug use is hidden by the algorithm or instantly flagged by users as 'narc' content.
If you've been to one of my training sessions, one of the arguments I make regularly is that 56% of the internet is in English. The issues we see online are not necessarily tied to one country. So when American influencers flood the internet with pro-peptide content, it will have a knock-on effect in other nations, particularly Britain, as an English-speaking country.
Aspiration Culture and Eugenics
Both the biohacking movement as well as the wider pro-drug use scene online have something in common: wealth.
We've known that for some time some of our most wealthy citizens embark on 'wellness retreats' to nations like Switzerland or Dubai to engage in experimental treatments.
Such treatments include:
Cellular revitalisation (where experimental cellular extracts supposedly stimulate 'regeneration').
Hormone therapy (where plant-derived hormones are given to improve energy and well-being).
NAD+ IV drips (These are intravenous infusions of Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide, a coenzyme). It is forced in high doses into one's bloodstream in an attempt to reverse ageing and improve mental clarity.
Many of these treatments are bespoke and highly personalised to 'your needs' to help overcome your body's inherent failings.
A number of these treatment centres have large social media followings and specifically partner with influencers who have young, impressionable fan bases.
Understanding the impact and mitigating harm
Obviously, the elephant in the room when discussing biohacking and looksmaxxing is eugenics. While eugenics originated and was popularised in America, the extent to which autistic people were negatively impacted by this philosophy is undeniable.
The message all of this content sends to our young people is disastrous, but for two differing reasons:
Experimenting with drugs is a net positive.
Your body needs fixing; it is wrong, and only through wealth can it be fixed.
A lot of this ties into the endless aspiration culture of the internet; a significant portion of the content our young people are consuming is based in what I call 'aspiration culture'. Aspiration culture equates signalling wealth to being successful and happy. While looksmaxxing as a concept is nothing new, the proliferation of content that espouses biohacking, steroid use, or extreme cosmetic procedures is increasing tenfold on our young people's algorithmically-driven feeds.
Much of this ties directly into the gendered way the modern internet ecosystem exists. A significant portion of the content that talks about biohacking or looksmaxxing is directed at young, vulnerable men. Because the beauty industry has already entirely capitalised on young women, young men and their insecurities represent a completely untapped market, both through content creation, upselling of supplements, or wealth-generation courses.
I believe a significant portion of young men who are consuming this content may have autistic traits. (We have stats to show that adjacent communities are showing higher proportions of autistic people.)
The language of the content relies on 'facts, logic, and processes'; this appeals to us as a community. If we are told that something is a deficit, then instinctively, we look for a logical process to fix it.
I believe we must have serious conversations with young people about this; media literacy workshops are more vital than ever.
But the single most important factor in delivering good media literacy workshops is that the content is relevant and current to our young people. We need to equip young people with the tools to understand that algorithms are designed entirely to manipulate them for the purpose of maximising view time.
The truth is that as the internet becomes increasingly splintered, where small echo chambers can regurgitate the same talking points indefinitely, we need to look for ways to A) understand these niche communities and B) create relevant training sessions for safeguarding professionals.
As always with the internet, this post is in part an advertisement; the irony is not lost on me, but nevertheless, allow me to plug my organisation.
10 Foot Training is a training provider focused on one thing: understanding and unpacking the internet and how our young people consume content online.
We deliver story-based, informative, bespoke workshops that equip young people, professionals, and parents/carers with the tools needed to make the internet a safer place and mitigate harm.
Thanks Ali