Psychoactives

Public debates about psychoactive substances have traditionally been organized around the pharmacology of compounds and the institutional control of supply. In digitally mediated societies, however, the pathways through which people encounter psychoactives are increasingly informational: search engines, recommender systems, social platforms, and—distinctively—conversational AI. These systems do not merely deliver neutral facts. They rank, frame, personalize, and conversationally validate claims in ways that can shape perceived norms, acceptable risk thresholds, and willingness to seek help. This opinion advances the concept of AI-mediated exposure to capture how algorithmic curation and interactive dialogue become upstream determinants of psychoactive-related harms and benefits across the continuum from everyday medicines to non-medical use. From a social-scientific ethics perspective, the central question is not whether AI is “good” or “bad,” but what obligations apply when AI performs interpretive authority in contexts characterized by vulnerability, stigma, and unequal access to trusted expertise. The paper argues for an ethics-centered governance framework grounded in four commitments: epistemic responsibility (how claims are generated, warranted, and communicated), relational responsibility (how users are treated in moments of uncertainty, distress, and stigma), distributive justice (who benefits and who bears risk under unequal conditions), and accountability (how behavior is evaluated, contested, and corrected over time). The aim is to treat conversational AI as a public-facing institution whose design choices must be ethically legible and publicly contestable, oriented toward harm reduction without intensifying surveillance, moralization, or inequity.

Interest in psychoactive substances, including psychedelics, is rapidly expanding in medical, academic, and other popular fields. Despite the classifications established within the psychopharmacological scientific community, certain plants, animals, and fungi, as well as the substances obtained from them, have been misclassified by both the media and academic circles. This opinion piece aims to present arguments to answer the following question: Is CBD a non-psychoactive phytocannabinoid? Hundreds of robust scientific studies published in recent years involving CBD have strengthened its clinical use in the treatment of seizures, anxiety, psychosis, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and addiction. As part of the arguments to answer the question posed, this text provides a historical overview of the classifications of psychoactive substances available to date, and offers reflections on these terminologies and a proposed classification of psychedelics.

Cannabis is one of the most common intoxicants used worldwide. Cannabis is widely consumed worldwide and can lead to visual alterations. However, most of the available information on its effects comes from studies conducted in developed countries, while data remain limited in developing regions such as Morocco, despite its significant role in cannabis cultivation. The aim of this study was to explore multiple visual parameters and self-perceived eyesight in cannabis users in Morocco. A cross-sectional study was conducted between March 2022 and April 2023 in Marrakesh, Morocco, in cannabis consumers. Data collection was performed in two phases. First a hetero-administrated questionnaire was used to collect socio-demographics, intoxicant consumption habit information, and eye health information. Then, several visual acuity tests were performed, including a preliminary examination, a visual function assessment, and an eye health assessment. Ninety-five cannabis users participated in this study. The majority were single (62.1%) males (87.4%). All lived in the Marrakesh-Safi region (100%), and most had daily activities such as having a job or being a student (77.9%). Most had vision conditions like astigmatism or myopia (83.4%). The majority had multiple addictions (66.5%), mainly to tobacco (43.7%). Hashish was the main cannabis type used (57.9%), and smoked cannabis was the principal mode of consumption (94.7%). Many had a family history of cannabis addiction (58.9%). Day light sensitivity (66.3%) and appearance of eye symptoms after cannabis use (90.5%) were declared by the majority. In most cases, no impact on far or near vision or vision impairment due to cannabis use were declared. Our results showed that using cannabis could have significant adverse effects on visual functions.