From an unexpected conversation with some younger people not long ago (though not this young), they may have just switched to LSD.
Which is not to say that LSD can't potentially be harmful. Of course it can. But it's not very analogous to the typically destructive drugs (alcohol, amphetamines, strong opiates) and it's not going to mess with your dopamine the way they do.
My personal take is that the net social impact is positive for alcohol, marijuana, hallucinogens, and maybe some of the party drugs. For most people, they tend to be a social lubricant, tool for exploration, and source of fun.
I think that smartphone use probably balances out negatively. I think for most people, they have a pretty severe negative impact on their lives, and for some, an extremely negative impact.
The worst outcomes for drug use are probably worse than those for smartphones, but not by too much in my opinion.
Social media usage on the other hand has been normalized and now humanity's social fabric is in the control of a few companies who are happy to rent it out to the highest bidder. This has obvious implications regarding democracy, surveillance, misinformation, etc.
From a society perspective, I'll take substance/alcohol abuse any day because it appears to be self-regulating at a level that while is higher than we'd like, is much lower than what it takes to destabilize society and democracy.
And those should learn something from Syd Barret's life
Could had been a millionaire rock star, women, expensive toys, children. He could had everything for the rest of his life. But he choose LSD. As a lot of people claim, LSD is a cool and harmless funny drug, right?.
His life instead was: living in his mum house since 24 Yo, with his brain like a car crash, and all the time in the world to think on his boy room about how he managed to mess up his life so badly.
So thanks, but no way.
Besides if anything I'd say current generations have less trauma to avoid so they're more likely to use it than past generations.
Those that can, do not agree that LSD was causative.
Syd was not the only person doing LSD in the 1960s, and if your argument boils down to "people with life-long major neurodivergence, who are living multiple years of extraordinarily stressful life, should not do huge amounts of psychedelic drugs" ... then OK! That's a good rule of thumb!
But the vast majority of people are not latent schizophrenics. And the vast majority of drug users could not approach Syd's consumption in quantity or duration.
So an argument from the same data is that occasional or even moderate use of LSD by almost every adult human, is perfectly safe.
...
Reframed: Every adult can make their own decisions about their personal level of risk tolerance. Hopefully the decision will be an informed one. Syd Barrett can be a huge terrifying red flag, or a bright illuminating green light, depending on the decisions you've made.
On one extreme of risk tolerance, you'd never leave the house. On the other extreme, (with some bad luck, some excellent luck, and a great deal of effort and resources!) you might approach Syd Barrett's lifestyle. Neither extreme is appropriate for most people.