Over the past year, we have seen an increasing amount of attention given to nitazenes. A relatively unknown yet potent class of synthetic opioids first produced in the 1950s, nitazenes have recently resurfaced across multiple illegal markets around the globe. While stronger opiates being used to enhance the heroin market is nothing new, nitazenes were thrust into the British media spotlight when they were found to be connected to a spike in drug-related deaths in the north of England in 2023/4, as well as their widespread detection across various drug supplies as early as April 2021.
Given this rapid emergence and spread, media outlets play a key role in determining how nitazenes are understood by the nation.
Research by TalkingDrugs examined all articles that have been published on nitazenes in the past three years to understand how the British media has reported on them. This includes how they are presented in the media, who is interviewed, the type of language used and solutions proposed.
We collected a total of 91 articles from eight leading British media outlets (The Daily Mail, Metro, The Sun, The Telegraph, the BBC, the Daily Express, The Guardian, and the Daily Mirror), covering the period from January 2022 to August 2024.
Specific nitazenes mentioned
There are a large number of nitazenes around; the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has detected 42 unique nitazenes in the past five years, each with their own properties and potencies. However, in the stories we analysed, almost nine in ten made no references to specific nitazenes: only 13% of stories mentioned the exact substances involved in a death, seizure, or other event. This is most likely due to the lack of information on the exact nitazenes seized or involved in deaths. The Daily Mail was most likely to mention specific nitazenes, naming them in half of their articles.
While mentioning the specific nitazene involved may be useful to identify unique risks, Dr Caroline Copeland, Director of the National Programme on Substance Use Mortality, believes that just highlighting their danger is enough to get the message across.
“Because they’re so new, if you’re trying to get a harm reduction message out that using a nitazene is dangerous and a risky thing to be doing, then I’m not sure if it’s useful to know the specific one,” Copeland added.
Reported strengths of nitazenes
A serious concern around nitazenes is their potency compared with other substances on the market. As a family of drugs where only a few have been studied in clinical settings, very little is known about nitazenes’ effects in the real world. This is further complicated by the fact that their potency varies greatly, depending on what drug supplies they have been mixed into. Comparing nitazenes with other known substances can be useful to help people picture their relative potency – and, consequently, their potential risks.
Existing research studies suggest that nitazenes’ potencies vary greatly. The Lancet highlighted that metonitazene is around 50 times stronger than heroin (similar to fentanyl’s potency), whereas etonitazene is around 500 times stronger than heroin. American researchers, comparing various nitazenes to fentanyl, found a high degree of potency variability: isotonitazene was estimated to be five to nine times stronger; N-pyrrolidino etonitazenes were around 43 times stronger.
Research studies into nitazenes also fail to account for their real world potency. While nitazenes have contaminated multiple drug supplies, they are most often found in opioids, which are notoriously impure in the UK, sold with many adulterants or contaminants mixed in. In 2018, the average heroin purity was 46%; while no national data has been produced since then, data from regional drug detection services highlighted this is now between 23% to 26% in 2023.
Our research found that 46% of articles did not compare nitazenes with other drugs. In the 54% that did, heroin was the drug they were most frequently compared with (in 44% of cases), followed by fentanyl (31%) and morphine (25%).
There was a seemingly random association of nitazenes’ relative potencies: comparisons ranged from “10 times stronger” to “1,500 times stronger”. The most commonly used was “100 times stronger than X” (in 14 instances), with most comparing them to morphine.
Most sources used strength comparisons in no discernable pattern. The BBC was the outlet least likely to mention any strength: none were used in 72% of their collected articles. The Sun and The Telegraph, however, used comparative strengths in all their articles.
The two mentions of nitazenes being 1,500 stronger than anything (in this case, morphine) came from The Sun, quoting the mother of a victim of a nitazene overdose. This potency is practically unheard of; only one study from 2021 on etonitazene comes close, referring to its 1,000 fold potency compared to morphine.
Particularly with substances new to the public, comparisons can be a useful way to convey just how powerful they are. However, these claims must be grounded in reality to avoid exaggerating potential harms. The wide range of comparisons used to describe nitazenes underscores how little journalists understand about their potency. Claiming that an undefined nitazene is “1,500 times stronger than morphine” is exaggerating its harms, using a ludicrous number that only intensifies the panic around their presence.
“[The public] might not know what a nitazene is, but most people have heard of heroin and morphine; I’m guessing most people would think those are very strong drugs. So if you then start saying they’re 1,000 times stronger than that, you’ve got a moral panic on your hands,” Ian Hamilton, Honorary Professor of Addiction at York University, told TalkingDrugs.
On media’s description of high potencies, Copeland added: “There could be an element of scaremongering going on, but these compounds are so awful and horrible. I think that highlighting just how dangerous they are is really important.”
Sources prioritised by media
Our research was particularly focused on understanding who was given the opportunity to comment on nitazenes and therefore to shape public opinion on them.
On average, each story quoted two different voices. Police or Law Enforcement (LE) figures were quoted the most: they were cited 58 times, or roughly 25% of all interviews. All outlets quoted them at least once. The Telegraph had one LE source quoted in all their stories; they were followed by the Daily Mail, where 75% of articles had at least one LE voice. The Guardian and The Sun had the lowest percentages of LE quotes – 20% and 25%, respectively.
Government ministers or Members of Parliament (MPs) were quoted 54 times, or just under a quarter (23%) of all interviews. However, not all outlets quoted them: Metro, The Sun and The Telegraph didn’t mention them in any analysed story. Most Government quotes came from the BBC and the Daily Mail – 69% and 19% of all quotes, respectively. 88% of the BBC’s stories had at least one Government voice; this was closely followed by The Guardian (80%).
Drug treatment services and researchers and academics tied for third, with 32 interviews each, each representing approximately 14% of all quotes.
Excluding non-drug related charities (e.g., religious groups or homeless shelters), the least quoted sources across all stories were practicing doctors (6%), nitazenes’ victims (family members or friends of those that died from nitazenes; 9%) and people who use or sell nitazenes (9%).
The bottom four categories make up almost 25% of all sources – roughly equal to the proportion of LE quotes. Those directly impacted by nitazenes (victims and people using or selling them) only accounted for 18% of all voices platformed.
The implications of a law enforcement focus
Prioritising police and LE as the voice of authority on nitazenes – more important than policy makers, drug researchers or even those using nitazenes – normalises and reinforces the idea that they are the key experts on drug-related harms. While there is evidence that public trust in the police has dropped in the past few years, the media clearly still views them as the leading authority on drug-related issues.
Understanding new drugs and the challenges that they pose for society through a police or law enforcement lens will necessarily prioritise drug criminalisation. This is particularly concerning as public health experts have called for a new approach to dealing with nitazenes’ harms.
The Government is also complicit in legitimising LE’s role: their immediate action to address nitazenes’ harms was to schedule them as Class A substances in 2024 and increase punishments for their possession, an approach that further frames LE as essential to any nitazene-related solutions.
As is often the case with drug policy, those most impacted by nitazenes are given the smallest platform. Journalists are not maliciously excluding people who use drugs from stories; the speed of news and logistical challenges when contacting stigmatised groups are significant barriers. The consequences, however, are very real: research shows that those who use drugs are often silenced by the media. They are more often spoken about by others, referred to as “junkies” or “addicts” rather than given a chance to speak for themselves.
It is true that people who use drugs are often reluctant to share their experiences in the media; fears of misrepresentation or judgement are justified. This is further complicated by nitazenes’ presence in diverse drug supplies, meaning it is difficult – but not impossible – to identify those who are purposefully and knowingly using nitazenes.
Critically, deprioritising the voices of people who use nitazenes not only perpetuates misunderstandings and stigma, but also prevents them from participating in public discussions that will ultimately impact them the most. Platforming law enforcement and Government voices means that those who are criminalising nitazenes are given more opportunities to present their involvement as essential.
Sources of origin
Roughly 40% of articles explicitly mentioned a source of origin for nitazenes and how they entered Britain’s drug supply. 30% mentioned a large nitazenes factory seizure in North London which occurred in November 2023. The other 70% identified China as the source of origin, mostly mentioned in The Sun (100% of articles), The Telegraph (67%) and the Daily Mail (45%).
The BBC was the least likely to mention China as a source, only doing so in 17% of articles. This finding is especially interesting considering their investigation into nitazene sellers on SoundCloud in April 2024, one of the few investigations verifying Chinese nitazenes sales.
From Chinese pills potentially causing gang wars in the UK, or Chinese gangs seeking to take over global drug markets, we have seen articles increasingly highlighting their increasing role in international synthetic opioid trafficking. From fentanyl to nitazenes, what we see across the media is the portrayal of “China” – the nation itself – as the exporter of synthetic opioids to the West. Similar to what was seen during COVID-19, a lack of information about nitazenes and relative suspicions of China and Chinese intentions create a media environment that exacerbates fear and panic on emerging threats.
Solutions proposed
Another central component of our research was understanding what solutions – that is, suggested actions or actionable recommendations – were put forward by journalists or quoted sources.
Not all articles proposed solutions: around 21% of stories offered no actionable solutions, the majority coming from the Daily Mail (45% of their articles had no identifiable solution). The remaining articles offered 104 solutions that were grouped below.
Surprisingly, harm reduction solutions were the most commonly proposed, offered at least once by all outlets. The primary recommendations were for people to carry naloxone, not to use drugs alone, or to start with smaller doses – in order of frequency. Half of all Metro and The Sun articles offered harm reduction solutions; on the other end of the spectrum, only 10% of the Daily Mail offered harm reduction solutions. The Guardian had none, suggesting instead drug policy reform solutions.
The success of harm reduction messaging is very welcome; as Hamilton told TalkingDrugs, harm reduction messaging is often “not seen as sexy enough or important enough” by journalists, and usually doesn’t make it into the final published drafts. However, further research into the type of harm reduction messages used would give us a better understanding of the quality of harm reduction advice given.
For instance, many articles only suggested carrying naloxone, which is the most basic level of harm reduction messaging. While carrying and using naloxone is crucial, the state of drug markets, along with the lack of access to drug checking or safer use facilities are also exacerbating nitazene-related harms. These suggestions, unfortunately, were missing from the articles analysed.
Harm reduction solutions were followed by calls to raise awareness of nitazenes: this was mostly general, non-actionable advice highlighting the risks of consumption and how to identify opioid overdoses. All outlets (except The Guardian) employed these solutions, with The Telegraph using them in a third of analysed articles.
Media outlets differed in their law enforcement-led and criminalisation-oriented solutions: in 40% of their articles, the Daily Express recommended more police activity, like strengthened law enforcement and better targeting of criminals. Half of The Sun’s articles called for scheduling nitazenes as class A drugs, which the Government has implemented. Overall, prohibitionist solutions (more law enforcement, more drug criminalisation and abstinence from drug use) represented a third of all those suggested.
Solutions requiring drug policy reform (such as opening drug consumption rooms, expanding drug checking services, decriminalisation or the need for safe supply) were scarce: they represented about 7% of all solutions offered. 40% of The Guardian’s articles suggested them, followed by Metro (25%), The Sun (25%) and the BBC (10%).
Copeland, who published evidence of the need for drug policy reform to effectively deal with nitazenes’ harms, was not surprised with their low frequency in the media.
“I think all of those three things [DCRs, drug checking and safer supply] are quite controversial in terms of the UK’s approach to harm reduction,” she said, underscoring how many of these solutions are portrayed by the media as facilitating drug use rather than as harm reduction interventions.
“I think that for a lot of journalists, they don’t themselves necessarily quite understand the difference between the two, and that’s why they might be being under-reported,” she added.
The low number of reform-based solutions is reflective of the Government’s current approach to nitazenes; even the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs refrained from proposing such solutions when they issued their advice on nitazenes. The few times that reform-based solutions were presented in the media were when key experts proposed them. Nonetheless, other calls from public health experts to explore non-criminalising solutions have been largely omitted by media outlets.
Emotive language and metaphors
In a bid to understand how the media made judgments on nitazenes, we analysed articles to find instances of emotive or subjective language. Two-thirds (67%) of articles used no emotive language: the BBC and The Guardian were the least likely to use it – with 88% and 80% of their articles having no emotive language, respectively. In total, we identified 44 instances of emotive language (with some articles having more than one example).
The most common type of emotive language emphasised that nitazenes are having or will have catastrophic effects on the UK: this included nitazenes causing “drug-fuelled chaos”, an incoming “tsunami of deaths”, or that buying heroin is the same as “buying a bag of death”.
A common trend was comparing what has happened with fentanyl markets in the US with what the UK could become: some outlets claimed British streets would soon “resemble dystopian scenes”.
The Daily Mail and the Daily Express had the same number of instances of catastrophising language, making up half of all examples between themselves. Metro and The Guardian were the only sources to have no examples of this type of language. Only 5% of the BBC’s articles had catastrophising language, compared to 80% of the Daily Express articles.
There was a similar spread with pathologising language, which mostly included references to nitazenes as a “spreading epidemic”. The Telegraph, The Guardian and the Daily Mirror refrained from using this language, while the Daily Express had the highest frequency of use (in 60% of articles).
Fewer articles described nitazenes as sold by people “with no regard for life”, or “cash-hungry” dealers seeking to profit from misery.
What was particularly striking was the description of nitazenes as “frankenstein drugs” or creating “zombie-like addicts”. This seems to be the preferred term of description for nitazenes for certain outlets: all of The Sun’s articles on nitazenes describe them as “Frankenstein drugs”. However, only one article quotes a doctor calling them that.
With such a new class of substances in circulation, the media is free to decide how nitazenes will be constructed in the public sphere. This extremely pejorative language has been studied for how it stigmatises new drugs and the people who use them. While “zombies” portray people as mindless and deserving of death to protect society, frankenstein drugs construct drugs as monster-creating.
A key moment to shift public opinion
As Professor Bernard Cohen wrote over half a century ago, while the media cannot decide what people think, it can decide what people think about. The constant framing of nitazenes as an existential threat to Britain, compared to fentanyl in America or described as a “bag of death”, will create the right environment for punitive conditions. Law enforcement agencies, platformed more than any other voice, will use their opportunity to push for more drug prohibition and criminalising measures to contain this threat. And while harm reduction is understood as a key approach, other more progressive solutions – like creating drug consumption spaces or reforming drug laws – are still at the margins of public conversations. Those most impacted by these policies are not given the platform to voice their concerns.
While it may be true that journalists and the media are not intentionally or maliciously portraying those involved with nitazenes in a pejorative manner, they nevertheless end up amplifying certain narratives that exacerbate fears about new drugs and the people using them, rather than promoting effective solutions. Despite efforts to highlight alternatives to criminalisation and address fearmongering around new substances, solutions like drug policy reform are often crowded out in the media space.
Both Hamilton and Copeland underscored the importance of working with all media outlets to ensure that key messages on harm reduction and public safety are spread to the widest of audiences. New drugs like nitazenes will always be extensively covered; ensuring that well-meaning experts are able to speak with the media and offer harm reduction and reform-based alternatives is important to shift public opinion on drugs. At the same time, it’s important to understand that certain media outlets – like tabloids – have a long-standing history of perpetuating stigmatising views of people who use drugs.
There is an important balance that needs to be struck by experts providing their views on these stories: should they engage with potentially troubling media to ensure their message is spread, but risk having their views omitted or distorted?
With nitazenes spreading across the UK and beyond, media coverage will only continue to grow. With foresight and knowledge about how other substances have been portrayed in the media (like synthetic cannabinoids), we are in a key moment in time to shape how nitazenes will be popularly understood, and what kind of change they will create for British drug policy.
