UNODC’s ‘World Drug Report’

UNODC World Drug Report Press Release Response

Axel Klein and Simon Howell

 

Each year since 1997 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has been publishing data on illegal drugs as provided by member states. From such unpromising beginnings has grown a publishing phenomenon, the World Drug Report, spread over three volumes and multiple supplements (seven at the last count), launched annually at the Vienna Offices of the UN. Dressed in the garb of science with an advisory board, bibliography, notes on methodology, charts and formulars it presents as a ‘reference document, for policy makers, health and justice practitioners, and media commentators. The main objective is to keep drugs on the policy agenda via that most delicate of balancing acts- demonstrating that concerted action has been successful while drawing attention to emerging threats to underline the need of continuous engagement. At heart, the WDR is a lobbying tool, and the academic format serves the dual purpose of presenting a complex set of problems plus the competence of…, well, UNODC.

In the pursuit of complexity, alas, academic ambition is relegated. Efforts to find drivers, impacts, assess the results of policies hitherto, are therefore replaced by a listing of problems. No space, then, to point out that the causes of one problem (spread of infectious diseases due to increasing needle sharing) may be the consequences of another (ban on sale of drug ‘paraphernalia’). Establishing  the causal relations between distinct phenomenon is beyond the WDR’s remit because Complexity lies primarily in the volume of information, not in any depth of analysis. Objectivity, is achieved by setting strong boundaries to any one issue, which also feeds into the production of quantitative data – number of arrests or overdose deaths, acreage of cultivated land destroyed, purity of drugs seized etc. Neither complex nor objective, the WDR employs science to spin a fantasy – the global drug problem.

And full credit to the communications team! Across the world reputable news agency circulate the headline stories helpfully presented in the UNODC press release. Drugs remain topical, and attention is drawn to emerging issues, say an increase in opium production leading to a drop in prices and rising consumption. And since memories are short, a few years on could be how falling production leads to a crime wave triggered by rising heroin prices. Protean and multi headed, the drug problem continues and with it the need for interventions by expert agencies like… well, UNODC. Promoting the firm is the key purpose of the document.  While all efforts to lend it scientific rigor to the production may lift data quality and presentation, but comes at the price of helping a promotion tool set a policy agenda.

The dilemma for the authors and contributors lies in the inability to name prohibition as a causal factor crime, addiction, terrorism or ecological devastation. Nor can there be a re-assessment of drugs and what they constitute as these are enshrined in international law. The platform that enables the agency to collect the full array of data from across the world, also prevents it from making constructive use thereof.

As seasoned UNODC watchers we therefore admire the professionalism and diplomacy with which the publication team put together this massive document every year without drawing the ire of any major member states. But most of all we applaud the creativity with which the world drug problem continues to shock, scare and tax, year after year. As with all good works of crime fiction much depends on atmosphere, conjured by a wealth of detail, and character. And drugs, foremost the dreaded trio of Opium, Coca and Cannabis, with their many synthetic derivates and analogues, fit admirably into the role of villain. Our hero is UNODC, who, Virgil like, accompany the reader on her journey into overlapping circles of the druggy underworld.

This year six stories were served up in the press release. As part of the parabular charm, each tale is a complete item, no inter linkages are made between the stories. This way allows the drug problem appears simultaneously exotic as well right in our midst. Superb examples of the imaginary prowess and literary talent recruited to the Vienna office these stated concerns deserve a closer look:

 

Concern 1: ‘Drug trafficking is empowering organized crime groups’

 

The press release continues to advocate for global drug control measures, emphasising the need to curb drug use and trafficking. Interestingly, it also subtly acknowledges that these measures have resulted in significant collateral damage – environmental degradation, increased violence, and social instability in drug-producing regions, such as the Golden Triangle and Afghanistan, for instance. This however also presents a contradiction when read in conjunction with the WDRs somewhat newfound concern with harm reduction: the very policies intended to reduce harm are contributing to severe socio-economic and environmental issues in a number of countries. Ironically then by continuing to push for stricter controls without addressing these adverse outcomes, the UNODC’s approach risks perpetuating a cycle of harm, raising questions about the efficacy and ethics of the current global drug control framework.

The critical concern here lies in the fact that the report does not reconcile this contradiction. While it points out the negative consequences of drug production and trafficking, it fails to acknowledge that these are often exacerbated by the prohibitionist policies the UNODC itself supports. This creates an inherent tension between the goals of reducing drug-related harm and the actual outcomes of the enforcement measures advocated, which are invariably harmful to both people and the planet.

 

Concern 2: ‘Consequences of cocaine surge’

 

The report notes that despite intensified efforts to control the production and trafficking of cocaine, the global market has continued to expand significantly. This situation presents a paradox: the more resources and efforts are allocated to suppressing the cocaine trade, the larger and more resilient the market appears to become. This could indicate that current control measures are not only ineffective but may be creating the very environment in which the cocaine trade is enabled. By entering into an ‘arms race’ with traffickers, enforcement efforts have the unintended consequences of making it more sophisticated, which in turn makes it harder to police, thus inadvertently facilitating the proliferation of cocaine rather than curbing it. All of this is furthermore based on the archaic albeit implicit notion that illegal drugs can somehow be ‘eliminated’ from society. The absolute failure of the ‘war on drugs’ repeatedly showed this not to be possible, and yet there remains the impetuous to do so at this level.

This tension has been seen innumerable times before, not only raising questions about the effectiveness of the current global strategy, but also why it continues to be pursued. The report does not fully reconcile how increased control measures can coexist with a thriving market, nor does it propose a significant shift in strategy to address this apparent failure. Instead, it suggests more of the same, implying a cyclical problem that current policies cannot adequately solve.

 

Concern 3: ‘Impact of cannabis legalization’

 

The UNODC’s discussion on cannabis legalisation aims to show the potential risks associated with regulatory efforts, particularly in terms of increased consumption of high potency THC-related products and mental health. Such risks and dangers are important considerations in any decriminalisation or legalisation strategy, and rightly so, ought to underpin and inform any regulatory attempts. However, in highlighting the risks, no consideration is giving to the potential benefits.

Regulated markets eliminate all violence associated with illegal drug trafficking, massively improve consumer safety through quality control, and generate tax revenue. The UNODC characterisation cannot paint a more nuanced picture precisely because regulation is irreconcilable with the prohibitionist axiom on which the entire drug apparatus is based and from where the report is produced.

The failure to engage with these potential benefits furthermore reveals a bias in the UNODC’s stance, which appears to prioritise the perceived dangers of legalisation over the evidence of its positive outcomes in certain jurisdictions. This selective acknowledgment of facts serves to undermine the credibility of the UNODC’s position, as it does not provide a balanced view that considers both the risks and benefits of cannabis legalisation. Furthermore, this approach may hinder the development of more nuanced policies that could effectively manage the risk and reward, aiming to encourage positive feedback loops in which regulation sustains effective risk mitigation, rather than using risk mitigation as a justification to sustain the negative feedback loops that have haunted enforcement-type responses since their inception.

 

Concern 4: ‘Psychedelic “renaissance” encourages broad access to psychedelics’

 

The UNODC’s stance on the so-called ‘psychedelic renaissance’ reflects a theatrical warning of the risks associated with the unsupervised use of psychedelics. This caution, on the one hand, stands in contrast to the growing body of research indicating the therapeutic potential of psychedelics in treating mental health conditions such as depression, PTSD, and anxiety. On the other, the idea of a ‘renaissance’ implicitly justifies the need for renewed regulatory efforts against psychedelics, thus further justifying the need for WDRs and indeed the UNODC as an international body. A ‘renaissance’ furthermore invokes a well-worn strategy of fear mongering rhetoric in place of proper scientific research.

This cautious approach could be seen as overly conservative, potentially hindering the development of new, effective treatments for mental health issues. The contradiction lies in the UNODC’s acknowledgment of the potential therapeutic benefits of psychedelics while simultaneously advocating for stringent controls that could limit access to these benefits. Indeed, that a self-styled scientific report fails to consider the scientific evidence on a topic, instead drawing on a body of self-reported data from competing sources smacks in the face of the most basic of scientific principles. A more balanced stance might involve supporting controlled research and clinical trials while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place, rather than a blanket caution that could delay scientific and medical advancements.

 

Concern 5: ‘Implications of opium ban in Afghanistan’

 

The press release expresses significant concern over the rise of potent synthetic opioids, such as nitazenes, the use of which has become more prevalent beyond its regulatory and pharmacological uses. The UNODC warns of the dangers these substances pose, particularly their potential to cause widespread harm due to their potency. Indeed, this is entirely understandable, and their unregulated use does indeed pose significant risks to those who come into contact with them.

However, the UNODC conveniently forget that the very reason there have been an increase in the unrestricted use of increasingly dangerous opioids is a direct consequence of the very stance they advocate for more broadly. Restrictive opioid policies, aimed at curbing the misuse of prescription opioids, have inadvertently created and sustained the very market in which the use of increasingly potent opioids becomes possible and realistic.

As such, the tension here lies in advocating for continued restrictive measures of drug regulation without acknowledging the role these measures have had in driving the demand for more dangerous substances. By focusing solely on the symptoms (i.e., the emergence of potent synthetics) and not the root causes (such as the impact of restrictive policies on opioid availability), the UNODC’s approach is not only superficial but by their own admission, dangerous. A more comprehensive critique would call for a re-evaluation of opioid policies, potentially advocating for harm reduction strategies that address the demand for opioids without pushing users toward more dangerous alternatives.

 

Concern 6: ‘Right to health for people who use drugs’

 

The press release should be commended for highlighting the importance of protecting the right to health for drug users, recognizing the need for access to healthcare and support services. However, the emerging focus on health rights contrasts sharply with the continued advocacy for punitive measures against drug offenses. While these positions are not irreconcilable, the underlying intentions often are. Criminalization often exacerbates health crises among drug-using populations by driving them away from healthcare system and into the margins of society, where they are more vulnerable to disease, violence, and death. Health rights systems attempt to reverse this. This is not to say that these systems of regulation are not compatible with one another – far from it – but ultimately hinge on a deeper concern with the way in which drug use is viewed.

This contradiction reflects a broader issue found not only in the WDRs, but within global drug policy: the difficulty of reconciling the goal of protecting public health with the punitive approach that continues to underpin current enforcement strategies. The press release does not fully address how punitive measures can undermine the right to health by criminalising individuals who are already vulnerable, thereby exacerbating their health problems rather than alleviating them.