Stewart M. Patrick

The Internationalist

Patrick assesses the future of world order, state sovereignty, and multilateral cooperation.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


Half-Baked: The UN’s Annual Global Drug Report

by Stewart M. Patrick
June 24, 2011

Drug addicts in Managua, Nicaragua (Oswaldo Rivas/ Courtesy Reuters).

On Thursday, the United Nations launched its annual World Drug Report. This year’s report comes four decades after President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs,” and fifty years since the United Nations established an Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to guide international policing of the drug trade.

The report highlights several important new trends in the international drug market. Understanding these trends will be vital for fighting the global drug trade, and addressing its spillover consequences.

Beyond killing over 200,000 people annually, the global drug trade bolsters corruption, entrenches organized crime, and enables terrorism around the globe. It undermines good governance, increases violence and political instability, and leads to carnage—like the extraordinary violence raging in Mexico.

Globally, illegal drug use appears to have stabilized. Approximately 210 million people, and 4.8 percent of the world’s population aged fifteen to sixty-four, used illicit substances in 2010, according to UNODC. Perhaps twenty-seven million of these fall into the category of “problem” users.

Heroin continues to ravage Russian society, prompting Moscow to potentially raise the issue of Afghan drugs to the UN Security Council as a threat to international peace and security. To meet growing European demand for cocaine South American narcotraffickers have turned West Africa into a major transit hub, undermining governance and security in already weak states (which I document in my new book Weak Links: Fragile States, Global Threats, and International Security.) At the same time, demand is soaring for new, synthetic psychotropic substances not yet under international control, including piperazine and cathinone.

A few highlights from the World Drug Report regarding better-known drugs:

  • A Slight Dip in Cocaine. Global coca cultivation has declined, thanks to an 18 percent reduction in Colombia since 2007 (offset only slightly by small increases in Peru and Bolivia). The United States remains the world’s biggest consumer of cocaine with consumption totaling $37 billion annually, despite slackening demand. Across the Atlantic, consumption is rising and the European market has swelled to $36 billion.
  • Steady Opium Production. In 2010, Afghanistan remained the overwhelming source of the world’s opium—disturbing after nearly ten years of U.S. and NATO presence there. For 2011, Russia’s Federal Service for Drug Control predicts “another record-breaking opium harvest” in Afghanistan. Although blight reduced the Afghan harvest in 2010, Burmese cultivation surged to make up the difference, rising from 5 to 12 percent of global production.
  • Pot remains the world’s drug of choice. Cannabis is by far the most widely produced and consumed illicit substance in the world. While marijuana production is widespread, notably in the Americas and Africa, cannabis resin production (hashish) continues to be concentrated in just two countries: Morocco, supplying Western Europe and North Africa; and Afghanistan, which supplies Southwest Asia. Given all the attention to Afghan heroin, it is shocking to learn that cannabis resin was a far more profitable crop than opium poppy in 2010 in Afghanistan.
  • Soaring production and trafficking in synthetic drugs. Over the past two decades, synthetic drugs have transformed  the landscape of illicit narcotics. These include amphetamine-type stimulants, and more recently synthetic cannabinoids (or “spice”) which mimic the psychotropic effects of marijuana. “The gains we have witnessed in the traditional drugs markets are being offset by a fashion for synthetic ‘designer drugs’ mimicking illegal substances,” says UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov.

A few caveats

UNODC’s figures need to treated with caution, as solid data on underground markets is hard to come by—after all, narcotraffickers do not publish quarterly reports for shareholders. UNODC figures are approximations, based on statistical estimation techniques and, when it comes to opium and coca, aerial surveys. Drug markets are also evolving, and increasingly include the abuse of designer drugs or prescription medicines, making it difficult to track fast-growing new markets

Furthermore, UNODC compiles data from informal sources and selective information provided by governments. Global coverage is uneven and the process creates ample opportunities for political manipulation or withholding of data.

The politicization of drug data is hardly limited to UNODC, of course. The State Department’s own International Country Narcotics Strategy Reports (INCSRs) are deeply influenced by diplomatic considerations. This is most obvious during the annual “certification” process when the president must assure Congress that each U.S. partner is fully committed to the “war on drugs”. The entire process has elements of kabuki theater, as I saw firsthand at the State Department several years ago: Friendly countries always seemed to receive leniency, while rogue states and U.S. antagonists got the scarlet letter: “failed demonstrably.”

Cause for reflection?

Fifty years into the global war on drugs, this year’s UNODC report paints a bleak picture. Drugs remain a global scourge with dangerous implications, and this year’s statistics show little reason for optimism. Even seemingly effective efforts to combat drugs can trigger unintended consequences. Too often, success in one region prefigures failure in another—drug traffickers and producers are resilient and mobile, demonstrating time and again their ability to find gaps in the international anti-drug regime.

While the World Drug Report shed important light on production and consumption patterns, it ignored some fundamental issues. Left undiscussed, for instance, was the larger question of whether the colossally expensive, global “war” on drugs is a productive approach. As Ethan Nadelman and many others have pointed out, a perverse consequence of global prohibition regimes is to artificially inflate profit margins— and incentives— to produce or traffic illicit commodities. Nor did the report signal any serious re-thinking of the dominant “source control” approach to curtailing illicit drugs. Rather than just documenting bad news, perhaps it is time for UNODC to revisit the assumptions undergirding the international community’s anti-drug strategy.

Post a Comment 3 Comments

  • Posted by David

    A god blog until you quote Ethan Nadelman without some qualification.

    Ethan is paid mouthpiece for the George Soros financed worldwide effort to legalise all drugs. Of course it will fail and Uncle George wastes vasts millions of dollars on it which could really do good in the world.

    I agree with you that just source control is not enough, determined efforts to stop youngsters starting using drugs and changing the culture are what is really needed.

    That is not what Ethan and George Soros want though. If Ethan got his way that would not stop ilegal traficking or crime, there is illegal traficking in many consumer goods especially in (legal) tobacco. Use-reinforcing substance legalised suits crime. Illegal trafickers and counterfeiters can always undercut legal business.

  • Posted by Richard Hode

    This was a weak article, Patrick. It is not as if the “classical” approach to drugs – prohibition – is the only game in town, but that is the only one you elaborate on, with a passing mention of Nadelman. “Perhaps it is time for UNODC to revisit [its] assumptions.” Perhaps it is, indeed.

    To quote a line so beloved by drug warriors, “Drugs aren’t bad because they’re illegal, drugs are illegal because they are bad.” If the evil effect of drugs on society is the driving force of this war, then why does the word “alcohol” not appear in your article, not even once? Surely marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol which is sold in grocery stores? Your selectivity is noted.

    But there is no point in trying to explain drug policy – I’m sure you are as aware as I of the hypocrisy and malignant greed on all levels that defines the war on drugs. Prohibition has failed to force compliance – how unsurprising. It seems that the elite was unable to prevail against the habits and customs of the people, in spite of the meanness and cruelty with which the war on drugs has been conducted. After all, even Shakespeare understood the futility of moralist drives: “And because thou art virtuous, shall there be no more cakes and ale?”

    The war on drugs is not designed to be “won,” but to serve as a continuing income generator for powerful interests in business, government, and finance, other than the drug cartels. It has achieved its goal – in fact, it has been a thunderous success. The exploitation and mis-government is appalling.

  • Posted by lina smeth

    Good website. All posts have a process to learn. Thank you for another important article.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required