The Alternative World Drug Report
Counting the Costs of the War on Drugs
June 2012
 The Alternative World Drug Report, launched to coincide with  publication of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime’s 2012 World Drug  Report, exposes the failure of governments and the UN to assess the  extraordinary costs of pursuing a global war on drugs, and calls for UN  member states to meaningfully count these costs and explore all the  alternatives.
The Alternative World Drug Report, launched to coincide with  publication of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime’s 2012 World Drug  Report, exposes the failure of governments and the UN to assess the  extraordinary costs of pursuing a global war on drugs, and calls for UN  member states to meaningfully count these costs and explore all the  alternatives.
 Download the report (PDF - outside link)
Download the report (PDF - outside link)
After 50 years of the current enforcement-led international drug control system, the war on drugs is coming under unparalleled scrutiny. Its goal was to create a "drug-free world". Instead, despite more than a trillion dollars spent fighting the war, according to the UNODC, illegal drugs are used by an estimated 270 million people and organised crime profits from a trade with an estimated turnover of over $330 billion a year – the world’s largest illegal commodity market.
In its 2008 World Drug Report, the UNODC acknowledged that choosing an enforcement-based approach was having a range of negative "unintended consequences", including: the creation of a vast criminal market, displacement of the illegal drugs trade to new areas, diversion of funding from health, and the stigmatisation of users.
It is unacceptable that neither the UN or its member governments have meaningfully assessed these unintended consequences to establish whether they outweigh the intended consequences of the current global drug control system, and that they are not documented in the UNODC’s flagship annual World Drug Report.
This groundbreaking Alternative World Drug Report fills this gap in government and UN evaluations by detailing the full range of negative impacts resulting from choosing an enforcement-led approach.


 
						


