IAOS-OECD conference "Better statistics for better lives",19-21 September 2018, Paris. More information at: http://www.oecd.org/IAOS2018/

1. What Statistics are Needed
for Better Drug Policies?
Dr John Collins (@JCollinsIDPU)
Executive Director, LSE International Drug Policy Unit (@LSEIDPU)
Fellow, LSE US Centre (@LSE_US)
Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Yale Centre for the Study of Globalization

2. • Part I: International Trajectories
• Part II: What we know.
• Part III: Applying it to national and international policies:
• The SDGs as a coherence mechanism.
• Part IV: Recommendations.

3. Part I
International Trajectories

4. What is the International System?
• Twin strands:
• Regulation
• Prohibition
• Like all regulatory systems?
• Regulatory ‘core’:
• International mechanism for managing trade and regulation of problematic substances.
• Prohibitionist aspects:
• Attempting to standardise national regulations.
• Establish prohibitions of certain uses as preferred policy framework.
• What is the “War on Drugs”:
• Extreme and symmetrical implementation of the prohibitionist strand.
• Can it be rolled back?

5. • “We examined the international treaties and believe there is nothing
in them which mandates a ”war on drugs””.
• Fragmentation of International control post-UNGASS 2016.
• Desire for “evidence-based drug policy” – but what evidence of what?
• Conservative states vs. harm reduction states vs. liberalizing states.
• Producer & transit countries vs. consumer countries

6. • Assume system will evolve around ‘tensions’.
• Interpretive shifts  expanding scope.
• Focusing on areas of agreement: regulation of trade.
• Deprioritising areas of disagreement: local regulatory choices within limits.
• Deference to broader international agreements:
• International human rights law.
• The SDGs

7. Part II
What we Know

8. Demand Side:
• Prescription Based Policy: Expanding Public Health.
• Finding policy frontiers
•  Pushing forward:
• Advanced consumer countries: embedding and improving policies beyond
criminalisation.
• Developing countries: removing criminalisation of drug using populations and
focusing on public health services.
• No correlation between criminalisation & Consumption
• Criminalisation  ↑ harm & ↑ Barriers/costs of social services.
• Ireland as example of working with countries where they are.

9. LSE Knowledge Exchange and Impact
(KEI)

10. Supply Side?
• Proscription Based Policy:
• Stop doing what doesn’t work.
• Prioritise development interventions.
• Innovation as key.
• Shift from Symmetrical Enforcement Strategies  Asymmetrical.
• Policy experimentation.

11. What Does Prohibition Do? Aggregate Level.
• Can’t eradicate market.
• Can’t shrink supply or demand. BUT:
• Prohibition makes drugs very expensive therefore reduces aggregate
consumption.
• Caulkins (2014)
• Comparator markups: % increase over export (retail, Single serving).
• Coffee: 635%
• Silver: 9%
• Prohibition markups:
• Cocaine: 6427%
• Cannabis Resin: 1047%
• Heroin: 3745%
• “does not apply to producer and transit countries”.

12. Marginal Supply Interventions
• Assumption:
• D = f(inelasticity: addictive; pleasurable; luxury goods).
• S = f(renewable; global commodity chain; price sensitive)
• Market dynamics:
• E1: D = k; Supply --> Price  Supply  Price  E2
• E2 = E1: i.e. zero effect; high costs.
• Interdiction and eradication:
• Displacement: “Balloon effect”.
• Political Economy Effects.
• Zero marginal efficacy (Reuter and Pollack, 2014).
• ‘Classical assumption’ of WOD.
• i.e. return on marginal investment nil:
• Policy implications?

13. Part III
Steps Forward: The SDGs as a Drug Policy Coherence Mechanism

14. Role of SDGs
• Add coherence to policy discussions:
• Incorporates broader frameworks:
• Vulnerabilities; territoriality; poverty; livelihoods; sustainability etc.
• Allows drug control to remain a core part of international coordination.
• BUT, one part and subservient to: Human rights & SDGs.
• i.e. not read in isolation from SDGs.

16. Implementation as Key
• Role: incremental process of policy design, implementation support and
evaluation.
• Without implementation, international rhetoric remain just that.
• E.g. of WPS. Res. 1325.
• Diplomatic processes risk being mistaken as ends rather than functional tools.

17. A New Paradigm
• ‘Development Oriented Drug Policy’:
1. AD.
2. Urban Setting.
3. Sustainable Development.
• SDGs as key to enabling?
• Bring drug policy to SDGs
• Bring SDGs to drug policy

18. Part IV
Recommendations.

19. LSE Expert Group 2016 Recommendations:
1. Prioritise Development (SDGs), not drug control goals.
1. E.g. Colombia.
2. Expand public health, inc. harm reduction
3. Apply principles of harm minimisation to supply-side.
1. management of illicit markets.
2. Shift from market eradication
3. Use SDGs, its targets, metrics and indicators.
4. Utilise conventions flexibilities.
1. Rigorously monitored social scientific policy experimentation,
2. Conforming to strict public health and human rights principles.

20. Overall M&E mechanisms needed quantifying
how to better:
• Contain Supply and Consumption
• Minimise the harms of consumption
• Minimise the harms of drug policy
• Minimise the harms of illicit markets
• Experiment with regulated markets – Minimising population level harms
• Focus on price effects
• Move beyond prohibitionist framework
• Experiment with policies
• Adopt, Learn, adapt, improve new policies
• Manage international drug issues

21. Thank you!
j.collins@lse.ac.uk
Lse.ac.uk/drugpolicy