World Drug Report 2006 - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>World</strong> <strong>Drug</strong> <strong>Report</strong> <strong>2006</strong> Volume 2. Statistics Indirect methods to measure problem drug use Treatment multiplier: If a survey among heroin addicts reveals, for instance, that one quarter of them was in treatment in the last year, the multiplication of the registered treatment population with a multiplier of four provides an estimate of the likely total number of problem heroin users in a country. Police data multiplier: Similarly, if a survey among heroin addicts reveals that one out of five addicts was arrested in the previous year, a multiplication of the persons arrested for heroin possession by the multiplier (five) provides another estimate for the number of heroin users. Establishing various multipliers and applying them to the registered drug using population, provides a range of likely estimates of the heroin abuse population in a country. Either the mid-point of the range, the median or the mean of these estimates can be subsequently used to arrive at a national estimate. Capture-recapture models are another method based on probability considerations, which can be undertaken without additional field research c . If in one register (e.g. arrest register) 5000 persons are found (for possession of heroin) and in a second register (e.g. treatment register) 2000 persons are found (for treatment of heroin abuse), and there are 400 persons who appear in both registries, it can be assumed that 20% (400/2000) of the drug addicts have been arrested, so that the total heroin addict population could be around 25,000 (5000/20%), five times larger than the total number of arrested heroin users. d Results can usually be improved if data from more than two registers are analysed (e.g. data from arrest register, treatment register, ambulance register, mortality register, substitution treatment register, HIV register etc). More sophisticated capture-recapture models exist, and are used by some advanced countries, in order to make calculations based on more than two registries. However, in order to arrive at reasonable orders of magnitude of the heroin problem in a particular country it is probably sufficient to calculate the various combinations shown above and subsequently report the mid-point, the median or the mean of the resulting estimates. Another interesting approach is the use of multivariate indicators. For this approach, a number of local/regional studies are conducted, using various multiplier and/or capture-recapture methods. Such local studies are usually far cheaper than comprehensive national studies. They serve as anchor points for the subsequent estimation procedures. The subsequent assumption is that drug abuse at the local level correlates with other data that are readily available. For instance, heroin arrest data, heroin treatment data, IDU related HIV data, etc. are likely to be higher in communities where heroin abuse is high and lower in communities where heroin abuse is low. In addition, heroin abuse may correlate with some readily available social indicators (higher levels in deprived areas than in affluent areas; higher levels in urban than in rural areas etc). Taking all of this additional information into account, results from the local studies are then extrapolated to the national level. c. Extrapolation methods used The methods used for these adjustments and extrapolations are best explained by providing a number of concrete examples: Adjustment for differences in the age groups: New Zealand, for instance, carried out a household survey in 2001, covering the population age 15-45. According to this survey, annual prevalence of ecstasy use was found to affect 3.4% of the population 15-45, equivalent to about 56,000 people. Given the strong association between ecstasy use and younger age groups it c Such methods were originally developed to estimate the size of animal population. If, for instance, 200 fish are caught (‘ capture’), marked, and released back into the lake, and then the next day 100 fish are caught, of which 10 were already marked (‘re-captured’), probability considerations suggest that the number of fish captured the first day were a 10% sample of the total population. Thus the total population of the lake can be estimated at around 2000 fish. d The advantage of this method is that no additional field research is necessary. There are, however, problems as the two ‘ sampling processes’ for the registries in practice are not independent from each other so that some of the underlying assumptions of the model may be violated (e.g. the ratio could be higher as some of the people arrested are likely to be transferred to a treatment facility; thus the ratio does not correspond any longer to the true proportion of people arrested among the addicts population, and may lead to an under-estimation of the total heroin addict population). 406
Methodology can be assumed that there is little ecstasy use in the 45+ age group. Thus, dividing the ecstasy using population established above by the age group 15-64 gives an estimated prevalence rate of 2.2%. The situation is slightly more complex when it comes to cocaine. The same approach for New Zealand would lower the annual cocaine prevalence rate from 0.6% of the population age 15-45 to 0.4% of the population age 15-64. In this case, however, it must be assumed that there are still some people above the age of 45 consuming cocaine. A rate of 0.4% is thus a minimum estimate. An alternative estimation approach is indicated. Thus, the relationship between cocaine consumption among the group of those age 15-45 and those age 15-64 in other countries was investigated. The finding was that the prevalence rate of cocaine use among those age 15-64 tends to be around 75% of the prevalence rate of those age 15-45. Instead of 0.4%, the cocaine prevalence rate in New Zealand has thus been estimated to affect 0.45% of the population age 15-64. Similar considerations were also used for the age-group adjustment of data from other countries. A number of countries reported prevalence rates for the age groups 15+ or 18+. In these cases it was generally assumed that there was no significant drug use above the age of 65. The number of drug users based on the population age 15+ (or age 18+) was thus simply shown as a proportion of the population age 15-64. Extrapolation of results from lifetime prevalence to annual prevalence Some countries have conducted surveys in recent years, but did not ask the question whether drug consumption took place over the last year. In such cases, results can be still extrapolated to arrive at annual prevalence estimates and reasonably good estimates can be expected. Taking data for life-time and annual prevalence of cocaine use in countries of Western Europe, for instance, it can be shown that there is a rather strong positive correlation between the two measures (correlation coefficient R = 0.94); i.e. the higher the life-time prevalence, the higher is, in general, annual prevalence and vice versa. Based on the resulting regression curve (y = 0.3736 * x - 0.0455 with y = annual prevalence and x = life-time prevalence) it can be estimated that a West European country with a life-time prevalence of 2% is likely to have an annual prevalence of around 0.7% (also see figure). Almost the same result is obtained by calculating the ratio of the unweighted annual prevalence rates of the West European countries and the unweighted life-time prevalence rate (0.93/2.61 = 0.356) and multiplying this ratio with the life-time prevalence of the country concerned (2% * 0.356 = 0.7%). Annual and lifetime prevalence rates of cocaine use in Western Europe 3.0 Data points annual prevalence in % of population age 15-64 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Regression curve y = 0.3736x - 0.0455 R = 0.94 R 2 = 0.880 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 life-time prevalence in % of population age 15-64 Sources: UNODC, Annual <strong>Report</strong>s Questionnaire Data / EMCDDA, Annual <strong>Report</strong> 2004. 407
Page 1:
2006 WORLD DRUG RE
Page 4 and 5:
The Office for <st
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Volume I. Analysis Preface
Page 9:
5. PRODUCTION
Page 13 and 14:
3.1. Production: Opium/heroin 3.1.1
Page 15 and 16:
3.1. Production: Opium/heroin Afgha
Page 17 and 18:
3.1. Production: Opium/heroin 215
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
3.1. Production: Opium/heroin Fact
Page 25 and 26:
3.1. Production: Opium/heroin Myanm
Page 27 and 28:
3.1. Production: Opium/heroin Opium
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
3.1. Production: Opium/heroin Lao P
Page 33 and 34:
3.1. Production: Opium/heroin Opium
Page 35 and 36:
3.1. Production: Opium/heroin <stro
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
3.1. Production: Opium/heroin 3.2.
Page 41 and 42:
3.2. Production : Coca/Cocaine 3.2.
Page 43 and 44:
3.2. Production : Coca/Cocaine Colo
Page 45 and 46:
3.2. Production : Coca/Cocaine 243
Page 47 and 48:
3.2. Production : Coca/Cocaine Colo
Page 49 and 50:
3.2. Production : Coca/Cocaine Fact
Page 51 and 52:
3.2. Production : Coca/Cocaine 249
Page 53 and 54:
3.2. Production : Coca/Cocaine Peru
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
3.2. Production : Coca/Cocaine Boli
Page 59 and 60:
3.2. Production : Coca/Cocaine Boli
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
3.3. Production: Cannabis 3.3. Cann
Page 65 and 66:
3.3. Production: Cannabis 263
Page 67 and 68:
3.4.. Production: Amphetamine-type
Page 69 and 70:
3.4.. Production: Amphetamine-type
Page 71 and 72:
3.5. Production: Other Drug
Page 73:
3.5. Production: Other Drug
Page 77 and 78:
4.1. Seizures: Opiates 4.1. Opiates
Page 79 and 80:
4.1. Seizures: Opiates Region/count
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
4.2 Seizures: Cocaine Region/countr
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
4.3. Seizures: Cannabis 4.3. Cannab
Page 113 and 114:
4.3. Seizures: Cannabis Region/coun
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
4.4. Seizures: ATS Region/country o
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158: 4.4. Seizures: ATS Region/country o
Page 163: 5. PRICES
Page 166 and 167: World Drug
Page 185 and 186: 6. Consumption 6.1. Consumption: An
Page 187 and 188: 6. Consumption 6.1.2. Cocaine COCAI
Page 189 and 190: 6. Consumption EUROPE CANNABIS Annu
Page 191 and 192: 6. Consumption AMPHETAMINES Annual
Page 193 and 194: 6. Consumption 6.2. Treatment deman
Page 195 and 196: 6. Consumption 6.2.3. Primary drugs
Page 197: 6. Consumption 6.2.5. Primary drugs
Page 201 and 202: Methodology Methodology Considerabl
Page 203 and 204: Methodology The use of the concept
Page 205 and 206: Methodology Sources and limitations
Page 207: Methodology substantially diverging
Page 211 and 212: Methodology country’s participati
Page 213 and 214: Methodology under-estimates are, mo
Page 215 and 216: Methodology Number of countries & t
Page 217 and 218: Methodology population of the count
Page 219 and 220: Printed in Slovakia June 20
show all

World Drug Report 2006 - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?