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 Estimates of annual prevalence of drug use at the global level in the late 1990s and in 2001-2003 240 6% million people 200 160 120 80 40 0 5.0% 200 185 180 4.0% 160.1 144.1146.2 0.6% 29.6 24.2 26.2 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 4.5 8.3 7.9 14.013.3 13.7 13.515.2 15.9 9.2 9.2 10.6 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% All drugs Cannabis Amphetamines Ecstasy Cocaine Opiates Heroin annual prevalence in % of population age 15-64 <strong>Drug</strong> users in the late 1990s (WDR 2000) <strong>Drug</strong> users in 2001/02 (WDR 2004) <strong>Drug</strong> users in 2003/04 (WDR 2005) What many countries do collect, however, is routine data such as number of persons arrested for drug abuse, urine testing of arrestees, number of persons undergoing drug treatment, or they monitor drug use based on school surveys. In addition, drug experts dealing on a regular basis with drug issues – even without having precise data at hand – often have a good feeling about whether use of certain drugs is increasing, stabilizing or declining in their constituency. This knowledge base is regularly tapped by UNODC. Member States usually pass the Annual <strong>Report</strong>s Questionnaire to drug experts in the country (often in the ministry of health) who provide UNODC with their perception, on a five-point scale, of whether there has been a ‘large increase’, ‘ some increase’, ‘ no great change’, some decrease’ or a ‘large decrease’ in the abuse of the various drugs over the past year. The perceptions may be influenced by a number of factors and partial information, including police reports on seizures and arrests, reports from drug treatment centres, reports from social workers, press reports, personal impressions, etc. Any of these influencing factors could contain a reporting bias which has the potential to skew the data towards a misleading increase or decrease. Prioritization of the drug issue is another factor which influences reporting. It can probably be assumed that the countries which reply regularly to the ARQ are those which take the drug problem more seriously. In a number of cases this is a consequence of rising levels of drug use and thus increased public awareness of the problem. All of this suggests that the sample of countries replying to the ARQs may be slightly biased towards countries faced with a deteriorating drug problem. Results must thus be treated with some caution and should not be over-interpreted. Despite these caveats, trend data provide interesting insights into the growth patterns of individual drugs as well as into regional and global growth patterns. They represent the most comprehensive data set of expert opinion available on the development of the drug abuse problem at the global level, provided in a consistent manner over more than a decade. 412
Methodology Number of countries & territories reporting drug use trends to UNODC 120 100 3 18 80 60 40 20 52 64 69 73 69 78 74 87 63 96 98 99 96 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 number of countries 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ARQ Other sources Source: UNODC, Annual <strong>Report</strong>s Questionnaire Data Replies to the Annual <strong>Report</strong> Questionnaire (ARQ) on trends in drug use are more comprehensive than on estimating the number of drug users. The analysis on drug use trends for the year 2004 was based on the replies of 96 countries and areas, about the same number as a year earlier (99), up from 52 countries and areas in 1992. Including information gathered from other sources (Government reports, UNODC Field <strong>Office</strong>s, UNODC’s <strong>Drug</strong> Abuse Information Network for Asia and the Pacific (DAINAP), EMCDDA, CICAD, HONLEA reports and local studies) trend data from 114 countries and areas from the basis for the subsequent analysis. The distribution of countries reporting in 2004 was roughly the same as in previous years and provides a reasonably good coverage across all regions. Regional distribution of reports received on drug use trends for the years 2002-2004 Number of countries 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 21 21 24 36 33 33 32 31 27 18 13 20 5 0 2 2 1 Africa Asia Europe Americas Oceania Countries reporting drug use trends in 2002 Countries reporting drug use trends in 2003 Countries reporting drug use trends in 2004 . Source: UNODC, Annual <strong>Report</strong>s Questionnaire Data. 413
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:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
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 and 208: Methodology substantially diverging
Page 209 and 210: Methodology can be assumed that the
Page 211 and 212: Methodology country’s participati
Page 213: Methodology under-estimates are, mo
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?