3. Statistical Annex Production
3.1.3 Colombia
Fact sheet – Coca Survey 20081
2007
Change on 2007
2008
-18%
+15%
-11%
-34%
-38%
-44%
81,000 ha
29,920 ha
18,730 ha
13,960 ha
12,150 ha
6,200 ha
600 mt
-28%
430 mt
Average farm-gate price of coca paste
US$ 943/kg
COP 1,959,000/kg
+2%
-4%
US$ 963/kg
COP 1,887,855/kg
Average wholesale price of cocaine*
US$ 2,198/kg
COP 4,567,000/kg
+7%
0%
US$ 2,348/kg
COP 4,580,000/kg
US$ 934 million
- 53%
US$ 441 million
Net coca cultivation (rounded total)
Of which in Pacific region
Central region
Putumayo-Caquetá region
Meta-Guaviare region
elsewhere
Potential production of cocaine
Total farm-gate value of the production of
coca leaf and its derivatives
in per cent of GDP
in per cent of agricultural sector
99,000
25,960
20,950
21,130
19,690
11,170
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
0.5%
5%
0.3%
2%
Reported aerial spraying of coca bush*
153,134 ha
-13%
133,496 ha
Reported manual eradication of coca bush*
66,805 ha
+43%
95,634 ha
Reported seizure of cocaine*
126,641 kg
+63%
206,100 kg
2,360
-6%
2,207
Reported destruction of coca processing
laboratories*
Of which cocaine HCl processing lab.
265
636
Reported opium poppy cultivation*
714 ha
-45%
394 ha
Potential opium latex production
34 mt*
n.a.
31 mt**
Potential heroin production (rounded)
1.4 mt*
n.a.
1.3 mt**
US$ 286/kg
+11%
US$ 318/kg
US$ 10,780/kg
-8%
US$ 9,950/kg
Average farm-gate price of opium latex
Average heroin price
Reported seizure of heroin
537 kg
696 kg
* As reported by the Government of Colombia. Figures for 2008 are preliminary.
** Own calculations based on regional yield figures and conversion ratios from US Department of State.1
1
The information in this section comes from the report on Coca Cultivation in Colombia (UNODC/Government of Colombia, June 2009), and can
also be found on the internet (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crop-monitoring/index.html). Source unless otherwise indicated: National monitoring system supported by UNODC.
197
World Drug Report 2009
Colombia, Coca cultivation and reported eradication/spraying (ha), 1994-2008
Sources: Cultivation: 1994-1998: CICAD and US Department of State, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report; since 1999:
National Illicit Crop Monitoring System supported by UNODC; eradication/spraying: Government of Colombia.
200,000
180,000
160,000
Hectares
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Net coca cultivation area (end of year figure)
2001
2002
2003
2004
Spraying (cumul.)
2005
2006
2007
2008
M anual eradication
Cultivation and eradication
In 2008, the area under coca cultivation decreased by
18% to 81,000 ha, roughly the same level as in 2006.
Most of the decrease of 18,000 ha took place in the
regions of Meta-Guaviare, Putumayo-Caquetá and Orinoco. On the other hand, a significant increase was
observed in the Pacific region as well as in some smaller
cultivation regions. Thus, the Pacific region remained
the region with the largest area under coca cultivation,
with just below 30,000 ha or 38% of the total area, followed by the Central region (23%), Putumayo-Caquetá
(17%) and Meta-Guaviare (15%).
The Colombian authorities continued to intensify
manual eradication activities, which increased by 43%
and reached a record high of 95,634 ha in 2008. In the
Departments of Putumayo and Antioquía (Central
region) alone, 30,834 ha and 19,366 ha were eradicated,
respectively. In addition, in 2008, more than 133,000 ha
of coca bush were sprayed in 14 Departments. Most
spraying took place in the Department of Nariño (Pacific
region), where over 54,000 ha were sprayed, followed by
Guaviare, Putumayo, Caquetá and Antioquía.
Colombia, coca cultivation by region, 2008
Source: National Illicit Crop Monitoring System supported by UNODC
A mazonia
2,020 ha, 2%
Orinoco
3,620 ha, 4%
Sierra Nevada
560 ha, 1%
M eta-Guaviare
12,150 ha, 15%
Central
18,730 ha, 23%
Pacific
29,920 ha, 38%
Putumayo-Caquetá,
13,960 ha, 17%
198
3. Statistical Annex Production
Colombia, potential cocaine production (mt), 1994-2008
Note: Cocaine production estimates for 2004 and later are not directly comparable with previous years.
Sources: see Table 5 Global illicit cultivation of coca bush and production of coca leaf and cocaine.
800
700
Metric tons
600
500
400
300
200
100
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
201
230
300
350
435
680
695
617
580
550
640
640
610
600
430
UNODC’s monitoring of coca leaf prices in Colombia
is not yet fully developed and the availability of monthly
average farm-gate prices differs from region to region
and over the course of a year. Thus, small-scale price
changes should be interpreted with caution. Farm-gate
prices are also thought to be influenced by armed groups
who are able to control prices in their region of influence.
Farm-gate prices in Colombian pesos (COP) for coca
leaf and derivatives changed little in 2008 compared to
2007. Over the last three years, farm-gate prices for coca
leaf and paste were decreasing, despite higher costs of
agricultural inputs and precursors necessary for producing coca paste. On average, the per kilo price of fresh
coca leaf decreased from COP 2,400/kg or US$ 1.2/kg
in 2007 to COP 2,200/kg or US$ 1.1/kg in 2008.
Farm-gate prices of coca paste have seemed relatively
2000
1500
1000
500
Jan-08
Jan-07
Jan-06
Jan-05
Jan-04
0
Jan-03
Prices for coca leaf, cocaine and opium
2500
Jan-02
In 2008, the potential cocaine production in Colombia
was estimated at 430 mt, much lower than in any of the
four preceding years for which comparable data is available. The reduction in potential cocaine production
(-28%) was more pronounced than the decrease in area
under coca cultivation (-18%). Among other reasons,
this was due to strong area decreases in some of the main
coca cultivation regions (Meta-Guaviare, PutumayoCaquetá and Orinoco), which were only partly counterbalanced by area increases in Pacific and other regions
with average or below average yields. Lower coca leaf
yields in Meta-Guaviare and Putumayo-Caquetá also
contributed to the overall reduction in potential cocaine
production.
Colombia, monthly farm-gate prices of coca
paste ('000 COP/kg), Jan. 2000 to Dec. 2008
Jan-01
Production
Jan-00
Production
1994
'000 Colombian pesos/kg
0
No data
A verage coca paste price ('000 COP/kg)
stable or slightly declining since 2004. Regional price
averages ranged between a maximum of COP 2,056,000/
kg in the Central region and a minimum of COP
1,714,583/kg in the Pacific region. In 2007, both the
regional maximum and minimum prices were slightly
higher with a maximum of 2,121,107/kg observed in
the Central region and the minimum at COP 1,772,677/
kg in the Putumayo-Caquetá region.
Coca leaf, which in Colombia is sold as fresh leaf (not
sun-dried as in Bolivia and Peru), and coca paste, which
many farmers in Colombia produce on the farm, are
traded in Colombian pesos. Cocaine at the wholesale
level, however, is thought to be traded mainly in US
dollars. Wholesale prices of cocaine in Colombian cities
199
World Drug Report 2009
Colombia, annual wholesale prices of cocaine HCl (US$/kg and '000 COP/kg), 1991-2008
Note: Prices of unknown purity in major cities of Colombia. Source: Colombian Directorate of Anti-Narcotics (DIRAN).
5,000
4,500
4,000
Price per kg
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Cocaine HCl ('000 COP/kg)
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
0
Cocaine HCl (US$/kg)
increased by 7% in US dollar terms from US$ 2,198/kg
in 2007 to US$ 2,348/kg in 2008. In Colombian peso
terms, however, prices did practically not change, due to
a stronger peso.
The trend of increasing farm-gate prices observed since
2004 in both US dollar and Colombian peso terms for
opium latex continued in 2008. However, wholesale
prices for heroin decreased compared to 2007. According to reports of the Government of Colombia, the area
under opium poppy cultivation shrank to a few hundred
hectares.
Colombia, farm-gate opium latex prices,
2002-2008
Colombia, farm-gate wholesale heroin prices,
2002-2008
Source: DIRAN
Source: DIRAN
700
25,000
20,000
500
Heroin/kg
Opium latex/kg
600
400
300
200
100
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
200
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Opium latex
('000 COP/kg)
529
444
433
534
593
591
612
Heroin ('000 21370 16561 20067 21051 23822 22294 19560
COP/kg)
Opium latex
(US$/kg)
211
154
164
230
251
286
318
Heroin
(US$/kg)
8520 5740 7635 9070 10103 10780 9950
World Drug Report 2009
3.1.4 Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Fact Sheet – Lao PDR Opium Survey 20081
2007
Change on 2007
2008
1,500 ha
(1,230-1,860 ha)
+7%
1,600 ha
(711-2,687 ha)
Average dry opium yield
6 kg/ha
-
6 kg/ha3
Potential production of dry opium
9.0 mt
+7%
9.6 mt
US$ 974/kg
+26%
US$ 1,227/kg
Eradication5
779 ha
-26%
575 ha
Number of new opium addicts
7,700
-36%
4,9066
Average drug prevalence rate (in northern Lao PDR)
0.30%
Opium poppy cultivation2
Average retail/wholesale price of opium4
Cultivation and eradication
According to Government reports, eradication took
place on 575 ha (during or after the helicopter survey).
In the majority of cases, eradication took place when
opium harvesting was already underway. The largest area
eradicated was in Phongsaly where 310 ha or 54% of the
total eradication was undertaken, followed by Huaphanh
(53 ha) and Oudomxay (47 ha).
Lao PDR, opium poppy cultivation* and
eradication (ha), 2003-2008
14,000
12,000
10,000
Hectares
In 2008, opium poppy cultivation was found in all six
surveyed provinces in the north of Lao PDR (Phongsaly,
Luang Namtha, Oudomxay, Luang Prabang, Xieng
Khouang and Huaphanh provinces). The total area
under opium poppy cultivation in the Lao PDR increased
by 7% in 2008 to 1,600 ha. Overall, the level of opium
poppy cultivation in the country remains extremely low
and is restricted to isolated plots in remote areas.
0.19%
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2003
1
2
3
4
The information in this section comes from the report on Opium
Poppy Cultivation in South East Asia (UNODC/Governments of
Lao PDR, Myanmar and Thailand, December 2008), and can also
be found on the Internet (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/cropmonitoring/index.html).
Source of cultivation, yield and production estimates: National monitoring systems supported by UNODC. The figures in brackets represent the lower and upper limits of the 90% confidence interval.
In the absence of a yield survey in 2008, the yield per hectare for
2007 was used.
Source: Lao PDR National Commission on Drug Control and
Supervision (LCDC), Provincial authorities survey. Due to the limited market for opium, a clear distinction between farm-gate, wholesale and retail prices could not be established.
202
2004
C ultivation
2005
2006
2007
2008
Er adication
* after eradication
5
6
Source: LCDC. The 2006 and 2007 eradication campaigns were conducted before and after the survey. In 2008, eradication was mainly
conducted during and after the survey.
The number does not take into account the possible relapse of
recently treated addicts. There were 7,774 addicts, who had been
treated since 2003, who relapsed. The total number (cumulative –
since 2003) of current addicts in 2008 is 12,680. The relapse rate is
34%.
3. Statistical Annex Production
Production
The potential production of opium in the year 2008 was
estimated at 9.6 mt, representing a 7% increase in production over 2007 based on the estimated area under
cultivation. Bad weather conditions in northern Lao
PDR did not permit the survey team to undertake a
yield survey in 2008. Observations made from the helicopter indicated that the crop health was similar to that
of 2007, that is, characterised by poor fields and low
plant vigour. At the harvest stage, the capsules observed
were small and capable of producing only a limited
amount of opium gum. Therefore, the 2007 yield estimate of 6 kg/ha was also used to estimate production in
2008.
Lao PDR, potential opium production (mt), 1994-2008
180
160
Metric tons
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
P roduction
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
120
128
140
147
124
124
167
134
112
120
43
14
20
9.0
9.6
Prices
Opium prices were collected at the provincial level by
local authorities during or soon after the 2008 opium
harvest.7 The average opium price increased to US$
1,227/kg in 2008, a 26% increase over the same period
in 2007. Strong regional disparities in price indicated
that there were significant local variations in supply and
market access. Opium prices ranged between US$ 556/
kg and US$ 744/kg in Phongsaly and Huaphanh provinces, where opium poppy production still exits, and
reached record levels of US$ 2,209/kg and 2,124/kg in
Vientiane, the capital city, and Luang Prabang province
where opium poppy cultivation has been completely
eliminated, or is very scarce, and while demand is high.
Lao PDR, annual opium prices (US$/kg),
2002-2008
1400
1200
1000
US$/kg
0
800
600
Addiction
400
In line with a decrease in opium cultivation, the Government reports a decline in the prevalence rate of opium
use the northern provinces from 0.6% in 2006 to 0.3%
in 2007 and 0.2% in 2008 (expressed as a percentage of
the population aged 15 and above). Relapse, however,
continues to be a problem. In 2008, 4,906 opium
addicts were identified as having relapsed. The total
number of addicts amounted to 12,680 persons.
200
7
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Since 2006, no clear distinction can be made between retail, wholesale
and farm-gate prices. Only limited amounts of opium are thought to
be sold in or to markets outside the province of origin.
203
World Drug Report 2009
3.1.5 Myanmar
Fact Sheet - Myanmar Opium Survey 2008
1
234
1
Year 2007
Change on
2007
Year 2008
Opium poppy cultivation in Myanmar2
27,700 ha
(22,500-32,600 ha)
+3%
28,500 ha
(17,900-37,000 ha)
Opium poppy cultivation in Shan State
25,300 ha
0%
25,300 ha
Average opium yield (weighted by area)
16.6 kg/ha
-13%
14.4 kg/ha
460 mt
-11%
410 mt
3,598 ha
+34%
4,820 ha
US$ 261/kg
+15%
US$ 301/kg
US$ 120 million
+2%
US$ 123 million
Estimated number of households involved in opium
poppy cultivation in Myanmar
163,000
+3%
168,000
Number of persons involved in opium poppy cultivation
in Myanmar
815,000
+3%
840,000
Estimated number of households involved in opium
poppy cultivation in the Shan State
148,900
0%
148,900
Average yearly household income in opium producing
households (Shan State) of which from opium sales
Per capita income in opium producing households
(Shan State)
US$ 501
US$ 227
US$ 100
+37%
+11%
+37%
US$ 687
US$ 253
US$ 137
Household average yearly income in non-opium poppy
producing households (Shan State)
Per capita income in non-opium producing households
(Shan State)
US$ 455
US$ 91
+58%
+58%
US$ 721
US$ 144
Addiction prevalence rate in Shan State and Kachin
(population aged 15 and above)
0.75 %
+47%
1.1 %
Potential production of dry opium in Myanmar
(including the Shan State)
Opium poppy eradication in Myanmar3
Average farm-gate price of opium4
Total potential value of opium production
1
The information in this section comes from the report on Opium
Poppy Cultivation in South-East Asia (UNODC/Governments of
Lao PDR, Myanmar and Thailand, December 2008), and can also
be found on the Internet (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/cropmonitoring/index.html). Source unless otherwise indicated: National
monitoring system supported by UNODC.
204
2
3
4
The figures in brackets represent the lower and upper limits of the
90% confidence interval.
Source: Central Committee for Drug Abuse Control, Myanmar
(CCDAC).
For 2007: yearly average price. For 2008: price at harvest time.
3. Statistical Annex Production
Cultivation and eradication
In 2008, the total area under opium poppy cultivation
in Myanmar was estimated at 28,500 ha. Despite the
small increases observed in the past two years, opium
poppy cultivation in Myanmar remains far below the
levels reached in the 1990s. The vast majority of the
opium poppy cultivation in Myanmar continued to take
place in South Shan (53%) and East Shan State (33%).
In 2008, the most important increase in opium poppy
cultivation was observed in East Shan State, with 36%
more opium poppy under cultivation as compared to
2007, whereas in South Shan State cultivation decreased
by 17%.
According to official reports from the Government of
Myanmar, a total of 4,820 ha were eradicated in 20072008, which is an increase of 34% compared to the
eradication in 2006-2007 when 3,598 hectares were
eradicated. Eradication in Kachin State was four times
higher than a year earlier but still below the level reported
in 2005. Eradication in East Shan State increased by
13% and in South Shan State by 33%. In Chin State,
eradication teams eradicated all the opium poppy found
in the region, which was mainly concentrated in the
border areas.
Myanmar, opium poppy cultivation (ha), 1994-2008
200,000
Hectares
160,000
120,000
80,000
40,000
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
105,0 81,40 62,20 44,20 32,80 21,50 27,70 28,50
UNODC
US Dept of State 146,6 154,0 163,0 155,1 130,3 89,50 108,7
Myanmar, distribution of opium poppy cultivation by region, 2008
Kachin
5%
Kayah
6%
North Shan
3%
South Shan
53%
East Shan
33%
205
World Drug Report 2009
Opium poppy eradication as reported by the Government, 2002-2008
Administrative Unit
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
North Shan State
6,223
235
172
1,211
76
916
932
South Shan State
511
182
2,170
1,203
3,175
1,316
1,748
East Shan State
14
91
195
124
32
1101
1,249
Special Region 2 (Wa)
94
55
0
0
0
0
0
6,842
563
2,537
2,538
3,283
3,333
3,929
Kachin State
97
56
126
1,341
678
189
790
Kayah State
527
9
83
8
0
12
12
Other States
3
8
74
20
9
64
89
7,469
638
2,820
3,907
3,970
3,598
4,820
Shan State
Total
Production
Based on a total of 312 fields measured in the survey, the
weighted national average opium yield for 2008 is estimated at 14.4 kg/ha, leading to an estimated potential
opium production of 410 mt. In 2007, the estimated
yield was 16.6 kg/ha and the estimated potential opium
production was 460 mt.
Due to the lower yield, opium production in 2008 was
lower than in 2007 although the area under opium
poppy cultivation was roughly the same. Most opium
was produced in the Shan State (88%), particularly in
South Shan (56%) and East Shan (30%).
Myanmar, potential opium production (mt), 1994-2008
2,000
Metric tons
1,500
1,000
500
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1,097
UNODC
828
810
370
312
315
460
410
US Dept of State 1,583 1,664 1,760 1,676 1,303 895 1,087
Prices
In 2008, the average farm-gate price of opium at harvest
time was estimated at US$ 301/kg. This represents an
increase of 15% compared to the average price reported
in 2007 (US$ 261/kg). A similar price increase was
observed between 2006 and 2007. In 2008, prices continued to differ strongly across states, with Kachin State
reporting the highest price (US$ 518/kg) and South
206
Shan State reporting the lowest (US$ 265/kg). The largest increase in price compared to last year was observed
in Kachin and North Shan States; both states where
little opium poppy cultivation took place. Whereas in
South Shan and East Shan States, which together produced 88% of the opium, the price increase was less
pronounced.
3. Statistical Annex Production
Myanmar, prices for dry opium (US$/kg), 1999-2008
500
450
US$/kg
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan-99
Jan-00
Jan-01
Jan-02
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
National annual farm-gate price (weighted), 2002-2008
Mong Pawk, open opium market (Jan '99 - Jun '05)
Mong Pawk area, clandestine trading (since Jul '05)
The wholesale opium prices collected in the Mong Pawk
area, which is located in Special Region 2 (Wa region),
Shan State, by and large reflect the increase in farm-gate
prices. The monthly opium wholesale prices, which
were close to the average farm-gate price before the
opium ban in the Wa region, seemed to have increased
more rapidly than the farm-gate prices. This could be
due to the higher risk premium, which traders have to
consider in a region where opium poppy is banned.
However, it has to be noted that wholesale prices were
collected on the open opium market in Mong Pawk
town until an opium ban was introduced by the authorities in mid-2005, but had to be collected from a wider
range of places and under more difficult conditions after
the ban. This limits comparability.
Household income and strategies
In 2008, the average annual cash income of an opium
poppy growing household was estimated at US$ 687,
while that of a non-opium poppy cultivating household
was slightly higher, at US$ 721. As in past years, in most
states, the average household cash income in villages that
never grew opium poppy was higher than the average
household income in villages in the same region that
were still growing poppy in 2008 or had grown in the
past. Villages reporting opium poppy cultivation were
also characterised by lower food security compared to
opium poppy-free villages. The survey findings suggest
that non-poppy growing villages could achieve a higher
level of food security through cultivation of rice. The
importance of rice cultivation for food security and
poppy cultivation is emphasized by the fact that villages
with access to paddy land (irrigated rice fields) were less
likely to grow opium poppy. The situation was different
in South Shan State, where the average income in poppy
growing villages was higher than non-poppy growing
villages and over half of the average household cash
income in poppy growing villages was reported to stem
from opium. This may be due to the relatively large scale
of poppy cultivation and higher than average opium
yields in this region.
In 2008, the survey findings also indicated that households in former poppy growing villages could not find
adequate means of substituting their lost cash income
from opium. Villages growing opium poppy showed a
significantly higher intensity of shifting cultivation,
both in terms of acreage of forest cleared and duration
of fallow periods, compared to non-growing villages.
The most common coping strategy for the farmers who
had stopped opium poppy cultivation was to grow more
rice and maize and to sell livestock. There is also some
evidence of migration occurring in the Wa region where
opium poppy cultivation was abandoned in 2005.
Addiction
Within the surveyed area in 2008, the average level of
addiction was higher in villages with opium poppy cultivation compared to non-growing villages. As in previous years, opium addiction continues to be a
predominantly male phenomenon. The level of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) and heroin addiction was
low compared to opium abuse in both growing and
non-growing villages. The survey did not cover urban
areas where these types of addiction are thought to be
higher.
207
World Drug Report 2009
3.1.6 Peru
Fact sheet – Peru Coca Survey 20081
Coca cultivation
Of which in
Alto Huallaga
Apurímac-Ene
La Convención-Lares
Elsewhere
2007
Change on 2007
53,700 ha
17,200 ha
16,000 ha
12,900 ha
7,600 ha
+4%
+3%
+4%
+2%
+12%
2008
56,100
17,800
16,700
13,100
8,500
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
Weighted average sun-dried coca leaf yield
2,200 kg/ha
Potential production of sun-dried coca leaf2
Potential production of sun-dried coca leaf available
for cocaine production
Potential production of cocaine HCl
116,800 mt
+5%
122,300 mt
107,800 mt
290 mt
+5%
+4%
113,300 mt
302 mt
Average farm-gate price of sun-dried coca leaf
Average farm-gate price of sun-dried coca leaf
(weighted)3
Average farm-gate price of coca paste
Average price of cocaine HCl*
US$ 2.5/kg
+36%
US$ 3.4/kg
US$ 2.5/kg
US$ 600/kg
US$ 851/kg
+24%
+21%
+10%
US$ 3.1/kg
US$ 723/kg
US$ 940/kg
Potential farm-gate value of sun-dried coca leaf
US$ 292 million
Reported eradication of coca cultivation*
12,072 ha
Reported seizure of sun-dried coca leaves*
1,858 mt
2,200 kg/ha
US$ 379 million
-16%
10,143 ha
Reported seizure of coca paste*
6,260 kg
+82%
11,375 kg
Reported seizure of cocaine HCl*
n.a.
8,119 kg
+107%
16,836 kg
Reported destruction of coca laboratories4*
665
+84%
1,224
Of which cocaine HCl processing laboratories
16
+19%
19
Reported seizure of opium latex*
126 kg
n.a.
* As reported by the Government of Peru.
1
2
The information in this section comes from the report on Coca
Cultivation in Peru (UNODC/Government of Peru, June 2009),
and can also be found on the Internet (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/
en/crop-monitoring/index.html). Source unless otherwise indicated:
National monitoring system supported by UNODC.
Includes all coca leaf potentially produced. For the calculation of coca
leaf available for cocaine production, 9,000 mt of sun-dried coca leaf
were deducted from this figure, which, according to Government
sources, is the amount used for traditional purposes.
208
3
4
The weighted average price takes into account that different amounts
of coca leaf are sold in different coca cultivation regions at different
price levels. The exact volume of coca leaf traded and the prices of the
transaction are not known. As an approximation, the annual average
prices of the main coca cultivation regions were multiplied with the
potential annual coca leaf production in these regions to calculate the
weights. These regions represent 82% of estimated amount of coca
leaf available for cocaine production.
Excluding coca leaf macerations pits.
3. Statistical Annex Production
Cultivation and eradication
In 2008, the area under coca cultivation in Peru increased
by 4% or 2,400 ha to 56,100 ha, which is the third,
albeit relatively small, consecutive increase in three years.
Peru remains the world’s second largest cultivator of
coca bush after Colombia. Peru’s three largest cultivation
region, Alto Huallaga, Apurímac-Ene and La Convención-Lares, represented 85% of the area under coca
cultivation in 2008. The rate of expansion was average
or below average in these regions, which nonetheless
contributed most to the increase in absolute terms, and
even more in most of the smaller production areas.
The area under coca cultivation eradicated, 10,430 ha in
2008, decreased by 16% compared to 2007 and was
lower than in any year since 2003.
Government reports on eradication indicate that opium
poppy cultivation continues to exist in Peru. However,
the area currently cultivated with opium poppy is not
known.
Peru, coca cultivation and eradication (ha), 1994 to 2008
Sources: Cultivation: 1994-1999, US Department of State. Since 2000, National monitoring system supported by UNODC.
Eradication: CORAH (Coca Eradication in the Upper Huallaga Valley), DEVIDA (Peru National Comission for a Drug-Free Life).
120,000
Hectares
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Cultivation
Eradication
Peru, coca cultivation by region, 2008
Production
Source: National monitoring system supported by UNODC
In 2008, total production of sun-dried coca leaf was
estimated at 122,300 mt. After a deduction of 9,000 mt,
which, according to Government reports, is the amount
used for traditional purposes, 113,300 mt would be
available for cocaine production. Based on a conversion
rate of 375 kg of sun-dried coca leaf for one kilogram of
pure cocaine, this corresponds to a potential cocaine
production of 302 mt.
Others,
5,500 ha, 10%
Inambari Tambopata,
3,000 ha, 5%
La Convención
- Lares,
13,100 ha,
23%
Alto Huallaga,
17,800 ha,
32%
Apurímac Ene, 16,700
ha, 30%
209
World Drug Report 2009
Peru, potential cocaine production (mt), 1994 to 2008
Sources: US Dept. of State (1994-1999), National monitoring system supported by UNODC (since 2000) based on conversion rates
for coca leaf to cocaine from US Dept. of State.
500
450
Metric tons
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Production
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
435
460
435
325
240
175
141
150
160
230
270
260
280
290
302
Note: Production estimates from 2003 to 2005 were revised in 2007 based on updated information available on the amount of coca
leaf necessary to produce 1 kg of cocaine.
Prices
In 2008, prices for coca leaf - which in Peru is traded as
sun-dried leaf - coca paste and cocaine all increased compared to 2007, despite increases in coca leaf production.
The simple average farm-gate price of sun-dried coca
leaf traded outside the Government-controlled market
was US$ 3.4/kg, over one third more than in 2007,
compared to just US$ 1.7/kg for coca leaf traded under
Government control. Wage labour costs for coca harvesting increased noticeably in the main coca cultivation
regions, for example in Monzón in Alto Huallaga from
under 14 Peruvian soles per day in 2007 to more than
23 soles in 2008. Costs of other agricultural inputs such
as fertilizer (urea) also went up, which may explain at
least partly the price increase in coca leaf.
Some farmers produce coca paste, called locally pasta
básica de cocaína lavada. Farm-gate prices of coca paste
increased by 21% in 2008 and reached US$ 723/kg.
Higher prices for precursor chemicals were observed in
coca cultivating regions, which may have contributed to
the increase. Production costs and price mechanisms for
illicit trading and trafficking of coca derivatives are not
well understood and are thought to be influenced by the
presence of armed groups in coca cultivating regions.
However, the proportional price increase in 2008 was
smaller the more refined the product, that is largest at
the level of the coca leaf (36%) and smallest at the level
of cocaine HCl (10%), which may indicate that local
factors played a more important role than external ones.
Peru, monthly farm-gate prices of sun-dried coca leaf and coca paste (US$/kg)
800
5.0
600
500
3.0
400
2.0
300
200
1.0
100
Sun-dried coca leaf
210
Coca paste (pasta básica de cocaína lavada)
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
0
1990
0.0
US$/kg (coca paste)
US$/kg (coca leaf)
700
4.0
3.2 Seizures
A complete set of seizures tables can be found on the UNODC website at:
www.unodc.org
213
3.3 Seizures of illicit laboratories
A complete set of seizures tables can be found on the UNODC website at:
www.unodc.org
214
3.4 Prices
3.4.1 Opiates: Wholesale, street prices and purity levels
Retail prices (street price), US$/gram
EUROPE
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
132
138
1995
103
1996
87
1997
70
1998
94
1999
2000
57
2001
75
2002
44
2003
270
250
203
Belgium
90
105
105
77
75
75
56
37
41
41
37
27
Denmark
287
265
151
139
228
191
157
188
147
175
116
111
Finland
800
696
770
724
606
455
414
257
254
250
207
121
188
153
150
135
144
170
156
113
119
111
32
34
Austria
92
2004
2005
2006
75
29
31
32
31
32
126
122
94
123
100
92
195
195
182
125
151
68
99
33
69
67
55
Germany
105
75
96
74
91
90
74
51
43
45
39
38
38
46
49
48
46
48
120
175
63
44
105
88
77
80
55
55
55
53
45
65
51
31
75
75
Italy
167
148
140
29
55
41
115
98
120
95
71
68
59
63
69
68
66
66
Luxembourg
172
150
150
150
172
202
138
141
133
126
69
67
67
45
101
102
102
96
Netherlands
49
50
55
49
55
61
48
55
34
30
25
43
35
40
57
38
38
33
145
57
69
Greece
France
47
74
2007
68
Norway
1,680
525
510
275
349
300
282
198
186
166
128
157
165
198
148
220
220
240
Iceland
184
376
374
407
380
410
377
372
372
372
372
372
372
372
372
372
372
102
Portugal
83
82
72
63
65
79
68
55
74
37
45
45
41
54
52
52
52
52
Spain
175
185
180
126
132
120
112
88
82
75
59
57
61
75
81
80
78
86
Sweden
225
210
195
180
165
337
346
135
130
126
113
129
133
128
119
Switzerland
United Kingdom
312
221
248
126
164
190
116
81
96
167
53
45
39
48
48
48
39
42
157
144
144
134
129
125
108
118
120
108
107
86
91
100
110
93
71
101
176
92
92
92
Ireland
196
180
180
168
161
179
275
228
213
204
170
179
179
248
252
251
274
Average unweighted in US$
290
222
210
168
179
179
167
131
128
124
99
93
100
105
109
110
105
96
inflation adjusted 2007 US$
460
337
311
242
250
243
221
170
163
155
119
108
116
118
120
116
108
96
Weighted average in US$
173
149
147
107
118
119
118
93
94
87
64
59
62
70
75
72
67
72
Inflation adjusted in 2007 US$
275
227
217
153
166
162
155
121
120
108
77
69
72
79
83
76
69
72
Weighted average in Euro
136
120
113
91
100
91
93
82
84
81
69
66
66
62
61
57
53
52
Adjusted for inflation in 2007 Euro
205
172
156
121
129
115
114
99
101
96
80
75
74
68
65
61
56
54
Sources: UNODC ARQ data, EUROPOL and UNODC estimates (in italics)
1990
USA - street price
Inflation adjusted in 2007 US$
Purity adjusted
Purity & inflation adjusted
224
1991
261
1992
296
1993
275
1994
274
1995
255
1996
212
1997
233
1998
206
1999
196
2000
192
2001
164
2002
158
2003
150
2004
142
2005
138
2006
2007
132
131
355
397
438
395
383
347
280
301
263
244
232
192
182
169
156
147
136
131
1,016
932
801
672
668
593
558
529
469
468
458
432
405
406
418
384
388
364
1,612
1,419
1,184
964
934
807
737
683
597
582
552
505
467
458
459
408
399
364
Source: ONDCP, The Price and Purity of Illicit Drugs: 1981-2007 (Reports prepared by the Institute for Defense Analysis for ONDCP. 1990-2000 (prices for 1 gram or less, at street purity), ONDCP, ONDCP, The Price & Purity of Illicit Drugs 1981-2003
(prices for < 2 grams) for 2001-03, Community Epidemiology Network - June 2005 (for 2004) and ONDCP (based on STRIDE) for 2005 to 2007.
Wholesale, US$/kg
EUROPE
Austria
1990
1991
1992
55,244
46,145
63,000
28,500
1993
36,000
26,600
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
37,752
30,491
30,222
28,831
34,565
24,307
21,761
20,847
1999
2000
31,087
18,557
2001
25,026
18,360
2002
19,553
23,547
2003
2004
33,900
37,260
2005
2006
36,168
2007
37,640
Belgium
30,000
30,000
29,586
32,580
20,292
22,229
20,960
23,040
23,336
Denmark
110,000
100,000
85,000
95,000
117,625
106,805
86,806
100,465
65,693
61,507
23,585
32,889
20,803
41,770
32,820
37,741
35,967
Finland
353,774
353,774
353,774
353,774
353,774
353,774
321,586
199,442
197,856
194,357
161,034
44,840
51,804
51,800
68,314
69,192
69,192
France
31,050
31,450
18,820
180,000
72,250
80,000
63,750
75,000
66,035
46,603
32,230
25,885
25,596
22,158
26,906
23,547
28,250
Germany
45,244
36,145
41,667
35,206
36,448
35,256
27,890
25,686
25,608
24,770
20,263
17,816
20,325
21,510
25,723
25,765
22,510
Greece
90,000
70,000
35,000
28,000
29,536
34,362
39,090
28,775
21,020
20,714
17,320
16,592
17,425
18,650
17,540
14,782
19,450
35,550
30,109
Italy
67,500
60,000
108,000
42,581
47,690
35,786
48,152
37,795
36,459
36,894
31,163
32,979
33,669
29,830
30,496
28,830
Luxembourg
86,000
75,000
75,000
49,500
86,000
57,079
59,852
54,786
52,630
50,368
48,000
50,369
50,369
24,700
43,473
44,030
44,030
Netherlands
23,850
25,000
26,550
23,850
23,850
24,384
20,572
13,810
14,056
16,985
14,703
15,757
29,199
17,730
17,730
18,240
16,625
220,000
200,000
212,500
151,099
101,744
85,000
72,520
62,209
64,918
49,872
44,561
35,874
37,676
48,234
52,790
53,490
53,325
Norway
50,000
55,000
46,667
31,500
32,428
43,171
45,902
38,841
30,483
29,339
25,398
31,310
25,839
31,000
34,075
34,512
34,512
Spain
160,000
125,000
122,500
91,000
74,418
79,880
84,395
63,880
52,755
53,820
43,596
32,000
41,202
48,420
46,350
47,055
47,371
Sweden
140,000
130,000
115,000
95,000
117,625
62,655
64,829
65,771
63,190
61,022
41,626
33,702
34,738
41,900
31,648
35,970
Switzerland
124,000
153,800
228,875
47,460
52,823
54,850
41,665
37,234
34,294
33,422
29,568
16,082
19,149
22,340
23,580
25,420
21,470
United Kingdom
53,940
43,940
43,500
43,210
42,500
42,004
34,846
39,491
41,667
29,126
26,718
25,926
30,620
34,340
39,041
33,249
28,320
Ireland
63,940
53,940
53,500
53,210
52,500
81,479
77,643
36,531
34,396
43,478
37,600
36,441
36,441
30,510
30,510
33,967
33,967
Portugal
Average unweighted in US$
109,029
95,882
101,120
74,514
77,135
infl.adj. in US$
172,963
145,965
149,439
106,920
107,918
Weighted average in US$
96,048
69,304
79,023
55,551
56,652
Inflation adj. (kg) in 2007 US$
152,370
105,504
116,785
152
106
117
80
75
56
61
Weighted in Euro (g)
Adjusted for inflation in 2007 Euro (g)
114
80
84
Sources: UNODC ARQ data, EUROPOL and UNODC estimates (in italics)
47
48
41
38
35
33
32
31
29
30
27
26
25
25
22
63
62
51
47
42
39
38
36
33
34
29
28
27
26
22
146,000
142,500
Inflation adj. (gram) in 2007 US$
USA
Average in US$ in kg
1990
162,500
1991
155,000
1992
150,000
79,710
1993
79,260
79
1994
72,094
98,084
52,828
71,874
72
1995
146,000
66,287
87,598
48,491
64,081
64
1996
141,875
52,208
67,445
39,325
50,801
51
1997
129,375
48,019
61,082
36,587
46,540
45,936
57,170
34,398
42,810
47
1998
125,000
37,099
44,670
28,942
34,848
43
1999
107,000
28,784
33,699
25,998
30,438
35
2000
35,158
28,574
32,933
30
2001
81,200
30,505
33
2002
59,500
50,750
32,108
36,182
30,357
34,209
34
34,415
37,775
32,470
35,640
34,992
35,970
37,150
31,902
33,869
36
34,326
54,810
20,554
33,091
54,810
27,405
25,810
19,450
31,676
31,451
16,957
58,235
20,554
47,671
37,059
23,180
27,163
33,967
35,313
30,811
31,696
34
2003
2004
2005
65,500
68,800
65,000
33,167
33,167
30,050
30,050
32
2006
30
2007
65,000
71,200
Average in US$ in gram
163
155
150
146
143
146
142
129
125
107
81
60
51
66
69
65
65
71
Inflation adj. (g) in 2007US$
258
236
222
209
199
199
187
167
159
133
98
70
58
74
76
69
67
71
Source: UNODC ARQ
215
World Drug Report 2009
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_ [+

{{`
`
}#[+

`
[


  ~{
{
~~  `
{{`
{{~
[
>

`  
{{
  {
{  {{
{{`
{{
!x
[
+


{
{{ {`  ``
~{{{
{{`
{{~
{{{{  ~{{{{
[
+>
~{
{{
x
+[
[
!
\
\
"

\>
`{{
{{  {{
{{`
~{{{{
~{
~{
{
{

{
{{
{

{
{
{
{{
`{

{
~
{
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
~~{
~{{
{{{
{{{{
{{{{
~{{{
{{{
{{{
{{{
{{{
{{{{
{{{
{{{
{{{
{{{{
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`


`
{  {
  
{{
{{
{{
{{{{
~{{{  {{{{{
{{~






{  {{





{{~
[
+


>


{`

{ 

  
`  ~
{{`
{{
{{`
{{
`{
{
{{
`~
~{
{`{
~{{
{{  {{
{{`
{{
{{
{{`
{{
{{`
{{~
``
~{{{
~{{{{
``
~{{{
{{{{
{{`
{{
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{
{  `~{
}[
[
>

>

[>>
[>
{
{{~
{

{{~
`
{{
`{{{{
`
~{{{
`~{{
{
{
{  {
{  ~{
{{  {{
{{`
{{`
{
~  ~
{{  {{
{{~
{{`







{{
{{{{{

~{{{
~{{{
~{{
 `{{
{{{  ~{{{
{{  `{{ {
~
`` 
~
 {
[
X


`
{  {
{{`
{{`
`{
{  ~{
{{`
~{
  
{{

  ~{
~{{{
`{{
{{
{{
{{`
{

X
$
]

`{
{{{{
{{{  `{{{{
{{`
{{`
~{{
`  ~{{{
{{`
{{`
{{{
{{{
{{{
{{`

{  `~
{{~

]

{
  
{{~
``
{{~
`
{~~  `{~
{{`
{{
`{~  ~
{{`
`~~
~{`~  ~{{
{{`
`{
{  
{{`
``
`

{{
~{{
{  {
{{`
}+
[
+
+\
]
$




{
  {
{{`

  
{{`
~~
{{

{{
~~
{{`

{{`
{
] 
216
{{`

{ 
{
{{`
3. Statistical Annex Prices
;
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_
[+
}#[+


~
{{
  `
`  ~
{{  `{{ {{
{{
{{{{{
~{{{{  {{{{{
{{~

`{
~  ~
  ~~
{{`
{{~
{`
`~{  ~`~
{{`
`{  
{{
{{
{{`
`~{{
{{`
{{~
{{
{{
~{  `{{ {{`
`
[
#
#
#
#

~~

~
`~
~  
~~  
{{  ~{
~{  {{
{{`
{{
{{`
{{~
{{~

~
`  {
~  `
{{  `{{ {{`
{{`
`
~~
{
`
  `{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
~~

{{

  ~
{{  {
~  {
{{
{{~
{{~
{  ~{ {{

`~

{  
~{  {{
{  ~
{{`
{{~
{{`

  ``
~{  ~{ {{
`{
`{{
`

`~{{{
{`{{
~
{{
{{
{{
{{
{{{{{
{{
{{`
{{
~{  ~{ {{
{{
{{  ~{ {{`
{{
~{`~
`{{{
`~{{{{
~
{{{{
{{{{{
~{  ~{ {{
{{
{{  { {{`
~{  { {{~
{{~
{{`

~{{{{
`{{{
{{{{
[
[

>
[
>#
[
>
>>
  
}+[
X]
+
+
!>
!>#
!
!
#
#
#
`{~
~
~{{{{
{{{




{`
``~
{{{{{
{{
!x
+>>
X

>
`~{
{

+[
+
$
!
#
``
{
~~
~
~{  `{{
{  ~{
  `
~~
  `
{
``{
~~{  ~{{
~{  {{{
{  {{ {{`
~{  ~{ {{`
~{{
{
{{  `{{
{{~
{{~

  {
~{
~{
~{{
~
{{  {{
{{{  {{{
{  ~{
~{  `~{ {{`
{{`
{{`
{{{{{
~{{{{
{{{{  ~{{{{

{  
{{`
~
{
{
{ {
~{  ~{
{  {{
{{`
{{`
{{`
`{{{{
{{{
~{{{
~{{{
{{{{
{{{{
{{{{
{{{
{{{{
{{{{





{{{{
{{{
{{{{
~{{{{
{{{{
{{`
{{`
~{  { {{`
{{`
{{`
{

~{

~~{


``
~
~

{

{{`
{{
{
{  ~{ {{`
{{`
{{`
`~
~{
{{{{
{{{{

``{~{
{{{{
{{{{{




{
{{`~
~{{{{
{{{{
{  ~{ {{`
{{  `{{ {{`
{{
{{
~{{
`{  {
{{~
`{{{
~{
~{{{  `{{
{{
{{
~  ~
{{{{  {{{{{
[
+
#
#
X
~{
{{  
{{{{{  {{{{{{
{{{{{  {{{{
{{`
{{`
{  { {{`
{{  {{ {{`
~{
[
[
X\
+>#

\
{{
{{{{{
~{{{{{
{
~{{{
{{{
{{{{{{  {{{{{
{{{{  ~{{{{
{{
{{
{{~
{{
{{`
{{
x
+[
[
!
\
\#
"#
#
\>

{{  `~{ {{~
{{`
[
X
+
#[+


[+#
#
#
#
#
{
{
{
{~{




~  
  
{  `
~
`  ~~
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{
{`
```
{~
~
~  ``
{{~
{{`
{{`
217
World Drug Report 2009
;
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_
[+

}#[+
{{{{
{{{{  {{{{

{{~
}[
[
X#
#
>


>

#
#
[>
[>>
[>

~

`
~{
~{
{{
~
`

~
{
`~{


~
~
{{
{
~{
~


 
 
 `
{
 ~{{
 
 ~{
 
 
 
`
{  {
`{{  {{
{{`
{{~
{{~
{{~
{{`
{{`
`{{  {{ {{`
{{`
{{~
{{~
{{
{{  ~{{ {{`
{{
{~{

~`
`
~{{{{
`
{{{{
{
~{{
~
~
~{{
~
~
{{{{

{{{{
{`
`{
`~










~~`
~
{
{`{
{{{{{
{
{{{{
{`~
~
~
{{`
{{~
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{`
`{{  {{ {{`
{{`
{{`
{{~
~{{{{
~{{{{
{{{{  `{{{{
{{{{  {{{{
~{  ~{ {{`
{{
~{{{{
{{{
`{{
{
~~
~{{{  {{{{
~{  `{{
  
~  `
`  ~~
{  { {{
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
~{  {{ {{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{{{{
~{{
`~
~
~{{{{
~{{{{
{{{{  {{{{
{{  `~{{
[
X#

$
#
#
#
{
``
~
`

`~~  ~{
  `
{

X
$
]#
#
#
#
{{
`
{{

`{{
{{
{{  {{{
`  `
  ~{
{{  {{
{{ {{{
{{`
{{
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{
{
~
~~
{
~{
{

{ 
 
{ 
 
 
~ 
` 
` 
~{
~
~{ 

{
~`
`
{~{
~
~{ {{  ~{
`
~{{`{
 {
{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{~
{{
{{`
{{`
~{{
~{`
~{
{

{~~

~{
{{{{ 
`{ 
{{` 
`~~ 
~{ 
 
` 
~ 
~


``
{
~

~~
`
~{`
~
~
``
`~
`

`

`

{
~


{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{
{{`
`{{{ {{{{
{`  ~
  
`{
~~

`
~
~
~
`


``
~~

~
~

~{
{
{
`
``
~
`
~
`{

~`~{
~{~
{~~
{~`
`
`
{

{`
~{~
`{
{`
~{
~{{
~`{{
~
~
`{
`
~{

~{`
~{
~`~
~`
~~
{~~
{{
~{

``{
`{
{`  {~
{{{{{ {{{{{
{{{{{ ~{{{{{
{{`
{{
{{
~{{  {{ {{`
{{  {{ {{`
~{  `~{ {{`

[>#
X#\$
X#
+
]
#
>
#
{{{{ {
~{{

`~~
~~
`
{{~{
~{
{~~
~{
{{{
{` ~{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{`
}+
[
[#
X#
+#
#
+\>#
#
#

]
]#
#
!#
!#
#
#
#
#
#
#
$
>#
#

#
#
$
$#
#
218




`  {{{
  ~~
`  {
`{  
  `~
  {
~~  
~~  {{
~`  










{ 
{~`
~{  ~~
{  {{
{  {{
{{{`
~`{
{~
{ {{`
`{ {
{ {{`
``
{{`
~ ~{  `{ {{`

{{`
`
~{` {{`
 ~ {{`
~~ `~ {{`
 {  ~{ {{`
~{~{ {{`

{ {   {{`
~`~`~ {{`
` {  { {{`
{{`
~
{{`
{{  `~{`~
~```  ~{
{~~  {`
`{  {`
~~{{  ~{{
{{  {{
`````  ~{
~`{  ~`
~  ``
`~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{

` {{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
`{
~~ {{`
~~~ {{`
~~ {{`
{{{
{{
{{
{{
{{
{ {{
{{`
{{`
{{`
~{~`
~{`
`~
``{
~{
`{
`{
{{







~
~{
{`
{{  ~{{
~~
{  {{
`~
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
3. Statistical Annex Prices
;
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_
#
#
\

[+
}#[+

{{
{{
{{`
{{`
`{~{
~`~
`
`{
`  `
  `
~{  {{ {{`
{{
{{  ~~{ {{
~` {{`
{
``  ~{~
~{

{

{{
~~  {
`  {{
{  {
~{  {{
~{  {{
{
`
`


{  ~{
`~  `
~  
{  ~{ {{`
{{`
{{
`  `{

[

>
`{ {{`
219
World Drug Report 2009
3.4.2 Cocaine: Wholesale, street prices and purity levels
Retail price (street price), US$/gram
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2003
2004
2005
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Ireland
EUROPE
198
180
167
120
126
156
138
118
113
93
94
78
71
90
103
101
78
99
80
90
68
95
82
93
90
57
55
1999
60
2000
55
2001
51
2002
50
51
51
51
2006
60
2007
67
144
135
111
90
150
176
169
108
119
165
106
120
91
122
82
82
81
74
159
150
126
105
165
191
184
123
179
157
138
121
111
151
146
125
100
110
Average unweighted in US-$
Inflation adjusted in 2007 US$
Weighted average in US-$
Inflation adjusted in 2007 US-$
Weighted average in Euro
Inflation adjusted in 2007 Euro
99
119
140
153
151
174
125
87
84
82
50
87
75
90
99
94
74
96
120
103
111
95
109
103
90
77
72
68
57
58
57
68
73
79
74
86
150
120
105
54
116
111
144
91
54
82
69
72
75
96
93
79
110
110
167
203
207
200
211
228
226
238
149
134
121
109
150
207
156
156
164
164
108
120
164
90
104
113
129
109
129
135
100
89
90
101
113
114
104
112
150
150
150
150
172
194
127
115
110
119
119
119
107
96
114
105
106
89
66
70
74
66
60
79
52
64
38
33
33
33
33
50
59
59
60
59
176
170
255
156
145
150
153
177
133
128
114
157
165
170
155
155
151
164
63
57
60
57
59
66
64
57
51
43
56
48
36
47
49
55
56
55
110
100
100
63
78
91
72
68
68
63
52
52
56
70
76
76
76
83
160
152
183
123
148
118
118
98
88
97
77
79
87
99
93
92
101
96
178
144
188
136
146
148
127
117
110
109
77
69
74
89
86
86
74
75
131
127
69
123
113
111
102
124
128
104
94
94
84
90
91
79
87
91
141
137
120
110
100
119
32
34
32
30
28
28
94
79
87
88
88
96
133
129
133
110
124
134
119
103
95
95
80
81
84
98
96
93
91
96
211
197
197
158
174
183
157
134
121
118
96
95
96
111
105
99
94
96
117
115
118
104
112
118
105
92
92
88
70
74
72
84
88
87
82
92
186
175
174
149
157
161
139
119
117
109
85
87
83
94
97
92
85
92
92
93
91
89
94
91
83
81
82
82
76
83
76
74
71
69
68
67
139
133
125
118
122
115
103
98
98
97
88
94
85
81
76
72
70
67
Sources: UNODC ARQ data and EUROPOL; UNODC estimates in italics
USA street price in US$
Inflation adjusted in 2007 US$
Purity adjusted (100%)
Purity and inflation adjusted
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
154
142
119
121
111
123
120
105
103
101
115
113
96
102
92
90
2006
96
2007
106
2008
244
216
176
173
156
168
159
135
130
126
139
132
111
115
102
95
99
106
115
265
226
178
175
166
202
165
161
149
155
186
194
137
148
134
132
130
162
225
421
343
263
251
232
275
217
208
189
193
224
227
158
166
147
140
134
162
216
120
Sources: for 1990-06: Office of National Drug Control Policy, The Price and Purity of Illicit Drugs: 1981-2007. Washington, DC, July 2008 and UNODC calculations for 2007 and 2008 based on ONDCP, The Price and Purity of Cocaine (STRIDE data);
the purity adjusted price according to the first publication amounted to US$ 122 per gram in 2007 at 64% purity; according to STRIDE dataset (second source) street prices increased 24%, purity adjusted prices rose 72% over 2006-08 period, mainly due
to falling purity levels (69% in 2006; 51% in 2008).
Wholesale price, US$/kg
EUROPE
1990
1991
Austria
66,000
66,000
54,000
40,000
41,946
52,084
45,875
56,723
54,440
38,859
47,094
43,995
42,385
59,300
55,894
59,757
50,185
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
25,000
24,000
38,250
28,000
26,920
30,560
21,927
17,025
19,167
23,859
22,376
26,771
28,111
29,610
32,480
32,480
32,480
47,958
80,000
85,000
85,000
82,500
58,516
60,034
46,141
38,640
44,517
78,900
43,462
47,839
37,823
53,160
45,896
50,321
40,520
40,445
79,500
75,000
62,750
52,500
82,500
95,450
91,750
61,550
89,350
78,460
68,321
59,492
51,804
62,150
68,315
68,315
56,611
61,660
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Ireland
Average unweighted
inflation adjusted
Weighted average in US$
Weighted average in US$ per gram
Inflation adjusted in 2007 US$
Inflation adjusted (gram)
Weighted in Euro (g)
Inflation adjusted in 2007 Euro (g)
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
61,661
117,000
38,250
45,000
38,250
40,000
39,877
48,077
43,554
42,159
27,714
27,000
34,978
37,676
45,200
49,683
50,321
50,190
61,661
69,000
53,100
60,300
54,142
57,692
54,676
53,925
45,294
41,210
39,639
33,752
33,235
34,476
40,110
44,243
46,525
45,320
48,826
75,000
90,000
95,000
36,000
46,413
53,098
72,015
43,795
49,180
49,320
41,237
40,359
42,385
53,680
57,446
62,902
62,735
62,735
54,000
48,000
94,000
41,935
51,097
51,455
55,633
50,629
49,091
47,250
46,000
40,529
41,412
47,440
51,759
52,188
52,920
56,029
93,919
95,939 113,521
50,847 157,593 141,343
47,625
43,103
41,072
47,718
47,718
47,718
47,718
47,718
31,052
31,450
31,450
31,451
26,500
28,000
26,500
24,680
33,232
23,894
29,698
22,355
27,500
27,500
27,500
27,500
27,400
33,775
33,775
35,000
42,409
127,500 110,000
39,971
50,000
41,670
60,028
81,699
57,545
51,417
51,569
54,159
56,500
65,209
65,209
56,400
61,661
27,950
34,483
42,591
37,908
33,447
30,000
28,000
29,080
31,046
32,410
36,399
36,399
31,365
34,256
120,000 120,000
39,500
39,285
29,500
33,000
27,000
65,000
60,000
55,000
35,000
36,434
41,322
38,760
36,806
38,924
38,898
30,882
38,898
31,511
38,830
42,167
41,321
41,210
46,274
80,000
85,000
91,375
61,450
73,825
55,556
59,255
45,573
50,484
48,508
38,394
34,693
35,763
43,130
39,560
40,068
39,270
51,883
63,900
94,250 116,250
50,847
72,012
75,949
51,587
40,780
41,152
41,000
35,482
23,392
19,274
37,230
44,008
44,008
41,090
44,351
47,850
46,475
20,625
43,210
45,000
46,774
40,625
47,500
47,500
33,981
38,168
36,008
35,848
40,880
50,036
50,036
50,943
74,447
45,000
45,000
40,000
50,000
45,000
42,000
31,646
33,733
31,530
29,891
29,891
29,891
29,891
30,510
38,557
38,506
39,636
82,214
67,481
64,312
68,298
48,717
54,562
56,347
47,823
43,079
45,722
43,473
38,629
37,997
36,987
43,839
46,263
47,270
44,549
53,525
107,051
67,793
97,904 100,934
51,895
68
52
57,392
57
69,903
43,998
44
76,336
47,040
47
76,660
48,150
48
63,198
47,754
55,651
43,975
48
44
58,160
43,434
43
54,104
38,491
38
46,512
35,580
36
44,485
36,095
36
42,629
35,950
36
49,400
42,322
42
50,780
46,913
47
50,184
47,772
48
45,829
46,996
47
53,525
55,958
56
107,547
79,002
84,816
63,132
65,812
65,509
63,106
56,809
55,250
47,904
42,841
42,259
41,433
47,690
51,493
50,717
48,347
108
79
85
63
66
66
63
57
55
48
43
42
41
48
51
51
48
55,958
56
53
42
44
38
40
37
38
39
39
36
38
40
38
37
38
38
39
41
80
60
61
50
51
47
47
47
46
43
45
46
42
41
40
41
41
42
Sources: UNODC ARQ, EUROPOL; UNODC estimates in italics
US wholesale price
US wholesale price per gram
Inflation adjusted in 2007 US$ (g)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
45,430
48,300
48,100
44,730
42,180
38,640
35,700
34,320
31,960
30,870
29,580
21,500
23,000
21,500
22,066
20,500
26,500
45
48
48
45
42
39
36
34
32
31
30
22
23
22
22
21
27
31
72
74
71
64
59
53
47
44
41
38
36
25
27
24
24
22
27
31
Sources: ONDCP 1990-2000 (prices for 10-100 gram, at street purity), UNODC ARQ 2001-2007 (mid-point of min/max prices).
220
2006
2007
31,000
3. Statistical Annex Prices
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_
[+

}#[+

`
[


  
{{
{{ {{`

``
`{
`  {
  `
{{`
{{
{{`
`{

~
`
~
`
`
  `{
  
~~{  ~{ {{`
~{  `{ {{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
~~

{


{
{
~
~
~
{{
{
{{
{{`
{{~
{{
`{
`{{
{
{  {
{{`
[
[

`
~~  `{{
{{`
[
>
+
[
+
\
>
>>+
  

~`
~
~~
`{{
{{
{{
~`~  ``
{  ~`{
{{`
{{`
{  {
~  `{
{{`
{{
{{
{`
{`  ~
{{`

{~`
{{{{{
`  {
`~  ~
{{{{  {{{{
{{`
`{{  { {{`
{{
{{
`
`~{{  `{{
{{
{{`
`~{{{
{{{{
~{{{{  {{{{{
{{{{  ~{{{{
{{~
{{
``
~~  {{
{{`
{{{{
~{{{{  ~{{{{{
{{  { {{~
{{{

  
{{`
{{~
~{{{
~`~{
~{{{{  {{{{
~{{  {{
{{
{{
~`~{
{
~
~{{  {{
``  ~{
  {~{
{{
{{
{{
~~{
{{
{{{{
~~{  ```
{{~
{{
{{
}+[
X]+X
+
++X
!>
!>
+
!
!





{{
`
~

  
{  {
`~
{{
~{
{
~
~`~
~~{
`


{{
~{
{{
~{


~~{
  
~  
{  {
{{~
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{
{{  { {{~
{{~
{{~
{{~
{{
~{

~~  
`~  
{{
{{
{{  {{
{{
{{
{{~
  {
  
{  ~{ {{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{~
!x
+>>
[
X
+
X>
+

+

!
+
#
+>
+
+X

!
>
+
+

{{
{{






{{
~{{
{{
`

{{
{{{{  {{{{{
+[
X\
+
+
+
$
+
!
+
#
+
+
`~

{
{
{
{
{
`
`
~
{
{
`~

{
{
{
{
`
`








~

{
{
~{
~{
{
`


`  {
`~  {
`~{{{
``
{{`
{{`
`
{{  ~{{
~
{{`
{{`
  `
{{  { {{~
{{`
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
~{  {{ {{`
~{  ~{{ {{`
{{
~{  ~{{ {{~
{  {{{ {{~
{  {{{ {{~
``
~ 
`` {{  { {{`
{{{{{ {{{{{  ~{{{{
{{
~~ ~  `~ ~{ ~{ {{`
{{{{
{{{{
``

{`{
{{{{
{{{{
``

~{{





~{{{{
~{{{{
{

~{{{{
~{{{
~{{{
{{`
{{`
{{  ~{ {{`
~{  {{ {{`
{{  { {{~
{{~
~{{  {{ {{~
[
+
+


+
~ {  {{{


~{{{
~{{{
~{{{
~`~  ~
{{{{{  ~{{{{
{{{{  {{{{
`~{{{
``
{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
221
World Drug Report 2009
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_
[+
[
[
X$
+X
X\
+
+
+X
+>
+X

+X
!
+
+
+

+X
+
\
+

}#[+

~
~  
~
{
{
{{
{{{
{{{  `{{{{
{{`
~{{
{{{{  ~{{{
`
{
{



{{
{
{

{
{
{

`{
{{`
~{  { {{~
{{~
{{`
{{`
{
~{
~
{  {
{{
{{~
{{~
{{{{
{{{{
{{{{
{{{
`{
{
~{
{{{{
{{{
{{{
~{{{
{{
~{
~
{
{{
{{
{{`
{{
{{
{{


`{  
{  
{{
{{

{{
`
~
`~
`
{
`{{
~
{
`{

{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{

`  {
{{
{{`




{
~{{
~{
{{{
`{{{{
~~{{{
{{{{
{{
`{{{
{{{{
~{{{
`{
{




`{{{{
{{{{
~~{
~~{
~{{{
{{{
{{{
{{{




{{{{
{{{{
~{{{{
{{{
{{{{
~{{{{
{{{
~{{
{{





{{{{
{{{{
{{{
{{
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{  { {{~
{{~
{{`
{{`
`{  ~{ {{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{~
{{~
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
~{  {{ {{
{{
x
[
#[+
+







{`
{{`~
~
~{{
{
~{{
{~  ~~{
{  {`
{{  ~{{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{~
{{
{{

~{{
`{{

{{  {{
{{~
{{~
{{`
{{`
`{{  {{ {{`
{{ {{ {{`
{{
{{`
{~{`{
~{{{{
`{{{
{{{{{
~~{{{{
~{{{{  `{{{{
{`  {`
{{{{{  {{{{{
{{{{{
`{{{{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{ {{`
{{{{{
{{{{{  ~{{{{{
{{
{{{  ~{{
{{`
{{{{{
{
~~  ~{
{{
{{{{{{
{
{  ~
{  ~{ {{`
{
~{{
~{{  ~
{{`
{{
{{  {{{
{{`
~{{
{{{  {{{
{{`
[>
X#\$
X
+
]
`~
`  
{{`
~
`~  ~{~

~  ~
{{`
{`
`  ~`
{{`
``{
~~
~{
`{{  {
  `
``  
{{`
{{`
{{~
~{{`
{
~{
{{~{  `
`~~  `
~{  ``
~{  { {{`
{{`
{{{
{{~
`{
{  
~{ {{`
>

~  {


~  {



`
`
{
`~

`

{
~~
~{  {
}[
X
~



{{


>
~{
+X
{{
[>

[>>+X ~{{
  ~
{{

{{
~{{




{{
`{{{
{{`
{

X
$
]
+>

+
{{~
{{{{{  {{{{{
{{~
`{{  {{ {{`

{{
{{{
~{
~{
~`~~{{  {{~
{{`
`~
{`  ~{~
 {{`
{`
~{~  ~
{{`
{{
{{`
   {{`
{{`
~{  ~~ {{`
{{`

{`
`~
`
`
{
{~{{
{{`
{{`
{{{
{{`
~ {{`
}+
[
[
X
+
+\>

222





~
`{

`~
{
`~  `~
{`  ~{~
{{~`  {{{
`~`  ~~~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
  ~ {{`
{{`
{{
3. Statistical Annex Prices
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_

]
]
+
!
+
!
#
+



$
>

+
$
$

\

+
[+
{{`
{
~
`

{
{
{
`
~
~

{
{{
`~


~

`

~~~
{



`~
{~
{
`  
  `{
  {
~
`
`~  `
  {

{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
~{
{`
{`
 {{`
{{`
~
{{  {{
`{`
  ~~
  
  {

`
~`
~
~

{









`
~~

`{

  {~~
  
  {{
{~{
{
{  {

~``
``
{{`{
~  `{
~
{{  {{
~

{
{~
~{~
{{ `{{


~






{
{
}#[+
~{~  ~
  ~{~
~`
{{`
{{{

{{`
`~{
`
~{{{  `~{{

~{
`
~  ~`
~  
`{  ~
`~``
`
~~
~{
```{{
{
{`
~{
~`~  {{

~{
{``
`~
`
~
~~
``
`{~
{{  ~~{{
{`  
~{  ~

{{`
{{`
{{`
~{
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
`  ~ {{
{{`
{{{{ {{`
{{  { {{`
~
~
{~
{
`~ {{`
{{  `{{ {{`
{{`
`~
{{`
{{ `{{ {{`
{  ~{ {{`
`` {{`
{  { {{`
{  ``{
  {{ {{`
{~~  
`{
~{
`
{




[

{
223
World Drug Report 2009
3.4.3 Cannabis: Wholesale, street prices and purity levels
;
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_ 
}#[+

`
[





{
{{
`
{
  
{  {
{{  {
~{
{{{

~

{{{  `
  
  ~
{{~
{{
{  {{ {{~
{{`
{  {
{{~
{{`
{  {{ {{~
{{`
{{
{{
{{  {
{{~
~{{
{{{  {{{
{{~
`
  
{{`
~~
  
{{`
{
{
{
{  {{
{  {`
~{  ~{ {{
{{`
{{`
{{
~
`
~{  
~  {
{{
{{
{{
{~
{
{
{~  {
{  {
{  {
{{`
{{`
{{
~
{
``
  ~`
`  {
  `
{{`
{{`
{{`
{
{{
{{
{

{
{
{{
{
{{
{
{{
{  {~
{{  {
{{
{{
{{
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{
{
{{

~{{


{{

~

~

~
{{  ~{
  `
~  ~
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{
{{~
~{{{
{
~
{{{{{  ~{{{{
{  ~~~
{  {
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{{  ~{{{

{
{
~
`
  {
{~  {
{{~
{{`
{{~
{{
{{`
{{
{{
{{~
{{
{{
[

[

>
[
\
>
>>
}+[
X]
+
+[
+
!>
!>
!
!
{
{
{
{
{{





{
`
{

{{
{{  {{
{  {
{{  {
~  {

{{
~
{
{{






{{
{

{{
{{
{{`
{{
{{~
{  `{ {{
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{
{{
!x
+>>
[
X
X>
X


!
#


!
>
+

{{
~{  {{
{  ~
`  ~
{{~
{{
{{`
{{
{{
{{  ~{
{{
{{
~{{
`{{{
~
~~{
~
{{
~

{{{
`{{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{~

~
{{{
{{

~{{

~~
{{{{
{{
~
{~{~{
{{`
  ~
{~{~{
`{~
{{`
`
{{
{{{{
{  {{{
`{~
{{
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{{
~{
~{{
{
{{{  ~{{{
{{ ~{{
{{{  {{
``{  `{

~{{
~
{{
~~`
~
 `
 {{
{
 {{
 `
 `
{{{  {{{
+[
X\
+
$
!
#
~

{
{
{~
{{
{  ~
~{
~  
{  
{  {






~
{`{{
{{
~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{~
{{~
[
+


{
{{`
{{`
{{`
[
[
X$
X\
+
224

{
{
~
{  
{
{
{  {
  ~
{
{{~
{{`
{{~
{{`
3. Statistical Annex Prices
;
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_ +>

!

\
{
{
{~
{{~


[+

{{~
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{
{{
{
~{{
{{
{{
~{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{
{{`
~{{{
{  {
{{~
{{
{  ~
  
}#[+

{{{
~{
~{
{{{
{{
{{~
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{
 ~{{{
 ~{
~{{
 {{{
 {{
x
+[
[
!
\
\
"

\>
{
~
{~
{~
{
{
{
{{




~{
{
{
{~{
~
{
{  
{  {
~
{

{
~{

{
~
{
~~



{
{{
{
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{
{{  ~{
{{

{
{~
~


`
{
{

{{`
{{`
{{~
{{
{{`
{{`
~{{
~`
{{

~{{
{{~
{{{

`{
`~
{{{





{{{
~
{
~{{
~{{{
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
[
X
+
#[+



[+
>










{
{
~
~`
~

`
{{
{
~{{
{
{{`
  `~
{  `~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{
{{
{  {
{{{  ~{{{
{{  {
{{
`~{
{{{
~``
`
{{{  {{
~{{  ~{{{
`  {
  ~
{{
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
~{
{{
~{{  {{{
{{`
{{`
~{{
{{{{  ~{{{
{{`

~{
{
  
~{{  ~{
`  `
{  `{ {{`
{{
{{`
}[
[


>
~
`{
~{
{  {
~  
{{  {{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{  {{
{  { {{
{`
{
{~  {
{{  {
{{`
{{`
`{

`
{
{  ~{
  
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{{{
{{{  `{{{{
{{`

~{{{
{{{{  {{{{
{  { {{`
{{`
~

{







{




`
{{`
{   {{`
~{{` {{
{{`
{{~
{~  { {{`
{{`
{{`
~`
~
{{
`~
`{{


`
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{
{   {{`
{{`
{`
~
~
~`
``
[
X


{

X
$
]


[>
X#\$
X
+
]
>










`

`



~~
`{  `
~  
~
~{{
`
`{







`~{{
{~~
~
~
{{`
{{`
{   {{`
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{`{ {{`
}+
[
[
X
+
+\>

`
{
``



  `
  `
{  `
  
~{`
~  `~
{`  
{{{  ~{
{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{  {{ {{`
{{`
225
World Drug Report 2009
;
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_ ]
]
!
!
#



$
>


$
$

\

{




`

{{
`

~
{
{
`
`

[+
{  `
  
  
  
`



`






{

{{

  ~~
{  
  `

}#[+
{{`
{{`
{{`
{~
{{
{{  {{ {{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`

~
~
{{
`{
{~ {{`
{{`
~`
{{`

{{`
{   {{`
~{{
{{  {{
~~{
{{
`~
{{
~
{~
~`
{{  {{
  {`
{`
~{~
`  
{  
~{  ~~{
`{
~
{
``~  ~{
{{  {{

```
``
{  
  
~  {
{{`
{{`
{{`
~~`
`~`  `~
{{`
{
{{
~{`
``  ~{
`{{{  {{
{{~
~   {{
{{`




~

{
  
~  ~
{  
{{`
{`
{  ~{ {{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
`{
{{`
{
  
{{`

~`~{
  ``
~{{{  ~{{
~
`  
{{`
{`
~{{{{  `
  `

{{`
{
{  { {{`
`~{{ {{`
{{
{{~
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
[


226
{{`
{{
{
{{~
3. Statistical Annex Prices
;
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_ [+

}#[+


|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_ [+

}#[+

!x
+>>
[
X

~
{{  ~{
{{~
~{{{
{{{{{  ~{{{{
{{~
~{
{{  ~{{
{{
{{{{
{{{{  ~{{{{
{{
~{{
~{{  {{
{{
{{
~{{  {{
~{  ~{ {{
[
+
[

`~  `{
~{  ~{ {{`
{
 {{`
x
[

{{~
`{{
{{
[
$
`
{{
}[

{{
``{{  {{
{{
~{{
{{{{  ~{{{
{{~
{

[>
}+


{{`

{{`
[

{{` 227
World Drug Report 2009

|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_ [+
}#[+


{{~
{{`
{{
`
`  {{{
{{~
~
  `
{{~
`
[


`
{
{
`  {{
~  `~
{  {
{  {{

`
~
  
  
 {
{{`
{{`
{{~
~
`{
  
  ~`
{{`
{{~

{`
{~  {
{{`
{{`
~~
{  
{{`
{
{  {~
{{
`
`  
{{
~
{  
{{`
~`{
~  
{{`

~  
~~~
{{
{{{
~  
{{{
~{{
{{{  {{{
{{`
{{
{{
[
[

>
[
[
>
}+[
+
!>
!x
+>>
X
X
+
{{`
~{
{{
[
+
[
`
{{{
  `
~{`~ {{`
{{

{{{{
  `
~{`~ {{`
~  ` {{`
{

{{
~  {
{{  {{
{{~
{{
{{`
~{{
{{{  ~{{{
{{`
~{
{
~

{
{
~{
{{
{
~
{
{
~
{





{{
{{
`
~
{
{
 `{
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{
{{
{{`


~~
{

{~

`  
[
X\
+>
x
+[
[
!
\
\
"

\>
{{{{{
{{~
~{{{
{~~
~{{
~{{
{{{{
{{{{
`{
{{{
~{{
{{{





{{{{
~{
{{{
{{
~{{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{
{{`

``  
{{`
~
`  ~{
{{~
[
#[+


[+
>
~  ~{
{{  ~{
{  
  ~
~~
{{~
}[
[
X
>


>


[>
[>>
[>
{{~
{{`
{`
~
`{
`~

{
{

{{
`~~
{
{
~
~{
~
{
{

~
{

{{
~
{

{  
{{~
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
~{
`~

{{{

`~{{
{``

`{


{{{
~
~{{{
~~

{{{
```
`
{{{

{{{{
~
{
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{{{
{{{  {{{
{{`
~{
{{  {{{
{{
~{{
{{{  `{{{
{{

  ~
{{
{{{
~~{{
{{{  {{{
`{{  `{{
{{
{{















[
X

228
`{  {{
3. Statistical Annex Prices

|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_ [+

}#[+

{
  ~
{{`
{~`
`~~  {
{{`
{{
~
{~
{
{{  {{
  
  `
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
~{{{{
{{{{  `{{{{
{{`
{``
``  `
{{`
`~{
~{{  {{{
{{

  

{














{{`
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{`
`~{
``
~~
{``
~{`
{
{~
~
`{
{
`

~






`
~



{{`
{{` {{`
{{`
{{`
{  `{ {{
{{
{{
{{`
{{`

`
~~

`
{
`{{~
`
{~~
~{`

{{
~{
{

X
$
]


[>
X#\$
X
]
>

~
{  ~{
~~




{{

`{
`{~
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
~~~{ {{`
}+
[
[
X
+
+\>


]
]
!
!
#



$
>

$
$

\





{`
~
{
~

`

`
~




~
{

~

`

~
`
`
~
{{

{
`  
~~  
~{  `~
{  ~



`
~





{
`

`
{{
~
  {
~
`{
{  
~{  
  ~
{  {
~  
  
{  
{`
{  {
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{
{{
{{~
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
`{~  `~
`~  ~
~{`~  ~{`
  {~
`{~  `~
`  `{~
{{  ~{{
{{`
{{` {{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`

{{`
{~~ {{`
{{
{{
``
~~

  ~`
{`  {`{
{{`
{{`
{{

~{
`
`{  
{{
{{~
`{ {{`
{~
{~
``{{
{{`
{`


`
{~
`{
~  

{{
{
~




~{
{{
`
~
`  ~
`  
{`  `
{{`
{{`
{{
{`~ {{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{` {{`
{{`
[

``
~  
{{`
`
  {
{{`
229
World Drug Report 2009
3.4.4 Amphetamine-type stimulants: Wholesale, street prices and purity levels
;
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_
[+

}#[+

`
[


~  `
{{`
{{
{  {
{{
!x
[
+
x
}[
X
`   
> `

   

{
`{{
[>

`
[>> { {  { ~{  ~{
{{~
{{~

`{
{{`
 
{{~
~``
{{
{{`
  {{{{
{{~
~`  ~`
{{`
{{~
`{{{{  {{{{
{{  {{ {{`
{{  { {{`
{{
{{
~{{
~{{  {{
{{
{{
{{
{{
~{
~  ``
{{~
{{{{
~{{{
~`
{{{{
~{{{{
~{{
`
{{{{{
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
~{  {~
{{`
{  { {{`
{{`
{{`
{{  {{ {{`
[

{
`
  
`  
{{~
[
$
`
+[
\
~
{  {
{{`
{{
`
{`
{{
{{

`
{{
{{

`
{{
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{{{
{{
`{`
{{{{
~  ``
`~  {
  
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
~{{  {{ {{`

{{`
{
{~`~
{~~~

``
{

X
$
]










X#\$ `{

X
+

`
>
`


{~  
`  ~~
{{
{  {~
{~`  
}+
[
X
+
+\>
230
`

`{

{~  
  
`  `~
{  {{ {{`
{{`
{{
  ~{ {{`

{`
`~
~{`
  
  
~{`  ~{{
{   {{`
{{`
{{
{{`
3. Statistical Annex Prices
;
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_


]
]
!
!
#



$
>

$

\

[+




{


`



`
~
`

{
`{
{~
{
`
{{


~

~


~~

{

~
{
`
`~
{~

~  
~{  `
{  {
{{  {{
{  `{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{~
{  `
{  ~
{{`
  ~
  
`
{
`
`~






{~

`
`
~
{  `{
`~
{  ~{
{  ~{
{  `{{
`  
~  ~
  `{
~~  
{{  `{{
{{  {{
}#[+

{~
```
 
~`~
~{
~
~~~`  `{{
{~`
{
~~~
  {~`
  
~  ``
``~
  `

{~
`
  
{~  {
  
~  {
`  
~{ ``
{{{  `{{


{{`
{{`
{{ {{`
{{`
{`  ~` {{`
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{  `{{ {{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{  `{{ {{`
{{  {{ {{`
{{
{
{{`

~
`
`
~  ~
{`  
{{  {{ {{`
{{`
{  `{ {{`
~{`
`{  {
{  
[

{
{{`
{{`
!


>

>
231
World Drug Report 2009
;;
|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
_ [+

}#[+

`
[

[
[

{{
!x
+>>
X
[
+

{{{
`~
`~~ 
~{ 
~ {  {{{ {{`
~{{ {  `{ {{`
{~
~~{{
{``  
~{{{  {{{
{  {{{ {{`
`{  { {{`
`~
`  `{
{{`
~{{
`{
`~
{{{{  {{{{
{{~  {`
{{`  ~{`
{{~
{{`
{{`

{{{{
~  `
{{{{  ~{{{{
{{{
~{{{
`{{{  {{{{
{{
{{

`{~
{`  
~  ~ {{`
{{`
{{
~{{  {{
{{  ~{ {{`
```
~  ~{
{{~
{{`
{{
{{`
{{{{
`{{
{
{
{{{{
~{{{
`
{
~{{{{
`~{{
`{
`{
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
 ~{  { {{`
~{
~`~  
{~  { {{`
{{
```
{~
~{`  `~{~
`  
~  
{  `{ {{`
~
{{`
{{`
  
~`~  
{{
{{`
{{  {{ {{`
{{  `{{ {{`
x
[
X
+>
+
+#[


[+
>
`{


{
~

{{
~{{{
{
{
~

{

`{~
`


`
`{ 
` 

{
{{`
{{
{{~
{{
{{
{  { {{`
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{~
{{~
{{~
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{
{{  {{ {{`
{ 
{
{{`
~{
~

{{~
{{`
{{
{ 
 
 
`` 
~ 
~{ 
{ 
{ 
~{
`
~
{

`

~{
 
 
{ 
` 
{

{

`{
{{`
{{
+[
\
~
}[
X

[>

`
`
` 
 

[
X
{{
{{` {

X
$
]

{
~{

{{ 
 
{ 
`
{~ 
~
`
`


` 
{~ 
` 
~` 
 
~
`{
 
{ 
~{






}+
[
+\>
]
$

$
232
{{{ {  ~

` {  {
~
~ {  {
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
`{ {{  {{ {{`
{~~ {  { {{`
~{{
 ~{{
{~
`
3. Statistical Annex Prices

|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
[+>

~
  `
{{`
{~
`{
`
{
~  `{
~
{  {
{{`
{{
{{
{
~{  `{
{{
``
{{  ~
{{`
~
{
~
  `
{{
{{
{{`
{{{{
{{{{{
~{{{{  ~{{{{
{{~
{{

`
~  
{{`
{{  {{ {{
~~{{
{`
~{
  `{
{{  {{
{  `{ {{`
{{
~~
{{{{{
`  {
~{{{{  {{{{
{  `{ {{`
{{
{
~{

{{
`{  ~{
{{  {{
{
~{{{{
`
{{{{{  {{{{{
{{
{{
{{~
{{  {{
{{~
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{{{{
{{{{{  {{{{{
{{`
~

{  {
  
{{`
{{
{{{{{
~{{{{  ~{{{{
{{
`
~{
~
{`


{
{
`



{~
~

~{
~
~

~

{

{{`
{{~
{{~
{{~
{{`
{{
{{`
{{~
{{
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{~
``
``  ``
{{`

  {`
{{`
`~
{`~

``  `
{{`
~{{{{
{{{{ 
{{~
{{`
`{{{
~{{{  {{{
{{`
{{`
{{
{  {{ {{`
{{{{
~~{{
{~{
{{{{  {{{{
`{{  `{{
{`  {
{{`
{{
{{`
_ }#[+>

`
[

`  ~
{{`
[
>
[
>>
{{
}+[
!
!x
+>>
X
X


  
+[
+
!
~{  ~{ {{
[
+

[
[
X\
+
+>


\
{{{
x
[
X
+>
+
#[+


>
[+










~{
{

{
~`

{
~
{{  
  ~`
{{  ~{
`
`{
{{`
{{~
{{`
   {{`
+[
\
~{
{  {
{{{{{
{{`
}[
> 

`{ ~{  {{
{

X
$
]

~{


{{  {{
  
~  

233
World Drug Report 2009

|}Xx{x|{x~
|}|"|
$?$$
_
X#\$
X
+
]
>

[+>
`
{~
`~





~
~
{











`~



{

{{`
{  { {{`
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{`
~   {{`

{
~~
`
{
`




~


`
~`





~
{


`



`
{






~











`
`
`

`


`

`  
  ~
{  {
{{~
  {{{ {{`
{{`
{{`
~  ~ {{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{   {{`
{{
~{  {{ {{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{  { {{`
{{`
{  ~ {{`
{{
  ~ {{`
{{`
{{  ~{{ {{`
{{`
  { {{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{  ~{ {{`
~{  ~{ {{`

`  ~{
  { {{`
``
{  
{{`

}#[+>
`{

{{`
{`
~{{{
~{
{{  {{
~  {
``  ~{
{{
{{
{{
~
`{~  {`
{{`
~{


~~~
`~`
`~~
~~
{
~
{`  ~
  {{{ {{`
{{
{{`
`   {{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{
`  { {{`
}+
[
[
X
+
+\>


]
]
!
!
#



$
>

$
$

\

  
  
~~

~









`
`

  
  {
  {
~{`  {{
  ~~~
  {
~{  ~
~{
{{
~

{`  `~
  `
{{`
{{
~
``  ``
{  ~ {{`
`~
{`
`{
~~
{~{
~`
`
`{{
~

~
`~{{
{
`~
~{`
`
{{
  ~ {{`
{{`
{{  ~{{ {{`
{{`
  { {{
{{~
{{
{
~  ~`~~
{{






~{  `{ {{`
[

234
~
~  `{
{  ~ {{`
3.5 Consumption
3.5.1 Annual Prevalence
3.5.1.1 Opiates

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+

x`
X
+
">




\

X`
[

>
X`
[
X

\>?
>
[
\
>
>>
x|`
X
X]
+
+
+[
+
++
+
+¡$
?!
!>
!>
!
!
!X
>
$
[
 
{{
~ {{
~
{
~~ {{`
~ {{
{
{{
{{
~ {{
~ 
~ {{
{
{{`
{
{{
{{
{~
{~{
{`
{`
{{
~
~
~
~
>
>
>
>
>
!#
>
[
+
>
+
+
+
{{
{{
{{
{{
+
!$ [
+
[
>
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
>
>
>
>
>
~ {{~ [!#

~ {{ +
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
{
{{~
{
{`
{
~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{
{{
{{
{{
{
~~ {{
{`
~ {{
{{
~ {{
>
>
>
+
+
+
+
+
>
>
>
>
+
>
>
+
>
>
!#
+
["



##
>



##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
235
World Drug Report 2009

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+

#

[
[X>
X
X>
X
X
+
+>


!
#

[
$

!
>
+
!
X\
+
$
!
#
X!
+

[
X!
[
X$
X\
+
+>

]$
!
$
{~`
{{
{`
{{~
{
{
{
{{
{{
~
{{
{{`
{
{{
{~
[
 
~  [
>
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
>
>
>
~ {{{ [
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
>
>
>
>
>
~ {{ +
>
~ {{ [
~~ {{ +
>
>
~ {{ !#
>
>
>
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
>
>
~ {{~ +
~ {{~ [
~ {{~ +
>
>
##



##
##
{{
{{
{~
~ {{ [
~ {{ +[+[{{
~ {{{ +

##

{
{{
{~{
{{{
~
~
~
~
##
##
##
{{~
{{`
{{~
{{
{{
{
~ {{
~ {{~
{~
{{
{
{{
~
~

~
{{
{{
{{~
{{
+
[
[
[!#

+
+
>
+
[
+
+
+
["
##
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
236
3. Statistical Annex Consumption

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
$

{{
\
{{{

x|xxx
[
{{
[\>"
{`
!
{~
\
{{
\
{{
"
{~

{
\>
{{
x|X+xx
X
{{
+>
{{{{
+
#[+





[+
$+

{{
{{
{
{{{{
{`

~
{{
{{~
£{{
{{
{{
{~{
|||x_X+xx
[
{
X
{

~{{
?

{~{

{`

{`
>
{{

{{

{`{
[>
{{
{{
[>
{{

Xx
X
{{
+
["
~ {{ [
~ {{ [
##

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
##
[
 
{{~
{{
{{
{{
{{
{{
{{`
{{
[
+
+
+![$
+![$
+![$
[
+![$
~ 
~ {{ +!#

~ {{~ [!
#
~ {{ [
~ {{~ [
>
>
~ {{ [
~ {{ ++
~ {{ [
~ {{ !#
>
~ {{ ++
~ {{~ !#
~ {{ [
~ {{~ !$
~ {{` [
>
~ {{~ +!#



##
##
>


##

##
~ {{~ +
~  [
~  +
>
{ {{~ [
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
~ {{ [
~  +
~ {{ +![$
>
>
~ {{ +
~ {{~ +
~ {{ +
>
~ {{ [
##
>
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
237
World Drug Report 2009

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
X

$

x{
X
$
]

Xx{
[>
X#\$
X
+
]
>

x{
[
[
X
+
+\

}

]
]
!
!
#



$
>


$
$
$
{
{{~`
{
+
["
##
>


+
[
[
!#

[
!#
[
[
[
>
~ {{ [
>
~ {{ !$



[
 
>
~~ {{ [
>
~ {{ [!#

~ {{ [
{{{`
{{

{{
~
~
~
~
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{~
{{
{{
{
{~{
~
~
~
~
~
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{
{{~
{{
{{~
{
{{{
{
{{
{{{
{`
{
{{~
{{
{
{{
{{
{~{
{`
{{
{{
{{
{
{~{~
{
{{
{
{{{
{{~{
~
{{
{~
>
~ {{` [
>
~~ {{ [
~ {{ [
~ {{~ [
~ {{~ [
~ {{ [
~ {{~ +
~ {{` !$
 {{ +[
~ {{ [
~ {{ [
~ {{~ [
~ {{ [
~ {{~ [
~ {{` [
~ {{~ [
~ {{ !$
~ {{{ +[
~ {{` [
>
~ {{~ [
~ {{ !$
~ {{~ +[
~ {{~ [
~ {{~ [
>
~ {{ +[
~ {{ [
~ {{ +[














##







##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
238
3. Statistical Annex Consumption

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
$

\
[
+
+
+
]"
]
>
+


!

$
{{{{
{`
{~{`
{{
{
[
 
~ {{ !$
~ {{ [
~ {{{ !$
~ {{` [
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~~ {{ [
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
+
["



##
>
##
>
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
239
World Drug Report 2009
3.5.1.2 Cocaine
`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+

x`
X
+
">




\

X`
[

>
X`
[
X

\>?
>
[
\
>
>>
x|`
X
X]
+
+
+[
+
++
+
+¡$
?!
!>
!>
!
!
!X
>
$
[
 
+
["
##
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
£{
£{
{
{
{`
{
{
{

{~
>
~ {{ !$ [
>
~ {{ [
>
>
~  +
>
>
>
>
~  +
~ {{ [
>
~ {{{ +
~ {{{ +
>
>
>
~ {{ +
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~  +
>
>
>
>
>
>
~  +
## >

##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
240
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+

#

[
[X>
X
X>
X
X
+
+>


!
#

[
$

!
>
+
!
X\
+
$
!
#
X!
+

[
X!
[
X$
X\
+
+>

]$
!

\
$
[
 
+
["
##
>

>
>
>
>
>
£{
{
{
{
{
{

{
{`
{`
{
{
{{~
{
{
{~{

>
~ {{{ +
>
~ {{` ++[
>
>
~ {{{ +
>
>
`{ {{{ +
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
>
>
>
>
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
>
~ {{ +
~
`{
~
~
~
~
~
{{~
{{
{{~
{{~
{{~
{{
{{
++[
[
++[
[
[
++[
!$

{

~ {{ [
~ {{ +
~ {{` [#[

{
{`
`
{
{
~
~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{`
{{~
{{
{{
{{`
{
{{
{~

{
~

~
~
~
{{
{{
{{
{{
{{~
[
[
!$
[
!$
++[
>
>
++[
[
+
[
!$
##
##
##
##
##
>

##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
241
World Drug Report 2009
`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
$

x|xxx
[
{
[\>"
!
\
\
"

\>
x|X+xx
X
+>
+
#[+
£{

£{



£{

[+
£{
$+
{
£{

|||x_X+xx
[
X

?

{

£{

£{
>
{


[>
£{
[>

Xx
X
X

$

[
 
~ {{~ +
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 {{
~ {{~
~ {{
~ {{~
~ {{~
~ {{`
{
~
~
~
{{~

{{~
{{
~ {{~
>
>
>
[
+
>
>
[
>
>
>
>
>
+
>
[+}!
[
>
>
>
>
>
>
[
+
+
+
>
>
>
>
>
+
>
>
+
["
##
>
##
>
##
>
##
##
>
##
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
242
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
x{
X
$
]

Xx{
[>
X#\$
X
+
]
>

x{
[
[
X
+
+\

}

]
]
!
!
#



$
>


$
$

\
[
$
£{{
{{
{{
£{
{
{
£{
{
£{
[
 
~ {{` [
>
~ {{` [
~ {{` [
~ {{ +
>
~ {{` [
~ {{` [
~ {{` +
>
~ {{ [
>
~ {{ +
{

{
{
{

{
{~
{
{`
{
{
{
`

{~
{
{
{

`{
{

{
{
{
~
~
~~
~

~
~
~
~

~

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{`
{{
{{
{{~
{{
{{
{{
{{~
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{~
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{
{{
{{`

{
{
{
{~{
{
~
~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`

>
!$
[
[
+[
[
!$
[
[
[
!$
[
[
[
!$
!$
[
+
[
+
[
[
[
!$
[
[
[
>
!$
[
[
!$
[
[
~ {{` !$
+
["



##
>

##

##
##
##
##
##
##
##

>


##
>
##
##
##
##



##
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
243
World Drug Report 2009
`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
+
+
+
]"
]
>
+


!

$
$
{
[
 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~ {{ [
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
+
["
##
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
244
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
3.5.1.3 Cannabis

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+

x`
X
+
">




\

X`
[

>
X`
[
X

\>?
>
[
\
>
>>
x|`
X
X]
+
+
+[
+
++
+
+¡$
?!
!>
!>
!
!
!X
>
$


`{{


~
~

£{



{`
``



~

[
 
>
~ {{ +
>
>
~  [
~ {{ [!+
~ {{ [
~~ {{ [
>
>
~ {{ +
>
>
~
~
~
~
{{
{{

{{
!+
!$ [
[
[
>
>
~  [
>
>
>
>
~ {{{ [
~ {{ [
>
~ {{ +
~ {{{ +
>
~ {{ +
>
~ {{ +
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~  +
>
>
>
>
>
>
~ {{{ [
+
["
[
[


[
##
##
>
[



##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
245
World Drug Report 2009

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+

#

[
[X>
X
X>
X
X
+
+>


!
#

[
$

!
>
+
!
X\
+
$
!
#
X!
+

[
X!
[
X$
X\
+
+>

]$
!

\
$
`
[
 
>
>
>
>
~ {{ [
+
["

##

>
`

~ {{
~ {{`

`

{`
~
~
~
~~
{{{
{{
{{~
{{
{

`
~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{
{{
{{
>
>
+
++[
>
>
>
>
>
[
+
[
+
>
>
>
>
+
+
+
+
~
{
{

~

{
~
`{
~
~
~
~
~
{{~
{{
{{~
{{~
{{
{{
{{
++[
[
++[
+
+
++[
+
`{


~ {{ [
~ {{~ +
~ {{` [#[
##
`


`~

{`
~
~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{`
{{~
{{
{{
{{`
##
##


{`
{
{
`~
~
~

~
~
~
{{
{{~
{{
{{
{{
{{~
++[
++[
!$
++[
[
++[
>
+
+
[
+
++[
[
##
>

##
##
##
##


##
##
##
##
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
246
3. Statistical Annex Consumption

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
$

x|xxx
[
~
[\>"
~
!
{~`
\

\

"


\>

x|X+xx
X
+>
~
+
#[+
£{

{`



£{{

{`
[+
{`

{
{`{
$+
{


{
|||x_X+xx
[

X


?

~




>


{


[>
{
[>
~

Xx
X

X


$


~
[
~
~
~
~
~
~
 
{{
{{
{{~
{{
{{

+
+
+
+
[
+
>
~ {{ +
>
~ {{ +
>
~ {{~ [
~ {{~ [
>
>
~ {{ [
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
>
~ {{~ +
~ {{ !$
>
 {{~ [+}!
~ {{` [
>
~ {{ +
~ {{~ ++
>
~  [
>
{ {{~ [
~ {{ [
~ {{~ +
~ {{ [
~ 
~ {{{ +
>
>
~ {{ !$![
>
~ {{ +
>
~~ {{ [
>
~{ {{{ [
>
~  +
~ {{{ +
+
["

##
>


##


##
##

>
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
247
World Drug Report 2009

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
x{
X
$
]

Xx{
[>
X#\$
X
+
]
>

x{
[
[
X
+
+\

}

]
]
!
!
#



$
>


$
$

\
[
$
{
[
 
~

~ {{` [
>
~ {{` [
~ {{` [

{

~~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{~
{{`
{{`
~
~{


~
`



`
`

~





`

`{{
~
`

`

~
~
~


~
~
~
~

~

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{
{{
{{
{{~
{{
{{
{{
{{~
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{
{{`
{{~
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{
{{
{{`
{


{

~{
~
~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{

{
[
+
[
[
>
>
~ {{ [
>
~ {{ +
>
!$
+[
[
[
[
!$
[
[
[
!$
[
[
[
!$
!$
[
+
[
+
[
[
[
!$
[
[
[
>
!$
[
[
!$
[
[
~ {{` !$
+
["



##


##
##
##
##
##
##
##



##
##
##
##
##


##
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
248
3. Statistical Annex Consumption

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
+
+
+
]"
]
>
+


!

$
$

[
 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~ {{ [
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
+
["
##
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
249
World Drug Report 2009
3.5.1.4 Amphetamine-type stimulants (excluding ecstasy)
;
`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+

x`
X
+
">




\

X`
[

>
X`
[
X

\>?
>
[
\
>
>>
x|`
X
X]
+
+
+[
+
++
+
+¡$
?!
!>
!>
!
!
!X
>
$
[
 
+
["
##
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
{{~
£{
>
~ {{ !$ [
>
~  [
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[
[
>
+
[
£{
{~{
~ {{{
~ {{
{
{
~ {{
~ {{{

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~  +
## >
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
250
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
;
`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+

#

[
[X>
X
X>
X
X
+
+>


!
#

[
$

!
>
+
!
X\
+
$
!
#
X!
+

[
X!
[
X$
X\
+
+>

]$
!

\
$
[
 
+
["
>
>
>
>
>
{
{
~ {{
~ {{`

{`
~ {{
~ {{~
{
{
~ {{
~ {{
>
>
+
++[
>
>
>
>
>
+
[
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
+
+



{
{
{
{
~
`{
~
~
~
~
~
++[
[
++[
+
+
+
+
{
{

~ {{ [
~ {{ +
~ {{` [#[
{
{~
{`
{
{~
{
~
~
~

~
~
{{~
{{`
{{~
{{
{{~
{{~
{~
{
{
{
{
~

~
~
~
{{~
{{
{{
{{
{{
{{~
{{
{{~
{{~
{{~
{{
{{
+
[
!$
!$
+
+
>
>
+
!$
+
[
+

##



##
##
\



##

##





##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
251
World Drug Report 2009
;
`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
$

x|xxx
[
£{
[\>"
!
\
\
"

\>
x|X+xx
X
{
+>
{
+
#[+
{

{



£{{

`
[+
{
{

$+
{


{
|||x_X+xx
[
X

?

{

{

{
>
{

{

[>
{
[>

Xx
X
X

$

[
 
~ {{~ +
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~ {{ +
~ {{ +
>
~ {{ +
~ {{~ !$
>
>
~ {{ [
~ {{ [
>
~ {{~ +
>
~ {{~ +
~ {{ !$
>
 {{~ [+}!
~ {{` [
>
~ {{ +
{
~
~
~
~{
{{~
{{
{{~
{{

~ {{
>
>
>
>
[
+
+
+
[
>
>
>
+
>
>
>
+
["
##

##
##
[
>


##


##

>
>
>
>
>
>
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
252
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
;
`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
x{
X
$
]

Xx{
[>
X#\$
X
+
]
>

x{
[
[
X
+
+\

}

]
]
!
!
#



$
>


$
$

\
[
$
[
{
{
{{
{{
~
~
~
~
£{
{~
{{
{
{
 
{{

{{`
{{`
~ {{ [
>
~ {{` [
~ {{` [
>
>
~ {{ +
>
~ {{ +
{~
{
{
{`
{`
{

{
{
{~
{
{
{{
{
{{`
{
{
{
{
{
{~{
{
{

{`
{
~
~
~


~
~
~
~

~

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{`
{{
{{
{{~
{{
{{
{{
{{~
{{
{{
{{`
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{~
{{

{{`
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{
{{
{{`

{
{{
{
{{
{{`
~
~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
`
+
+
[
[
>
!$
[
[
[
[
!$
[
[
[
!$
[
[
[
!$
!$[
[
+
[
+
[
[
[
!$
[
[
[
>
!$
[
[
!$
[
[
~ {{` !$
+
["


##


##

##
##
##
##
##

##
##
##
##


##
##
##
##



##
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
253
World Drug Report 2009
;
`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
+
+
+
]"
]
>
+


!

$
$

[
 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~ {{ [
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
+
["
##
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
254
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
3.5.1.5 Ecstasy

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+

x`
X
+
">




\

X`
[

>
X`
[
X

\>?
>
[
\
>
>>
x|`
X
X]
+
+
+[
+
++
+
+¡$
?!
!>
!>
!
!
!X
>
$
[
 
+
["
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
£{
£{
{
{
£{
>
>
>
~ {{ [
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~ {{{ [
~ {{ +
>
~ {{ +
>
>
>
>
~ {{ +
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
255
World Drug Report 2009

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+

#

[
[X>
X
X>
X
X
+
+>


!
#

[
$

!
>
+
!
X\
+
$
!
#
X!
+

[
X!
[
X$
X\
+
+>

]$
!

\
$
[
 
+
["
##

>
>
>
>
>
>
{
{~
~ {{
~ {{`
{
`{ {{{
{
{`
~ {{~
~ {{
>
>
+
++[
>
>
>
>
>
+
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
+
+
~
`{
~
~
~
~
~
!$
[
++[
+
+
++[
+
{
{{
£{
£{
£{
£{
{
{{~
{{
{{~
{{~
{{~
{{
{{

£{

~ {{ [
~ {{ +[+
~ {{` [#[
{~
{
{
{
{
{
~
~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{`
{{~
{{
{{~
{{~
{
£{
£{
{
{
{
~
~

~
~
~
{{
{{~
{{
{{
{{
{{
!$
[
+
!$
+
+
>
+
+
[
+
!$
+


##
##
>

##
>
##
##
##
##

##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
256
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
257
World Drug Report 2009

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
x{
X
$
]

Xx{
[>
X#\$
X
+
]
>

x{
[
[
X
+
+\

}

]
]
!
!
#



$
>


$
$

\
[
$
{
{`
{`
£{
[
 
~ {{` [
>
~ {{` [
~ {{` [
{
~ {{ [
>
~ {{` [
~ {{` [
~  +
>
~ {{ +
>
~ {{ +
{~

{
~
{
~
`
{~
{~
{
{
{~
{~

{`
~
{~
{
{~
{
{


{~
{
{
~
~
~~
~

~
~
~
~

~

~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
~

~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{`
{{
{{
{{~
{{
{{
{{
{{~
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{~
{{

{{`
{{`
{{~
{{`
{{
{{
{{`


{`

{{
{{
~
~
~
~
~
~
{{
{{
{{`
{{`
{{`
{{`
{`
{
{
{

>
!$
[
[
[
+[
!$
[
[
[
!$
[
[
[
!$
!$[
[
+
[
+
[
[
[
!$
[
[
[
>
!$
[
[
!$
[
[
~ {{` !$![
+
["



##

##

##
##
##

##

##
>


##
##
##



##
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
258
3. Statistical Annex Consumption

`xx{`X{{|>=+Q'Wxx
X}x||[
+
+
+
+
]"
]
>
+


!

$
$

[
 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~ {{ [
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
+
["
##
\
##¢#$¢$[¢["¢¢
+["¢"~>¢>$¢"
>$¢"$¢"$"$
¢"\$[¢"¢"
¢"#>"¢$\¢[
+["$>}
259
260
Source
ARQ
SENDU/
ARQ
RAS (1)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
GAP
Univ. (2)
SENDU
ARQ
SENDU
ARQ
SENDU
ARQ
ARQ
Govt.
ARQ
GAP
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
SENDU
SENDU
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
Treatment Year
1999/ 2006***
2003/ 2006**
2006
1995
2006
2006
1996
1995
1998
2007
2006
2006
2005
2005
2004
2007
2004
2007
2004
2005/ 2006***
2006
2004
1997
2005
2007
1997
2006
2004
2004
2002
2007
2005
3.0 %
7.7 %
1.0 %
9.7 %
11.4 %
24.4 %
0.7 %
72.2 %
2.0 %
0.6 %
17.3 %
0.9 %
4.9 %
4.1 %
42.7 %
11.5 %
18.8 %
0.4 %
37.8 %
90.0 %
54.7 %
2.4 %
1.2 %
5.5 %
1.0 %
45.0 %
20.3 %
0.9 %
32.7 %
4.3 %
16.5 %
62.8 %
7.2 %
0.2 %
-
5.1 %
24.4 %
1.0 %
9.8 %
30.8 %
2.0 %
0.5 %
7.2 %
18.8 %
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.0 %
12.1 %
28.0 %
2.7 %
13.6 %
Opiates
6.6 %
100.0 %
50.6 %
100.0 %
91.0 %
50.1 %
38.5 %
18.8 %
84.5 %
36.3 %
100.0 %
60.8 %
100.0 %
10.0 %
33.3 %
2.4 %
69.2 %
89.7 %
22.2 %
78.0 %
55.0 %
96.8 %
33.8 %
92.2 %
62.7 %
56.2 %
Cannabis
81.3 %
100.0 %
60.0 %
48.5 %
2.9 %
4.2 %
4.7 %
61.0 %
Sources: UNODC, Annual Reports Questionnaires (ARQ) and Field Office (FO) data, Southern African Development
Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use (SENDU), International Psychology Reporter,
UNODC Global Assessment Programme on Drug Abuse (GAP)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Methaqualone
-
* Note that treatment definitions and reporting differ from country to country; totals which exceed 100% represent poly-drug use reporting.
** Figures may reflect number of persons or treatment episodes depending on Member State; figures exclude alcohol and nicotine.
*** The second year specified is for the number of people treated (last column).
(1)
Proxy: drugs locally consumed, based on key informants from social services (health affairs), from traditional healers, and repression.
(2)
Proxy: cohort of abusers identified from rehabilitation centres, treatment centres, hospitals, streets, and drug dens within 5 urban areas.
Country/ Territory
Algeria
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Rep.
Chad
Congo
Côte d'Ivoire
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Ghana
Kenya
Lesotho
Madagascar
Malawi
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Sao Tome & Principe
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Zambia
Total
Average (unweighted)
Amphetamine Cocaine type Stimulants
0.2 %
-
1.9 %
0.9 %
3.9 %
39.2 %
0.5 %
Depressants
Distribution of main drugs in percentages*
3.5.2.1 Primary drugs of abuse among persons treated for drug problems in Africa
3.5.2 Treatment demand
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
e
f
a, e
a
a, d
b, c
b
a
d
a
a
a
h
d
Data
Primarily
Reflect
Data primarily reflect (codes)
Geographically limited reporting (eg the Capital city)
Publicly funded treatment
NGO/ privately funded treatment
Inpatient/ hospitalization modality
Outpatient modality
Limited subpopulation (eg prison, youth, etc)
Opioid substitution treatment (eg methadone)
First-time treatment entrants (not returning clients)
Treatment admissions (not persons)
6.0 %
11.0 %
34.6 %
3.7 %
0.5 %
-
42.3 %
1.2 %
6.3 %
5.3 %
36.4 %
Inhalants
2.1 %
Treatment
Khat Provided ***
1,436
311
75
57
58
16
41
129,850
26
62.5 %
64
1,531
11.4 %
402
54
148
796
1,235
150
238
168
925
202
149
2,067
9,813
128
340
162
519
233
151,194
3.1 %
World Drug Report 2009
ARQ
St. Lucia
ARQ/ Govt.
Venezuela
4.2%
39.9%
2004/ 2005***
1.7%
6.9%
33.2%
32.0%
Average (unweighted)
33.5%
49.9%
52.1%
19.2%
23.0%
46.4%
51.1%
24.7%
82.5%
67.0%
48.9%
14.5%
37.1%
43.0%
3.1%
37.5%
4.5%
0.5%
28.2%
31.8%
14.0%
Basuco
Sources: UNODC Annual Reports Questionnaires data (ARQ); SIDUC, Treatment Centres Data 1998, Drug of impact; SIDUC 1997 Report;
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Treatment episode dataset TEDS, USA; Canadian Community
Epidemiology Network on Drug Use (CCENDU), Morbidity Statistics 2000/2001 (separations related to illicit drug use)
* Note that treatment definitions and reporting differ from country to country; totals which exceed 100% represent poly-drug use reporting.
** Figures may reflect number of persons or treatment episodes depending on Member State; figures exclude alcohol and nicotine.
*** The second year specified is for the number of people treated (last column).
20.7%
23.3%
0.4%
70.1%
27.6%
46.4%
23.0%
29.5%
26.7%
51.1%
48.8%
12.2%
24.7%
75.3%
Total North America
2007
2006
1998/ 2006***
2006/ 2006***
82.5%
67.0%
31.1%
17.5%
49.4%
5.1%
0.3%
77.3%
7.3%
43.0%
37.1%
53.3%
12.6%
16.7%
9.0%
34.4%
37.5%
36.8%
36.8%
35.4%
40.0%
40.0%
17.2%
55.5%
60.0%
1998/ 2006***
2005/ 2006***
2005
62.4%
40.0%
63.8%
55.5%
75.1%
28.1%
73.3%
40.4%
23.1%
5.6%
40.3%
51.2%
Cocaine
13.8%
2.1%
0.1%
5.9%
31.2%
18.2%
62.4%
73.3%
56.3%
0.1%
13.4%
20.2%
40.4%
54.9%
14.7%
15.9%
72.3%
27.8%
30.7%
40.3%
51.2%
59.7%
0.5%
Opiates
1998/ 2004***
2007
2006
1998/ 2006***
2002/ 2007***
2007
2007
2004/ 2006***
2007
2007
1998
2007
1998/ 2006***
1998/ 2005***
2005
40.2%
Cannabis
Total South America
Total
SIDUC/ ARQ
Govt. (TEDS)
Uruguay
USA
ARQ/ Govt.
SIDUC/ Govt.
ARQ
Panama
Peru
ARQ/ Govt.
SIDUC/ Govt.
Nicaragua
St. Vincent & Grenadines
ARQ
ARQ
Jamaica
Mexico
Trinidad & Tobago
ARQ/ Govt.
ARQ
Guatemala
SIDUC/ ARQ
ARQ
Grenada
Haiti
ARQ
El Salvador
Honduras
ARQ
ARQ
Canada
Chile
Costa Rica
CAMH/ DATIS
(Ontario)
ARQ
Dominican Rep.
Ecuador
ARQ
Brazil
SIDUC
ARQ
2008
2007
SIDUC/ARQ
SIDUC/ARQ
Barbados
Bolivia
Colombia
2005
ARQ
Bahamas
2006-07
ARQ
Argentina
Treatment Year
Sources
Country/ Territory
Sum of all
Cocaine
Cocaine Group
3.9%
62.8%
5.9%
46.6%
35.1%
66.7%
Crack
3.5.2.1 Primary drugs of abuse among persons treated for drug problems in America
6.9%
4.8%
14.5%
0.2%
14.4%
0.6%
0.3%
26.2%
42.1%
0.4%
0.1%
1.4%
3.6%
2.7%
2.8%
1.4%
0.5%
Amphetamines
4.8%
5.1%
3.3%
0.1%
21.1%
0.7%
3.40%
3.3%
0.4%
Ecstasy
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
Amphetamine-type stimulants
3.2%
2.2%
0.6%
0.7%
1.4%
6.3%
4.4%
3.6%
Tranquilizers
973,447
1,513,067
2,486,514
1,992
1,406,000
9,159
861
196
40
35,482
992
1,502
41,005
349
7,500
27
3,000
250
10,720
3,550
7,590
14,899
7,750
66,062
850,000
14,396
111
647
2,434
a, b, c
b (TEDS)
a
d, e
d
d
a
d, e
d, e
b
a
d, e
a
d, e
d, e
d, e
d, e
d, e
a (Ontario)
b, d, e
a
Data
Primarily
Reflect
6.8%
2.8%
Data primarily reflect (codes)
Geographically limited reporting (eg the Capital city)
Publicly funded treatment
NGO/ privately funded treatment
Inpatient/ hospitalization modality
Outpatient modality
Limited subpopulation (eg prison, youth, etc)
Opioid substitution treatment (eg methadone)
First-time treatment entrants (not returning clients)
Treatment admissions (not persons)
8.1%
2.7%
1.1%
0.1%
9.2%
0.5%
12.7%
7.5%
9.0%
5.0%
4.8%
0.6%
23.5%
7.3%
Inhalants
Treatment
Provided **
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
261
262
ARQ
ARQ
AMCEWG/ ARQ
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam
Average (unweighted)
Total
ARQ
UNODC FO (DAINAP)
ARQ
Singapore
Syria
Turkmenistan
Govt./ Univ.
Saudi Arabia
UNODC FO (DAINAP)
ARQ
Korea, Rep.
ARQ
ARQ
Qatar
Thailand
UNODC FO (DAINAP)
Philippines
Tajikistan
2007
ARQ
Pakistan
ARQ
ARQ
Oman
NBCD Taiwan (POC) Health
AMCEWG/ARQ
Nepal
Sri Lanka
UNODC FO (DAINAP)/ ARQ
Myanmar
Taiwan, Prov. of China
2006
ARQ
Mongolia
2001/ 2007***
2004/ 2007***
2006
2007
2007
2004/ 2007***
2007
2007
2005-06
2007
1997/ 2007***
2007
2004
2002
1994/ 2006***
2007/ 2007***
2001
2003
2005/ 2007***
2006
AMCEWG/ ARQ
ARQ
Macau SAR, China
2007
2004/ 2006***
ARQ
ARQ / UNODC Est.
Lebanon
Maldives
ARQ
Lao PDR
2007
2005
2007
1999
2005
2007
2008
2006
2004/ 2005
2004/ 2007***
2007
2007
2004
2007
2007
1998
2003
2006/ 2007***
Treatment Year
2007
Malaysia
ARQ
ARQ
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Govt.
Japan
ARQ
ARQ
Israel
ARQ
Govt.
Iran
Kuwait
ARQ
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Govt/ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
Georgia
Hong Kong SAR, China
Govt./ UNODC
Cambodia
India
UNODC FO (DAINAP)/ARQ
UNODC FO (DAINAP)/ARQ
ARQ
Bangladesh
Brunei Darussalam
ARQ
Bahrain
China
ARQ
ARQ / UNODC Est.
Azerbaijan
ARQ
Source
Armenia
Country/ Territory
Afghanistan
-
10.0%
-
16.8%
3.3%
9.9%
-
0.1%
-
0.2%
2.0%
55.8%
2.7%
5.1%
33.1%
37.0%
-
5.4%
5.9%
28.6%
13.0%
15.4%
-
32.0%
19.4%
28.8%
2.2%
-
2.3%
1.7%
0.7%
15.5%
4.2%
0.5%
-
-
17.1%
-
20.0%
Cannabis
64.6%
98.0%
78.8%
96.7%
4.7%
99.2%
69.9%
100.0%
94.9%
56.3%
7.5%
0.5%
25.4%
-
49.0%
100.0%
87.2%
91.7%
0.3%
-
-
-
0.04%
-
0.1%
-
0.9%
-
-
0.5%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
71.4%
-
87.0%
-
4.0%
-
-
4.0%
-
-
-
0.2%
-
1.5%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.5%
Cocaine
68.3%
84.8%
57.0%
92.2%
77.3%
31.1%
94.7%
21.4%
-
83.4%
97.2%
61.3%
72.5%
77.9%
0.1%
90.0%
-
82.9%
100.0%
75.0%
98.5%
Opiates
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.2%
2.0%
-
-
79.8%
-
25.1%
0.6%
-
-
-
1.0%
-
0.5%
-
-
6.9%
13.1%
-
-
0.5%
-
1.4%
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.2%
2.6%
-
-
-
-
-
0.1%
-
-
0.3%
6.2%
Ecstasy-Group
72.8%
82.8%
1.7%
59.8%
-
-
-
2.4%
-
-
12.8%
-
0.5%
7.7%
-
19.1%
0.1%
45.2%
55.1%
2.6%
1.8%
0.2%
3.9%
81.0%
0.6%
100.0%
-
-
-
-
AmphetaminesGroup
Distribution of main drug in percentages*
Amphetamine-type stimulants
3.5.2.1 Primary drugs of abuse among persons treated for drug problems in Asia
-
-
-
-
-
1.5%
-
0.9%
-
4.6%
-
0.3%
-
-
-
0.7%
10.2%
5.0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8%
-
0.6%
-
-
-
2.8%
-
4.1%
21.6%
5.5%
-
0.6%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.5%
6.0%
-
-
16.0%
3.1%
-
-
-
0.3%
4.1%
-
0.3%
3.3%
Sedatives
1.0%
6%
14.5%
-
-
0.9%
-
9.7%
-
-
-
-
5.0%
-
Inhalants
449,700
63,000
6,676
22
28,720
58,030
589
18,776
3,413
674
504
1,059
355
94
4,287
4,000
7
900
1,246
7
126
7,135
358
1,124
2,423
879
908
9,728
85
975
13,000
587,109
3,777
81,802
10,893
1,092
1,719
105,151
59
1,377
1,488
122
Treatment
Provided **
7,660
b
d, e
d, e
a, d
d
f
d, e
a, d
d
a, d
a
f
a
b, f
d, e
b
d, e
d
d, e
d, f
d, e
d
d, e
d, e
d, e
d, e
f
a
f
d
Data
Primarily
Reflect
a
World Drug Report 2009
8.4%
1.3%
13.3%
9.3%
8.7%
9.9%
3.0%
0.2 %
1.0 %
2.1 %
26.8 %
0.1 %
0.8%
40.6%
0.5 %
0.04 %
15.0 %
8.9 %
3.8 %
3.9%
5.8%
38.9 %
0.6%
0.2%
16.7 %
3.1 %
2.6 %
58.6 %
7.9%
5.8%
23.2%
0.3%
6.2%
3.6%
11.8%
1.7%
0.5%
3.2%
Amphetamines
1.6%
1.4%
1.7%
0.5%
0.9 %
1.0 %
0.2 %
0.5%
0.2%
0.8 %
3.9 %
0.7%
4.0%
0.1 %
3.0 %
2.1 %
11.1 %
1.8%
0.5%
0.1%
1.1%
1.6%
1.4 %
0.1 %
1.1%
1.7%
1.0%
Ecstasy
0.4%
0.7%
0.2%
0.1 %
0.3 %
0.1%
0.6 %
0.1 %
0.2%
0.7 %
0.1%
1.2%
Hallucinogens
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
5.1%
6.4%
4.4%
1.1 %
1.2
8.3
3.0
2.1
5.4 %
10.1 %
1.0 %
31.3 %
0.2 %
1.1 %
1.8 %
0.6 %
31.7 %
1.2 %
0.1
2.0
0.8
0.7
1.4
3.0%
4.4%
5.8%
0.4%
0.3 %
10.6 %
2.7 %
2.6 %
4.9 %
0.4 %
1.5 %
12.3%
Inhalants/
Solvents
Data Primarily
Treatment
Reflect
Provided **
2,140
d, e
419
5,603
d, e
2,532
d
3,662
653
a
2,185
a
7,464
b, d, e
720
a
8,164
d, e
5,426
b, d, e
1,339
4,865
a
79,600
b
42,638
e
4,508
b, e
902
a, d, e
13,457
a, d, e
1,800
a
12,744
b
171,353
b
635
d
32
5,715
d
1,901
e, d
2,121
e
5,327
30,766
e
1,984
a
3,003
i
13,198
d
34,266
d, e
1,893
d
356,188
b
12,562
a
1,927
d, e
3,000
e
50,630
d, e
6,962
d, e
20,000
d, e
2,853
d
41,208
195,464
a, d, e
1,163,809
693,029
59.7%
67.1%
53.3%
11.1%
31.2%
10.1%
1.0 %
0.9%
25.0%
0.5%
0.06%
7.2%
1.3%
1.3%
46.9%
3.1%
25.4%
3.8%
1.9%
16.7%
10.7%
14.0%
0.4%
15.6%
0.2%
11.0%
8.0%
7.5%
6.9%
2.6%
6.3%
0.05%
13.0%
0.7%
0.1%
2.0%
13.3 %
0.1%
5.8%
Cocaine
5.7%
470,780
19.5%
16.6%
21.6%
12.6%
12.2%
36.5%
29.6%
7.6%
1.3%
39.9 %
33.3 %
20.4%
9.6%
7.3 %
81.3 %
0.5 %
8.0%
12.0 %
51.8 %
21.3%
35.4%
14.0 %
3.0 %
5.0%
6.3 %
6.0 %
13.5 %
19.9 %
7.0 %
10.9%
19.8%
14.2 %
37.6 %
80.8%
76.0%
76.0%
39.1%
42.8%
12.1%
52.0%
23.3%
63.0%
93.0%
89.0%
68.6%
51.1%
91.1%
39.3%
28.0%
43.9%
41.9%
100.0%
68.9%
65.8%
63.2%
44.2%
48.3%
98.5%
77.7%
56.7%
25.5%
53.4%
82.0%
56.1%
49.4%
49.8%
87.7%
98.7%
18.6%
2.8%
63.9%
72.3%
70.7%
20.7%
15.2%
20.0%
48.3%
0.8 %
13.5 %
27.8 %
12.7 %
30.4%
11.5%
Opiates
82.9%
Cannabis
Hypnotics
and
Sedatives
Total West Europe
Average (unweighted) Europe
Average (unweighted) East Europe
Average (unweighted) West Europe
ARQ
ARQ
EMCDDA
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
EMCDDA
EMCDDA
ARQ
EMCDDA/ ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
Govt.
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ/ EMCDDA
EMCDDA
ARQ/ UNODC
ARQ
Govt.
Focal Point EMCDDA
ARQ/ UNODC
ARQ/ Focal Point EMCDDA
ARQ
UNODC
Govt.
ARQ
EMCDDA
ARQ
ARQ
Govt./ ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
Govt.
Source
Amphetamine-type stimulants
Total East Europe
Total Europe
Country/ Territory
Albania
Andorra
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Macedonia, FYR
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Moldova
Netherlands
Northern Ireland
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Federation
Scotland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
England & Wales
Treatment
Year
2006
2007
2006
2007
2004
2007
2006
2007
2007
2006
2006
2005
2007
2006
2006/ 2006***
2006
2005
2007
2007
2006
2006
2007
2006
2007
2003/ 2006***
2006
2004/ 2006****
2006
2007-08
2004
2003/ 2006***
2004/ 2007***
2007
2006/ 2007***
2007-08
2007
2004
2007
2006
2003/ 2007***
2006
2006
2006-07
3.5.2.1 Primary drugs of abuse among persons treated for drug problems in Europe
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
263
264
2005/2007****
2006/2007***
Treatment Year
47.0%
53.2%
40.7%
Cannabis
26.3%
30.8%
21.8%
Opiates
0.4%
0.2%
0.6%
Cocaine
18.5%
15.0%
22.0%
Amphetamines
* Note that treatment definitions and reporting differ from country to country; totals which exceed 100% represent poly-drug use repo
** Figures may reflect number of persons or treatment episodes depending on Member State; figures exclude alcohol and nicotine.
*** Data for Australia refer to closed drug related treatment episodes over the July 2006-June 2007 period.
**** The second year specified is for the number of people treated (last column).
Source: UNODC, Annual Reports Questionnaire (ARQ) data
Average (unweighted)
Total
ARQ
New Zealand
Source
Govt.
Country/ Territory
Australia
1.3%
1.3%
Ecstasy
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
Amphetamine-type stimulants
3.0%
3.0%
Sedatives
98,545
20,000
78,545
Treatment
Provided **
b
b
Data
Primarily
Reflect
Data primarily reflect (codes)
Geographically limited reporting (eg the Capital city)
Publicly funded treatment
NGO/ privately funded treatment
Inpatient/ hospitalization modality
Outpatient modality
Limited subpopulation (eg prison, youth, etc)
Opioid substitution treatment (eg methadone)
First-time treatment entrants (not returning clients)
Treatment admissions (not persons)
0.9%
Hallucinogens
Distribution of main drugs in percentages*
3.5.2.1 Primary drugs of abuse among persons treated for drug problems in Oceania
World Drug Report 2009
Subregion
East Africa
Southern Africa
Caribbean
Central America
North America
Region
AFRICA
AFRICA
AMERICAS
AMERICAS
AMERICAS
3.6.1 Heroin
3.6 Youth and school surveys
St. Vincent & Grenadines
Trinidad & Tobago
Belize
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Panama
Canada
Dominica
Haiti
Jamaica
Barbados
Antigua & Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
South Africa
Country/ Territory
Mauritius
12 - 17
13 - 15
12 - 17
12 - 19
13 - 17
10 - 25
11 - 24
Ages 11 - 19
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
15 - 16
12 - 18
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
10 - 19
13 - 17
Secondary/
High School
0.35
2
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.28
0.3
3
1.7
1
0.9
1
1.3
2.2
% of
young
people
Coverage who ever
(age/grade) used
14 - 18
1.2
Life-time
0.2
0.08
0.18
0.3
1.9
0.4
0.7
2006
2002
1998
2003
2004
2005
1997
2006
2006
2005
2006
2006
2005
2003
2002
2006
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
OAS
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
% of young
people who
used at
least once
in the past Year of
month
Estimate Source
2004 ARQ
% of young
people who
used at
least once
in the past
year
1
Last month
Annual
HEROIN
use amongst young people (ordered alphabetically by regions)
Select regions (Cape
Town)
Notes
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
265
266
South America
Central Asia and Transcaucasian countries
East and South-East Asia
Near and Middle East /South-West Asia
South Asia
East Europe
Southeast Europe
AMERICAS
ASIA
ASIA
ASIA
ASIA
EUROPE
EUROPE
Suriname
Uruguay
Venezuela
Armenia
Georgia
Kyrgyzstan
Hong Kong SAR, China
Macau SAR, China
Myanmar
Thailand
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Oman
Bangladesh
Belarus
Russian Federation
Ukraine
Albania
Bulgaria
Peru
Paraguay
Colombia
Ecuador
Guyana
Mexico
USA
Argentina
Bolivia
12 - 19
15 - 19
14 - 19
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
10 - 23
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
12 - 18
13 - 18
13 - 21
17 - 25
11 - 20
15 - 18
15 - 16
15 - 16
10 - 23
13 - 17
12 - 18
Youth
(undefined)
Students (ages
13-17)
Secondary/
High School
12 - 17
Grades 7, 9
and 11
13 - 17
Grade 10
0
1.8
2.2
0.1
1.5
0.2
0.23
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.3
1.3
0.9
0.7
0.7
1.5
0.9
1
0.4
0
1.9
0.9
0.8
3
0.7
0.2
0.007
2
0
0.3
0.27
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.8
0
0.2
2006
2003
2005
2007
2005
2001
2007
2002
2004
2005
2005
2001
2001
2002
2001
2007
2007
2003
2004
2007
2005
2005
2004
2005
2002
2006
2007
2007
2004
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
Ages not specified
Select regions
World Drug Report 2009
EUROPE
West & Central Europe
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Isle of Man
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Belgium
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Faroe Isl.
Finland
France
Germany
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Croatia
Romania
Turkey
Austria
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
11 - 17
15 - 16
12 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 17
15 - 16
15 - 16
11 - 18
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
16 - 16
1.6
1
1
2
3
1.4
0.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
2
1
1
1.4
1
1
1
2
2.0
0.5
1.3
1
1
3
1.1
1.9
0
2
1.7
1
0.6
0.2
0
1
1.5
1.2
1
0.6
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
2007
1999
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2002
2007
2003
2007
2007
2003
2007
Select regions
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
Select regions
(Budapest)
(Flanders)
ESPAD
ESPAD
Govt./ ESPAD Heroin and opiates
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
Select regions
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
267
OCEANIA
Oceania
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Australia
268
12 - 17
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
14 - 18
15 - 16
15 - 19
15 - 16
2
1.5
2
1
1
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.8
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
World Drug Report 2009
Subregion
Southern Africa
West and Central Africa
Caribbean
AFRICA
AFRICA
AMERICAS
Grenada
Haiti
Dominican Rep.
Dominican Rep.
Dominican Rep.
Dominica
Dominica
Barbados
Barbados
Antigua & Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahamas
Antigua & Barbuda
Ghana
South Africa
Country/ Territory
15 - 16
12 - 20
Secondary/
High School
12 - 20
12 - 20
10 - 19
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
10 - 19
Secondary/
High School
Secondary/
High School
13 - 15
13 - 17
Coverage
1.5
2.8
2.7
1.5
1.2
0.6
0.8
2
2
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.7
2.5
% of young
people who
(agever used
1
1.6
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.3
1
2.9
1.3
% of young
people who
used at least
once in the
past year
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
% of young
people who
used at least
once in the
past month
2005
2005
2000
2000
2000
2006
2006
2006
2006
2005
2003
2003
2005
2007
2006
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
Year of
Estimate Source
COCAINE
(unless otherwise noted) amongst young people (ordered alphabetically by regions)
Region
3.6.2 Cocaine
Crack
Crack
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Crack
Crack
Crack
Crack
Ages not specified
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack); Select
regions (Cape Town)
Notes
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
269
270
AMERICAS
Central America
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Guatemala
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Belize
Belize
Belize
Trinidad & Tobago
Turks & Caicos Isl.
Turks & Caicos Isl.
Trinidad & Tobago
St. Vincent & Grenadines
St. Vincent & Grenadines
St. Lucia
Haiti
Jamaica
Jamaica
15 - 16
12 - 19
12 - 19
13 - 17
13 - 17
13 - 17
10 - 25
Grades 7, 9
and 11 (ages
13 - 17)
Grades 7, 9
and 11 (ages
13 - 17)
10 - 25
10 - 25
11 - 20
11 - 20
Ages 11 - 19
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
Students (ages
13, 15, and
17)
Ages 11 - 19
3.2
1.1
1.6
0.4
1.3
1.7
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.3
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.3
1.5
3.2
1.7
3.2
1.5
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.5
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.8
2.1
2
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.5
1.3
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2006
2006
1998
1998
1998
2006
2002
2002
2006
2006
2006
2005
2005
2006
2006
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
OAS
OAS
Crack
Large cities
Crack
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Crack
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack); Limited
geography
Limited geography
Crack; Limited
geography
Crack
Crack
Crack
Crack
World Drug Report 2009
North America
South America
AMERICAS
AMERICAS
Paraguay
Guyana
Guyana
Paraguay
Brazil
Chile
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Ecuador
Argentina
Argentina
Bolivia
Bolivia
USA
USA
USA
12 - 19
Mexico
Mexico
15 - 16
Students
(undefined)
12 - 18
12 - 18
15 - 16
12 - 17
15 - 16
15 - 16
Grades 8 - 12
15 - 16
15 - 16
13 - 18
13 - 17
13 - 17
Grade 10
Grade 10
Grade 10
12 - 19
12 - 17
12 - 18
12 - 18
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.1
0.2
0.3
0.7
1.3
1.8
1.6
2.6
1.7
2.5
0.4
0.9
0.8
4.1
0.8
1.9
1.9
3.0
4.3
2.0
0.6
2.7
3.4
1.3
3.1
1.5
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.2
5.3
2.3
4.8
3.3
1.5
4.4
1.2
2.3
2.1
12 - 17
Secondary/
High School
12 - 17
0.4
Secondary/
High School
Canada
Honduras
Honduras
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Honduras
Honduras
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.6
1.2
0.7
1.0
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.1
2005
2002
2002
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2007
2007
2004
2004
2007
2007
2007
2006
2006
2006
2005
2005
2004
2004
2005
2005
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
OAS (MEM)
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
ARQ
CICAD/ OAS
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
CICAD/ OAS
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
Crack; Ages not
specified
Limited geography
Crack; Limited
Geography
Crack
Crack
Cocaine, includes coca
paste
Crack
Crack
Crack
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Crack; Select regions
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack); Limited
geography
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack); Selecr
regions
Crack
Crack
Crack
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
271
272
East and South-East Asia
Near and Middle East /South-West Asia
East Europe
Southeast Europe
ASIA
ASIA
EUROPE
EUROPE
15 - 16
Belarus
Belarus
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ukraine
Ukraine
14 - 19
15 - 19
Bulgaria
14 - 19
Albania
Albania
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
Lebanon
Belarus
12 - 18
12 - 18
Youth
(undefined)
11 - 20
15 - 16
10 - 23
10 - 23
13 - 17
15 - 16
Secondary/
High School
Secondary/
High School
Students (ages
13-17)
Israel
Israel
Thailand
Hong Kong SAR, China
Central Asia and Transcaucasian countries Armenia
ASIA
Suriname
Uruguay
Venezuela
Venezuela
Suriname
Peru
Peru
5.7
1.4
1.4
0
1
0.2
0.2
1
0.4
2.3
2.5
0.3
1
0.6
5
0.6
0.8
1.9
0.6
0.4
1.2
2
2.1
0.0
0.3
3.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.2
0
0.1
0.5
2007
2004
2004
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2001
2005
2005
2003
2007
2007
2006
2007
2005
2005
2006
2005
2005
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ/ ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
CICAD/ OAS
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Crack
Crack
Limited geography
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack); Rapid
Assessment
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack); Limited
geography
Crack; Limited
geography
Crack
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack); Ages not
specified
Crack
Limited geography
Crack
Crack
World Drug Report 2009
EUROPE
West & Central Europe
15 - 16
15 - 16
Turkey
15 - 16
15 - 16
Belgium
Belgium
Cyprus
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Czech Rep.
15 - 16
15 - 17
15 - 17
Hungary
Hungary
Iceland
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
Denmark
Estonia
Estonia
Faroe Isl.
Faroe Isl.
Finland
Finland
France
France
Germany
Germany
Greece
Greece
Greenland
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
Austria
Austria
15 - 16
16
16
Croatia
Croatia
Romania
Romania
2.7
1
1.7
3.2
2.9
2
1
1
1
1
6
5
2.3
3.5
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
1.0
4
2.5
3.4
1.6
3
2.7
0
2
1
0.5
0.8
0.3
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2003
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2003
2007
2007
2007
2007
Select regions
(Flanders)
Crack; Select regions
(Flanders)
Crack
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Crack
Crack
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
Crack
Crack; Select regions
(Budapest)
Select regions
(Budapest)
Crack
Select regions
Crack; Select regions
Crack
Crack
Crack
Crack
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
ARQ
Crack
ESPAD
ESPAD
Crack
ESPAD
Govt./ ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
273
274
OCEANIA
Oceania
15 - 16
Lithuania
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Malta
Monaco
Monaco
Netherlands
Netherlands
Norway
Norway
Poland
Poland
Portugal
Portugal
Australia
Spain
Spain
Spain
Sweden
Sweden
Switzerland
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Slovakia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Slovenia
12 - 16
Liechtenstein
12 - 17
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
14 - 18
14 - 18
14 - 18
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 19
15 - 19
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
Iceland
Ireland
Ireland
Isle of Man
Isle of Man
Italy
Italy
Latvia
Latvia
0.8
5.7
2.6
5.0
2
2
2
3
3
5
2.3
1.4
2
3
1.5
1.2
1.5
1.9
3.7
4
6
2
3
1
1
0.9
1.8
2
2
0.8
3
4
4
5
10
3
5
1.4
1.6
0.4
4.1
1.9
3.6
0.3
1
1.5
0.6
10
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
1999
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Crack
Crack
Crack
Crack
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Crack
Crack
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Crack
Crack
Crack
Crack
Crack
Crack
Crack
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Cocaine, any (HCl and/
or Crack)
Crack
Crack
Crack
Crack
World Drug Report 2009
East Africa
North Africa
Southern Africa
West and Central Africa
Caribbean
AFRICA
AFRICA
AFRICA
AMERICAS
Subregion
AFRICA
Region
3.6.3 Cannabis
St. Lucia
Grenada
Haiti
Haiti
Jamaica
Dominica
Dominican Rep.
Barbados
Antigua & Barbuda
Bahamas
South Africa
Ghana
Kenya
Madagascar
Mauritius
Seychelles
Algeria
Egypt
Morocco
Ethiopia
Country/ Territory
Ages 11 - 19
Students (ages 13,
15, and 17)
15 - 16
15 - 16
12 - 20
Secondary/ High
School
10 - 19
Students (ages 13,
15, and 17)
Students (ages 13,
15, and 17)
13 - 15
Secondary/ High
School
13 - 17
15 - 17
15 - 15
15 - 16
11 - 16
14 - 18
15 - 19
10 - 24
Youth (undefined)
Coverage
(age/grade)
25.5
27.5
2.6
3
25.1
29.4
2.2
17.4
24.9
14.1
24.8
18.9
6.6
10.9
18.9
11
% of young
people who
ever used
Life-time
15.9
15.9
1.8
1.7
14.6
17.9
10.6
13.4
8.3
12.9
17.1
4.6
18.5
2.2
0.31
Annual
% of young
people who
used at least
once in the
past year
8.8
8.5
8.7
11.8
6
8.4
2.9
10.9
% of young
people who
used at least
once in the
past month
Last month
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2000
2006
2005
2003
2006
2007
2004
2004
2004
2001
2005
2006
2005
1999
Year of
Estimate
Select regions (Rabat)
Select regions (Cape
Town)
Ages not specified
Students and nonstudents
Notes
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
Cannabis resin
ARQ
ARQ
OAS
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
Govt.
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
MedSPAD
ARQ
Source
CANNABIS
use (unless otherwise noted) amongst young people (ordered alphabetically by regions)
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
275
276
Central America
North America
South America
Central Asia and Transcaucasian countries
East and South-East Asia
AMERICAS
AMERICAS
AMERICAS
ASIA
ASIA
Suriname
Uruguay
Venezuela
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Hong Kong SAR, China
Japan
Korea, Rep.
Macau SAR, China
Honduras
Nicaragua
Canada
Mexico
USA
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Guyana
Paraguay
Peru
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Trinidad & Tobago
Turks & Caicos Isl.
Belize
St. Vincent & Grenadines
18 - 25
11 - 12
13 - 15
11 - 20
15 - 18
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
10 - 23
13 - 17
15 - 16
Secondary/ High
School
15 - 16
12 - 18
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
13 - 17
Grade 10
12 - 19
12 - 17
12 - 18
12 - 19
Secondary/ High
School
13 - 17
10 - 25
Grades 7, 9 and 11
(ages 13 - 17)
11 - 20
Students (ages 13,
15, and 17)
Students (ages 13,
15, and 17)
0.4
0.1
2.8
4.6
0.3
3
6.8
19.5
2.9
5.2
30.2
8.8
31
10.9
5.1
7.7
18.7
9.6
7.5
6.8
3.9
5.5
7.4
4.7
2.0
12.0
21.4
7.6
17.8
0.0
30
7
2.7
4.1
14.8
1.1
5.8
24.6
7.6
2.7
6.3
14.6
8.4
3.7
3.5
3.1
3.4
1.1
4.6
2.6
1.0
6.6
14.5
11.7
2.3
1.2
4.4
6.3
3.0
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.7
0.4
2.3
2.8
5.2
2006
2007
2005
2007
2007
2005
2007
2001
2007
2006
2007
2002
2005
2004
2006
2006
2007
2007
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2002
2005
2005
2006
2003
2004
2006
2002
1998
2006
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
Govt.
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
Select regions
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
Select regions
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
ARQ
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
Select regions
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
World Drug Report 2009
Near and Middle East /South-West Asia
South Asia
East Europe
Southeast Europe
West & Central Europe
ASIA
ASIA
EUROPE
EUROPE
EUROPE
Lebanon
Bangladesh
India
Nepal
Belarus
Russian Federation
Ukraine
Albania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Romania
Turkey
Austria
Belgium
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Youth (undefined)
Thailand
Israel
Jordan
15 - 16
11 - 17
15 - 16
12 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 17
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
16
15 - 19
14 - 19
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
12 - 18
13 - 18
15 - 16
18 - 25
12 - 18
13 - 21
Myanmar
0.1
6.8
19
14
5.5
30.3
27.5
4
4.3
19.3
24
5
45.1
25.5
26.3
8
31
25.2
6
20.7
9
20
23
18.1
16.2
18.2
27.4
12.9
5
4.4
7.7
0.9
11.8
11.2
11.7
22.4
10.6
15.2
17.2
19.2
34.8
3.3
14.8
20.5
20.5
12
4.4
3
3
0.1
5.8
2.5
0.5
4.7
18.1
6.9
2001
2001
2001
(blank)
2007
2007
2007
2004
2007
2007
2007
2003
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
2007
1999
2007
2003
2005
2001
2004
Cannabis resin; Rapid
Ages not specified
Situation Assessment
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ/ ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
Select regions (Flanders)
ESPAD
ESPAD
Govt./ ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
Select regions
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
277
OCEANIA
Oceania
Monaco
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Australia
278
12 - 17
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
14 - 18
15 - 16
15 - 19
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
28
28
6
15.7
13
39.8
22
36.2
7
33
29
9.3
6.8
29.8
27.2
10.9
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
World Drug Report 2009
Caribbean
Central America
AMERICAS
Costa Rica
Trinidad & Tobago
Turks & Caicos Isl.
St. Vincent & Grenadines
St. Lucia
Jamaica
Haiti
Grenada
Dominica
Dominican Rep.
Barbados
Antigua & Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahamas
Ghana
Ghana
West and Central Africa
Country/ Territory
South Africa
Subregion
Southern Africa
AMERICAS
AFRICA
Region
11 - 20
Grades 7, 9 and
11 (ages 13 17)
Ages 11 - 19
Ages 13, 15,
and 17
Ages 13, 15,
and 17
Ages 13, 15,
and 17
12 - 20
Secondary/ High
School
Secondary/ High
School
10 - 19
Ages 13, 15,
and 17
Ages 13, 15,
and 17
10 - 19
13 - 15
Secondary/ High
School
13 - 15
13 - 17
Coverage
(age/grade)
4.9
3.4
0.9
2.9
6
6.3
24.4
3.1
4.3
2
3.5
2.6
0.5
1.8
2.8
2.1
0.3
1.7
3.7
3.5
11.7
1.6
2.2
2.4
1.5
0.3
0.5
7.6
5
1.7
1.6
1.2
2.2
2.4
7.5
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.1
% of young
people who
ever used
4.7
% of young
people who
used at least
once in the
past month
8.8
Last month
Annual
% of young
people who
used at least
once in the
past year
Life-time
2006
2006
2002
2006
2005
2006
2005
2005
2006
2000
2006
2005
2003
2003
2007
2007
2006
Year of
Estimate
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
OAS
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
Source
AMPHETAMINES-GROUP
use (unless otherwise noted) amongst young people (ordered alphabetically by regions)
3.6.4 Amphetamine-type stimulants
Methamphetamine
Stimulants (inclds
Amphetamines)
Stimulants (inclds
Amphetamines)
Stimulants (inclds
Amphetamines)
Stimulants (inclds
Amphetamines)
Stimulants (inclds
Amphetamines)
Stimulants (inclds
Amphetamines)
Stimulants (inclds
Amphetamines)
Stimulants (inclds
Amphetamines)
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine
Stimulants (inclds
Amphetamines)
Amphetamines (inclds.
non-ATS stimulants)
Notes
Methamphetamine;
Cape Town
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
279
280
North America
South America
Central Asia and Transcaucasian countries
East and South-East Asia
AMERICAS
AMERICAS
ASIA
ASIA
12 - 19
Mexico
USA
USA
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Guyana
Guyana
Paraguay
Peru
Kazakhstan
Hong Kong SAR, China
Hong Kong SAR, China
Japan
Kazakhstan
Suriname
Uruguay
Venezuela
Armenia
12 - 19
Mexico
13 - 15
11 - 20
11 - 20
15 - 16
Youth
(undefined)
Youth
(undefined)
10 - 23
13 - 17
15 - 16
Secondary/ High
School
15 - 16
12 - 18
12 - 18
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
Grade 10
Grade 10
12 - 17
12 - 17
12 - 19
13 - 17
13 - 17
Honduras
Canada
El Salvador
El Salvador
Guatemala
0.4
0.5
0.8
4.8
1.7
0.9
0
2.3
2.8
11.1
4.5
7.1
4.9
4.4
6.4
3.0
1.5
2.0
4.1
1.2
3.3
7.4
4.5
0.3
2.9
7.3
0.0
0.1
0.5
2.7
0.8
1.6
8
3.0
3.6
4.3
2.6
3.7
1.6
0.8
0.7
2.6
0.6
2
3.1
0.1
1.5
3.8
1.5
1.9
2.1
3.0
1.0
2.8
1.1
0.3
0.4
1.2
0.4
2.0
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2005
2007
2006
2007
2007
2005
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2002
2002
2005
2005
2006
2005
2006
2001
2001
2002
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
ARQ
ARQ
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine
Ages not specified
Amphetamine; Ages
not specified
Amphetamine
Stimulants (inclds
Amphetamines)
Methamphetamine
Amphetamine
Methamphetamine
Amphetamine; Select
regions
Methamphetamine;
Select regions
Amphetamine
Amphetamine
Stimulants (inclds
Amphetamines)
Methamphetamine
World Drug Report 2009
Near and Middle East /South-West Asia
East Europe
Southeast Europe
West & Central Europe
ASIA
EUROPE
EUROPE
EUROPE
15 - 16
Belgium
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Faroe Isl.
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Greenland
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 17
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
16 - 16
16
15 - 19
15 - 19
14 - 19
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
18 - 25
12 - 18
13 - 21
Youth
(undefined)
Austria
Lebanon
Russian Federation
Ukraine
Albania
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Croatia
Romania
Turkey
Thailand
Israel
Jordan
Myanmar
5
3
3.5
5
3.8
1
1
4
5.8
3
0
5.1
4
3
7.9
2
1
4.9
9
3.6
3.7
3.4
0.4
0
2.1
2.1
1
0.5
2.3
2.4
2.7
2.6
0.2
1.2
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2003
2007
2007
2007
2007
2001
2007
2007
2004
2007
2007
2007
2003
2003
2003
2005
2001
2004
ESPAD
ESPAD
Govt./ ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
Amphetamine
Amphetamine
Amphetamine
Methamphetamine
May include non-ATS
stimulants
Select regions
(Flanders)
Amphetamine
Methamphetamine
Amphetamine
Amphetamine
Rapid Situation
Assesment
Unversity students
Amphetamine
Methamphetamine;
Yangon
Methamphetamine;
Ages not specified
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
281
OCEANIA
Oceania
Isle of Man
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Australia
282
12 - 17
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
14 - 18
15 - 16
15 - 19
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
11 - 17
15 - 16
12 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
5
4
5.6
1.1
3.0
3.7
5.2
2
1
3.8
2
2.3
2
3.4
2
3
2
1
0.6
2.6
2
2.2
3.7
0.4
2007
2007
2007
2005
2007
1999
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
Methamphetamine
Amphetamine
Amphetamine
Amphetamine
Amphetamine
World Drug Report 2009
Subregion
Southern Africa
Caribbean
Central America
North America
South America
Region
AFRICA
AMERICAS
AMERICAS
AMERICAS
AMERICAS
3.6.5 Ecstasy
Chile
Colombia
Trinidad & Tobago
Turks & Caicos Isl.
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
Canada
USA
Argentina
Bolivia
St. Vincent & Grenadines
Dominica
Dominican Rep.
Haiti
Jamaica
Barbados
Antigua & Barbuda
Bahamas
South Africa
Country/ Territory
15 - 16
Grades 8 - 12
15 - 16
13 - 17
Grade 10
12 - 17
12 - 18
12 - 17
12 - 19
13 - 17
11 - 20
Ages 11 - 19
Students (ages
13, 15, and 17)
Students (ages
13, 15, and 17)
15 - 16
12 - 20
10 - 19
Students (ages
13, 15, and 17)
Students (ages
13, 15, and 17)
13 - 17
Secondary/ High
School
2.0
3.7
4.0
4.3
3.5
0.6
1.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
2
0.6
0.7
0.9
2.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.5
6.2
5.2
2
1.4
0.5
0.6
1.2
3
3
1.8
1.2
1.2
3.2
1.2
% of young
Coverage people who
(age/grade) ever used
Annual
% of young
people who
used at least
once in the
past year
Life-time
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.1
0
0.4
% of young
people who
used at least
once in the
past month
Last month
ECSTASY-GROUP
use amongst young people (ordered alphabetically by regions)
2005
2005
2006
2002
2003
2004
2005
2004
2006
2007
2007
2004
2006
2006
2000
2005
2006
2006
2005
2003
2006
Year of
Estimate
OAS (MEM)
CICAD/ OAS
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
CICAD/ OAS
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
OAS
OAS (MEM)
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
Source
Notes
Select regions (Cape
Town)
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
283
284
Central Asia and Transcaucasian countries
East and South-East Asia
Near and Middle East /South-West Asia
East Europe
Southeast Europe
West & Central Europe
ASIA
ASIA
ASIA
EUROPE
EUROPE
EUROPE
Belgium
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Faroe Isl.
15 - 16
Lebanon
Belarus
Russian Federation
Ukraine
Albania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Romania
Turkey
Austria
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
16
15 - 19
14 - 19
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
12 - 18
Youth (undefined)
11 - 20
0-0
15 - 16
15 - 16
10 - 23
13 - 17
15 - 16
Secondary/ High
School
15 - 16
12 - 18
15 - 16
Israel
Thailand
Suriname
Uruguay
Venezuela
Armenia
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Hong Kong SAR, China
Ecuador
Guyana
Paraguay
Peru
5
3
4.5
5.2
5.5
1
1.3
3
3
4.9
7.5
3.5
1
1.8
3.8
2.7
0.3
0.3
1.2
1.7
1.3
1
2.4
0.9
0.5
1.0
3.0
0.8
2.6
5
2.6
1.7
2
2.2
0.1
3.4
0.4
0.2
1.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
1.2
1.4
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2001
2007
2007
2007
2004
2007
2007
2007
2003
2007
2005
2003
2006
2007
2005
2007
2005
2007
2007
2005
2002
2005
2005
Select region
Rapid Situation
Assessment
Ages not specified
(Flanders)
ESPAD
ESPAD
Govt./ ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ/ ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
OAS (MEM)
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ARQ
CICAD/ OAS
ARQ
CICAD/ OAS
CICAD/ OAS
World Drug Report 2009
OCEANIA
Oceania
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Australia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Greenland
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Isle of Man
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Monoco
12 - 17
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
14 - 18
15 - 16
15 - 19
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
11 - 17
15 - 16
12 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 17
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
15 - 16
4
1
2.5
2
6.6
3
3.3
2
2
4
2.2
2
4
3.6
2
2
5.9
2
4
7
3
6.5
0.7
3.4
3.1
3.9
4
2
2.4
3.9
1.4
1.7
3.1
4.1
0.6
1
3.2
2
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2003
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
2007
1999
2007
2007
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
ARQ
ARQ
ESPAD
Select regions
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
285
3.7 Drug-related crime
RECORDED DRUG-RELATED CRIME/POSSESSION/ABUSE1
Count
Rate
Country
Africa
Algeria
Mauritius
Morocco
Namibia
South Africa
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Year
c
5,702
18
3,115c
253
6,860c
22
549 ª
28
61,631ª
130
2004
2004
2,005
2004
2004
Count
Rate
Year
c
4,210
13
3,851c
308
9,038c
29
575 ª
28
93,121ª
192
RECORDED DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME
Change
in rate
2006
-40
2006
Mauritius
18
2006
Morocco
24
Namibia
2007
1
South Africa
2007
32
Central America and Caribbean
Bahamas
Belize
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Panama
North America
Canada
Mexico
USA
South America
Argentina
Chile
Ecuador
Guyana
Uruguay
1
Count
Rate
Country
Africa
Algeria
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Year
1,979ª
6
452 ª
36
9,615ª
32
225 ª
11
12,263ª
26
2003
2005
2004
2004
2004
Count
Rate
Year
2,733ª
8
396 ª
31
9,194 ª
29
288 ª
14
14,697ª
30
2007
110ª
2007
Change
in rate
23
2007
-16
2007
-8
2007
19
2007
15
Central America and Caribbean
1,537ª
2004
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
481
1,375ª
499
5,290 ª
127
1,388 ª
21
Count
Rate
1,484c
48
2002
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
c
19,483
60
38,799c
37
1,508,469*
503
2005
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
22,244 ª
58
10,976 ª
67
2,235 ª
17
242 ª
33
Count
Rate
c
1,594
48
2005
2003
2004
1,363ª
411
987 ª
343
14,817 ª
342
1,866ª
28
2007
-17
-45
63
24
21,530
66
55,667c
53
2005 1,518,975*
497
2006
2004
21,544ª
55
15,637ª
94
2,633 ª
20
405ª
55
2006
c
2006
2003
2004
1,566
47
El Salvador
2006
c
2005
Costa Rica
2005
2006
2005
Belize
2007
3,150c
96
2005
Bahamas
Panama
49
North America
Canada
9
2006
Mexico
30
USA
2007
-1
South America
Argentina
-5
Chile
2007
28
Ecuador
2007
13
Guyana
2005
40
Uruguay
-2
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
138ª
43
310ª
113
1,024 ª
24
808 ª
12
Count
Rate
882ª
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
8,937ª
28
20,443 ª
20
337,882 *
113
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
8,646 ª
23
6,050 ª
37
1,304ª
10
247 ª
33
Count
Rate
329ª
2004
2005
2004
2005
2005
27
10
33
399 ª
139
1,205 ª
27
968ª
14
855ª
-30
2007
19
2006
12
2007
14
2006
26
2005
2005
2005
2003
2005
2005
2003
2004
3,996ª
12
21,890 ª
21
322,207 *
105
-5
2007
-128
2007
5
2007
-8
10,531 ª
27
9,534ª
57
854ª
6
285ª
39
2005
466ª
2006
14
15
2007
35
2007
-56
2005
13
29
The column headed ‘recorded drug-related crime/possession/abuse’ contains both data reported in the Annual Reports Questionnaire as ‘possession/
abuse’ and in the Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (UN-CTS) as ‘drug-related crime’. The definition applied
by the Tenth UN-CTS for ‘drug-related crime’ is ‘intentional acts that involve the cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation,
offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation,
exportation and possession of internationally controlled drugs. Where applicable, reference may be made to the provisions of the Single Convention
on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and other regulations adopted in pursuance of the provisions of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971
and/or the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988’. Where UN-CTS respondents indicated that
drug trafficking crimes were included in drug-related crime, the count for drug trafficking was deducted from the count for drug-related crime before
inclusion in the table.
286
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
RECORDED DRUG-RELATED CRIME/POSSESSION/ABUSE
Count
Rate
Country
Central Asia/Transcaucasia
Armenia
Year
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
411c
14
2,053c
25
c
1,427
32
2,452ª
47
5,301ª
20
2004
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
295c
81
3,669 ª
52
2004
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
23,681c
21
3,268 ª
7
2005
Count
Rate
Near Middle East/South West Asia
Iran
Count
Rate
Jordan
Count
Rate
Lebanon
Count
Rate
Syria
Count
Rate
United Arab Emirates
Count
Rate
South Asia
661 ª
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Kyrgyzstan
Uzbekistan
East Asia
Brunei
Hong Kong
Japan
Korea
Singapore
Year
553c
18
2,266c
27
c
1,926
43
1,162ª
22
4,301ª
16
2006
162c
42
4,854 ª
67
2006
21,298c
17
6,469ª
13
2006
2005
1,844 ª
2007
2004
285,152 ª
619
2,874ª
49
1,648ª
40
5,002ª
25
c
971
24
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
15
288,483ª
420
2,514ª
45
1,507 ª
38
3,198ª
17
506c
13
Count
Rate
2005
2005
2004
2005
8,476ª
411ª
14
901c
11
94ª
2
294ª
6
9,261ª
35
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
0c
0
2,339 ª
33
2005
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
1,477ª
Count
Rate
Near Middle East/South West Asia
Iran
Count
Rate
Jordan
Count
Rate
Lebanon
Count
Rate
Syria
Count
Rate
United Arab Emirates
Count
Rate
South Asia
8
Georgia
26
Kyrygyzstan
2007
-114
Uzbekistan
2007
-27
East Asia
Brunei
-91
Hong Kong
2007
23
Japan
-24
2007
Korea
49
Singapore
64
2007
32
2007
7
2007
7
2007
33
2006
46
8,089ª
5
5
2007
Nepal
Count
c
201
2002
c
221
2006
Sri Lanka
Rate
Count
Rate
1
28,007 ª
146
2005
1
43,280 ª
224
2007
Year
2007
0c
0
3,655ª
51
2006
2005
1,518ª
2007
1
758 ª
2
2005
1
2,845ª
6
2007
61 ª
2005
101 ª
2007
2004
126,236 ª
182
833ª
14
570ª
14
1711ª
9
202ª
5
2007
2005
2003
2005
2005
2005
1
124,278ª
165
746ª
13
546 ª
14
831ª
4
368ª
9
14,133c
9
Nepal
Sri Lanka
1
2005
Count
Rate
471ª
16
905c
11
61ª
1
283ª
5
9,814ª
36
Count
Rate
Bangladesh
1
35
Year
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Azerbaijan
2006
Count
Rate
Bangladesh
Central Asia/Transcaucasia
Armenia
2006
Count
Rate
Country
26
42
2005
RECORDED DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME
Change
in rate
13
2006
0
2007
-48
2007
-6
2007
3
N.A.
2007
35
0
73
2
2005
2005
2005
2004
Change
in rate
50
9
2007
4
2007
2
2007
49
2006
-78
2005
15,331
10
c
2006
Count
c
214
2005
c
221
2006
Rate
Count
Rate
1
34 ª
0.2
2005
1
13 ª
0.2
2007
6
1
0
Sources:
(c) United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems. Definition of 'drug-related crime' applied by UNCTS:
"Drug-related crime is defined as intentional acts that involve the cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport,
importation, exportation and possession of internationally controlled drugs. Where applicable, reference may be made to the provisions
of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and other regulations adopted in pursuance of the porivsions of the Convention
on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1998." Definition of 'drug-trafficking' applied by UNCTS: "Drug offences, which are not in connection with personal
use."
(ª) United Nations Annual Reports Questionnaires.Definitiona applied by UNARQ: "Possession/abuse of drugs" and "Trafficking of drugs,
including arrests made in the context of illicit cultivation and manufacture of drugs".
(#) European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Drug Law Offences. Definitions applied by EMCDDA: "Drug-law offences
which are related to drug use and/or possesion for use." and "Drug-related dealing/trafficking/production refers to drug law offences
which are related to drug dealing and/or drug trafficking/smuggling and/or drug production or any other offence related to these types
of illicit activities."
(*) National government sources. NOTE: The definition applied by national sources may not correspond to that applied by cross-national
data collection instruments. United States of America: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs09/ndcs09_data_
supl/index.html, Australia: http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/content/publications/iddr_2006_07/iddr_2006-07.pdf
(^) Statistical Office of the European Communities, Statistics in Focus. Definition applied by Eurostat: "Drug-trafficking includes illegal
possession, cultivation, production, supplying, transportation, importing, exporting, financing etc. of drug operations which are not
solely in coonection with personal use."
287
World Drug Report 2009
RECORDED DRUG-RELATED CRIME/POSSESSION/ABUSE
Count
Rate
Country
East Europe
Belarus
Moldova
Russian Federation
Ukraine
South East Europe
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
FYROM
Montenegro
Romania
Serbia
Turkey
West Central Europe
Austria
Belgium
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
UK: England and Wales
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Netherlands
UK: Northern Ireland
Norway
Poland
Portugal
UK: Scotland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Oceania
Australia
New Zealand
Year
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
2,376 ª
24
1,681ª
43
96,890ª
67
40,688c
87
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
236c
6
2,409ª
31
5,124ª
113
292c
14
c
355
58
944c
4
336c
3
4,760ª
7
2005
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
25,089ª
303
25,683ª
247
404c
48
648c
6
16,630c
308
c
153,203
287
1,099c
82
15,064ª
287
101,047ª
166
232,502ª
281
12,823ª
116
7,012 ª
70
9,867 ª
238
7,603c
13
545ª
24
682 ª
20
6,348ª
39
1,924c
113
16,866ª
364
50,114ª
131
5,370#
51
c
34,634
680
1,993c
37
#
2,944
147
188,125 ª
433
14,388#
160
40,432ª
545
2005
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
62,209*
308
8,672c
212
2003
2004
2003
2005
2004
2005
2005
2005
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2004
2005
2004
2005
2005
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2002
2005
2005
2004
2004
2004
2004
2005
2004
2005
2004/05
2002
Count
Rate
2,278 ª
23
2,087ª
54
175,241ª
122
40,444c
87
Year
-4
2006
Moldova
21
Russian Federation
2005
45
2006
Ukraine
0
2006
21,196ª
254
23,720ª
227
c
454
54
674c
7
20,327c
374
c
167,732
312
c
981
73
15,479ª
293
134,320ª
218
205,164ª
248
13,948ª
125
4,117 ª
41
18,439 ª
429
8,542c
15
1,531 ª
67
718 ª
21
5,889ª
36
c
2,411
139
17,408ª
371
51,352ª
135
#
6,216
59
c
33,532
656
1,732c
32
#
3,197
160
253,559 ª
573
#
17,819
196
37,030ª
495
2007
South East Europe
Bosnia and Herzegovina
-23
Bulgaria
2006
6
Croatia
2007
-3
2006
FYROM
-12
2006
Montenegro
21
2006
Romania
50
2006
Serbia
0
Turkey
2007
57
West Central Europe
Austria
-19
Belgium
2007
-9
2006
Cyprus
11
2006
Czech Republic
14
2006
Denmark
18
2006
UK: England and Wales
8
2006
Estonia
-11
Finland
2007
2
France
2007
24
Germany
2007
-13
Greece
2006
7
Hungary
2007
-71
2007
Ireland
44
2006
Italy
13
Latvia
2007
64
Lithuania
2007
5
Netherlands
2007
-8
2006
UK: Northern Ireland
19
2007
Norway
2
Poland
2007
3
2006
Portugal
14
2006
UK: Scotland
-4
2006
Slovakia
-15
2006
Slovenia
8
Spain
2007
24
2006
Sweden
19
Switzerland
2007
-10
Oceania
Australia
2006/07
4
2006
New Zealand
-1
Count
Rate
Country
East Europe
Belarus
2005
193c
5
2,524ª
33
5,033ª
110
261c
13
c
438
73
c
1620
8
268c
3
11,354ª
15
66,530*
322
8,694c
210
RECORDED DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME
Change
in rate
Year
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
783 ª
8
2,086c
54
212,019ª
148
24,329c
52
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
1355c
35
448ª
6
576ª
13
98c
5
294^
48
c
1,314
6
4,968c
50
7,022ª
10
2005
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
2,224ª
27
8,650ª
83
289ª
35
2,267ª
22
2,738^
51
25,276^
47
686^
51
5,177^
99
19,258ª
32
62,131ª
75
4,667ª
42
7,627^
76
c
3,160
76
24,456c
42
326ª
14
329 ª
10
14,161ª
87
349c
20
#
5,747
126
24,433ª
64
3,535^
34
c
9,613
189
843^
16
1,026^
51
22,493 ª
52
c
4,670
52
2,757ª
37
2005
Count
Rate
Count
Rate
14,613*
72
4,293c
105
2003
2005
2006
2005
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2003
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2004/05
2005
Count
Rate
1,094 ª
11
1,997c
52
231,218ª
162
24,186c
52
Year
2005
27
2006
-3
2007
9
2006
0
1322c
34
168ª
2
646ª
14
54c
3
549^
92
c
1,608
7
4,839c
49
9,774ª
13
2006
2,426ª
29
12,695ª
121
264ª
31
2,248ª
22
3,258^
60
28,130^
52
1,449^
109
5,115^
97
21,397ª
35
53,770ª
65
3,943ª
35
4,676^
47
c
3,632
86
23,764c
40
626 ª
27
395 ª
12
13,186ª
80
c
473
27
#
6,056
131
39,591ª
104
3,281^
31
c
9,827
213
470^
9
1,429^
71
25,238 ª
57
c
7,026
77
2,809ª
38
2007
15,709*
76
4,271c
103
Change
in rate
-3
2006
-163
2007
11
2006
-82
2007
47
2006
19
2006
-3
2007
26
8
2007
31
2007
-13
2006
0
2007
15
2007
9
2007
53
2007
-2
2007
9
2007
-16
2006
-20
2007
-62
2006
11
2007
-3
2007
48
2007
18
2007
-8
2006
26
2005
4
2007
38
2007
-9
2007
12
2007
-80
2007
28
2007
9
2007
32
2007
1
2006/07
5
2006
-2
The column headed ‘recorded drug-related crime/possession/abuse’ contains both data reported in the Annual Reports Questionnaire as ‘possession/abuse’
and in the Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (UN-CTS) as ‘drug-related crime’. The definition applied by the Tenth UN-CTS
for ‘drug-related crime’ is ‘intentional acts that involve the cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation, exportation and possession of internationally
controlled drugs. Where applicable, reference may be made to the provisions of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and other regulations
adopted in pursuance of the provisions of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 and/or the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances of 1988’. Where UN-CTS respondents indicated that drug trafficking crimes were included in drug-related crime, the count for
drug trafficking was deducted from the count for drug-related crime before inclusion in the table.
288
3. Statistical Annex Consumption
Trends in selected categories of police recorded crime in countries consistently reporting over
the period 1995-2004 (1995 = 100)
200
Basis:
1995 =100
150
100
50
Intentional homicide (14 countries)
Robbery (15 countries)
Burglary (10 countries)
Drug-related crime (14 countries)
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
0
Automobile theft (14 countries)
Comparison of drug-trafﬁcking and drug-related crime rates for selected countries, 2006
180
Rate, per 100,000 population
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Africa (4 countries)
Americas (9 countries)
Asia (15 countries)
Europe (28 countries)
Region
Drug trafficking
Drug-related crime
289
4. METHODOLOGY
4.0 Methodology
Considerable efforts have been made over the last few
years to improve the estimates presented in this report.
Nonetheless, challenges remain in making such estimates because of the gaps and variable quality of the
data available.
A major problem relates to the irregularity and incompleteness in reporting by Member States. First, the
irregular intervals at which some Governments report
may result in absence of data in some years. The lack of
regular data, for which UNODC tries to compensate by
referring to other sources, can influence the reported
trend in a given year. Second, submitted questionnaires
are not always complete or sufficiently comprehensive.
Third, as will become clear in this section, many of the
data collected are themselves subject to limitations and
biases. These issues affect the quantity, quality and comparability of information received.
Attempts have been made to provide information about
the accuracy of the data throughout this Report. This
section presents detailed information on the data sources
and methods used to make the estimates featured
throughout the Report. This information can be used to
inform the reader’s understanding of the quality of the
data presented.
Sources of information
Under the international drug control conventions,
Member States are formally required to provide drug-related information annually, as detailed by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, to the ‘Secretary-General of the
United Nations’ (that is, the Secretariat of UNODC). The
Commission on Narcotic Drugs developed the Annual
Reports Questionnaire (ARQ) to collect these data.
The 2009 World Drug Report is based primarily on data
obtained from the ARQs returned by Governments to
UNODC over the June 2008 to May 2009 period.
Where no ARQ was submitted in this year, data from
the previous ARQ submission were used. The data collected during this period (2008-2009) normally refer to
the drug situation in 2007.
UNODC sent out the questionnaire to 192 countries,
where some were also forwarded on to autonomous territories. UNODC received 118 replies to its questionnaire on Drug Use Demand (Part II) and 116 replies to
its questionnaire on Illicit Supply of Drugs (Part III).a
The best coverage was from countries in Europe (84%
of all countries in Europe returned Part II and 87% Part
III of the ARQ), followed Asia (76% both Demand and
Supply), and the Americas (60% of the countries providing the Demand, and 57% the Supply ARQ). In the
case of Africa, only a third of countries replied to the
Supply ARQ and 38% to the Demand ARQ. In the
Oceania region, two countries supplied information,
equivalent to 14% of the countries in the region.
Member States’ responses to the ARQs are shown on the
subsequent maps.
Typically, the ability of Member States to provide information on illicit drug supply is significantly better than
their ability to provide demand-related information.
However, as noted above, two more Member States
responded to the Demand ARQ than the Supply ARQ.
Both the Demand and Supply ARQ’s have sets of “key”
questions (see below). ARQs where more than 50% of
these key questions were completed are defined as having
been ‘substantially filled in’; the rest were classified as
having been ‘partially filled in’. This term reflects whether
countries provided some replies to the “key” questions,
but that not all of the data were provided, since in many
cases Member States do not have the information. The
analysis of the ‘Supply ARQs’ submitted this year
revealed that 84% of them were ‘substantially’ completed compared to just 59% of the ‘Demand ARQs’.
In order to identify the extent to which Member States
are able to provided at least some information, a number
of key questions in the ARQs were identifiedb:
s
For the ‘Supply ARQs (Part III)’, this included replies
to the questions on ‘drug seizures’, i.e. on the quantities seized (replied by 95% of the countries returning
the ARQ), the number of seizure cases (70%), ‘traﬃcking’ (origin of drugs and/or destination (88%)), ‘drug
prices’ (90%), and ‘drug related arrests’ and/or ‘convictions’ (92%).
a
From 115 and 113 Member States, respectively with additional
responses from their territories.
Each key question includes several subsections, typically by drug
group (i.e. cannabis, cocaine, opiates, etc.). If Member States provide
any quantifiable data in any part of key question’s subsection, the
key question is classified as “filled-in.” There is no assessment of the
accuracy of completeness of the data or information provided.
b
293
World Drug Report 2009
s
For the Demand ARQs (Part II), the key questions
used for the analysis referred to ‘trends in drug use’ and
‘ranking of drugs in terms of their prevalence among
the general population‘ (replied by 91% of the Member States); ‘prevalence estimates’ (general population
(50%), students (59%) and ‘drug treatment’ (74%)).
Information provided by Member States in ARQs form
the basis for the estimates and trend analysis provided in
the World Drug Report. Often, this information and
data are not sufficient to provide an accurate or comprehensive picture of the world’s drug situation. When
necessary and where available, the data from the ARQs
are thus supplemented with data from other sources.
As in previous years, seizure data made available to
UNODC via the ARQs was complemented primarily
with data and reports from international organizations
such as INTERPOL, the World Customs Organization
(WCO), EUROPOL, the Organization of American
States (OAC)/ Inter-American Drug Abuse Control
Commission (CICAD), and data provided to UNODC
by the Heads of National Law Enforcement Agencies
(HONLEA) at their regional meetings, data provided
through UNODC’s ‘Data for Africa‘ project, and
UNODC’s ‘Drug Use Information Network for Asia and
the Pacific’ (DAINAP). In addition, Government reports
and on-line electronic resources are used if they are
located. Other sources considered included data published by the United States Department of State’s Bureau
for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
in its International Narcotics Control Strategy Report
(INCSR).
Price data for Europe was complemented with data from
Europol. Precursor data presented are basically those
collected by the International Narcotics Control Board
(INCB). Demand-related information was obtained
through a number of additional channels, including
UNODC’s Global Assessment Programme (GAP), the
drug control agencies participating in UNODC’s
DAINAP network, as well as various national and
regional epidemiological networks such as the European
Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
(EMCDDA) and the Inter-American Drug Use Control
Commission (CICAD). National government reports
and scientific literature were also used as sources of
information. This type of supplementary information is
useful and needed as long as Member States lack the
monitoring systems necessary to produce reliable, comprehensive and internationally comparable data.
294
To this end, UNODC encourages and supports the
improvement of national monitoring systems. Major
progress has been made over the last few years in some
of the main drug producing countries. In close cooperation with UNODC’s Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme (ICMP) and with the support of major donors
these countries have developed monitoring systems
designed to identify extent of and trends in the cultivation of narcotic plants. These data form another basis for
the trend analysis presented in the World Drug Report.
There remain significant data limitations on the demand
side. Despite commendable progress made in a number
of Member States, in the area of prevalence estimates,
for example, far more remains to be done to provide a
truly reliable basis for trend and policy analysis and
needs assessments. The work being done for the 2009
World Drug Report provides yet another opportunity to
emphasise the global need for improving data collection
and monitoring to improve the evidence base for effective policy.
World Drug Report 2009
Supply side data
Drug cultivation, production
and manufacture
In line with decisions of the Member States (1998
UNGASS and subsequent Commission on Narcotic
Drugs resolutions), UNODC launched an Illicit Crop
Monitoring Programme (ICMP) in 1999. The objective
of the programme is to assist Member States in establishing national systems to monitor the extent and evolution of the illicit cultivation of narcotics crops on their
territories. The results are compiled by UNODC to
present global estimates on an annual basis. Data on
cultivation of opium poppy and coca bush and production of opium and coca leaf, presented in this report for
the main producing countries (Afghanistan, Myanmar
and Lao PDR for opium and Colombia, Peru and
Bolivia for coca) have been derived from these national
monitoring systems operating in the countries of illicit
production, covering the period up to, and including
2008. The Government of Morocco, in cooperation
with UNODC, also conducted surveys on illicit cannabis cultivation and cannabis resin production in 2003,
2004 and 2005. Estimates for other countries presented
in this report have been drawn from replies to UNODC’s
Annual Reports Questionnaire, from various other
sources including reports from Governments, UNODC
field offices and the United States Department of State’s
Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.
Area under cultivation
Heroin, cocaine and cannabis (herb and resin) are socalled plant-based drugs. A first step towards estimating
their global production is to estimate the area cultivated
with opium poppy, coca bush and cannabis. Three different methods of illicit area monitoring are used by
UNODC supported national monitoring systems:
s
s
s
Area estimation from satellite imagery
Area estimation from helicopter survey
Area estimation from village survey
In the coca cultivating countries Bolivia, Colombia
and Peru, the area under coca bush is identified on
satellite images, which cover the whole area where coca
cultivation is thought to take place. In Bolivia, aerial
photography is occasionally used as well. The UNODC
supported cannabis survey in Morocco used a similar
approach.
In Myanmar, areas with a high density of opium poppy
are covered with a sample of satellite images. The final
area estimate is derived by extrapolation. In low density
areas, the area estimate is derived from the village survey
(sample survey), which is conducted in all poppy growing areas. In Lao PDR, the survey is conducted by heli-
296
copter over sample sites. Digital photographs of all
opium poppy fields falling into these sites are taken,
geo-referenced and analysed in a geographic information
system. The area estimate is derived by extrapolation.
In Afghanistan, similar to the method used in Myanmar,
satellite imagery over sample sites are analysed and the
area measured is extrapolated. In addition, a nationally
representative survey of villages is conducted in order to
collect information on the socioeconomic status of farmers, including areas with high, low and zero levels of
poppy cultivation. In regions with a low level of poppy
cultivation, which are not covered by imagery, the area
estimate is derived from the village survey.
In some countries, the methods used have changed over
the years as new technologies became available and to
adapt to the dynamics of illicit cultivation. Only the
methods used in the most recent year reported are
described here briefly. A full technical description of the
methods used in all years can be found in the respective
national survey reports available at http://www.unodc.
org/unodc/en/crop-monitoring/index.html .
Yieldc
As a second step in the production estimation chain, the
number of harvests per year and the total yield of primary plant material has to be established. The UNODCsupported national surveys use measure yield in the field
and interviews with farmers, using results from both to
produce the final data on yield.
For cannabis, the yield of cannabis plant material per
hectare can be established by directly harvesting the
plant material. Opium yield surveys are more complex.
Harvesting opium with the traditional lancing method
can take up to 2 weeks as the opium latex that oozes out
of the poppy capsule has to dry before harvesters can
scrap it of and several lancings take place until the plant
has dried. To avoid this lengthy process, yield surveyors
measure the number of poppy capsules and their size in
sample plots. Using a formula developed by scientists
based on research experiments, the measured poppy
capsule volume indicate how much opium gum each
plant potentially yields. Thus, the per hectare opium
yield can be estimated. Different formulas were developed for Southeast and Southwest Asia. In Afghanistan
and Myanmar, yield surveys are carried out annually.
Coca bush, a perennial plant cultivated in tropical climate, allows several harvest per year. The number of
harvests varies, as does the yield per harvest. In Bolivia
and Peru, the UNODC supports monitoring systems
that conduct coca leaf yield surveys in several regions, by
c
Further information on the methodology of opium and cannabis
leaf yield surveys conducted by UNODC can be found in United
Nations (2001): Guidelines for Yield Assessment of Opium Gum and
Coca Leaf from Brief Field Visits. New York. (ST/NAR/33).
Methodology
harvesting sample plots of coca fields over the course of
a year, in the rhythm indicated by the coca farmer. In
Colombia, where the security situation did not allow for
surveyors to return to the sample fields, only one harvest
was measured, and the other harvests were estimated
based on information from the farmer. In all three coca
countries, yield surveys are carried out only occasionally,
due to the difficult security situation in many coca
regions, and because of funding constraints.
Conversion factors
The primary plant material harvested - opium in the
form of gum or latex from opium poppy, coca leaves
from coca bush, and the cannabis plant - undergo a
sequence of extraction and transformation processes,
some of which are done by farmers onsite, others by
traffickers in clandestine laboratories. Some of these
processes are complex, involve chemical precursors and
may be done be different people in different places
under a variety of conditions, which are not always
known. In the case of opium gum, e.g., traffickers extract
the morphine contained in the gum in one process, and
transform the morphine into heroin base in a second
process, and finally produce heroin hydrochloride. In
the case of cocaine, coca paste is produced from either
sun-dried (in Bolivia and Peru) or fresh coca leaves (in
Colombia), which is later transformed into cocaine base,
from where cocaine hydrochloride is produced.
The results of each step, e.g. from coca leaf to coca paste,
can be estimated with a conversion factor. Such conversion factors are based on interviews with the people who
are involved in the process, e.g. farmers in Colombia,
who reported how much coca leaf they needed to produce 1 kg of coca paste or cocaine base. Tests have also
been conducted, where so-called ‘cooks’ or ‘chemists’
demonstrate how they do the processing under local
conditions. A number of studies conducted by enforcement agencies in the main drug producing countries
have provided the orders of magnitude for the transformation from the raw material to the end product. The
problem is that this information is usually based on just
a few case studies which are not necessarily representative of the entire production process. Farmer interviews
are not always possible due to the sensitivity of the topic,
especially if the processing is done by specialists and not
by the farmers themselves. Establishing conversion ratios
is complicated by the fact that traffickers may not know
the quality of the substances they use, which may vary
considerably, they may use a range of substances for the
same purpose depending on their availability and costs,
and the conditions under which the processing takes
place (temperature, humidity, etc.) differ.
It is important to take into account that the margins of
error of these conversion ratios - used to calculate the
potential cocaine production from coca leaf or the heroin
production from opium - are not known. In order to be
precise, these calculations would require detailed information on the morphine content of opium or the
cocaine content of the coca leaf, as well as detailed information on the efficiency of clandestine laboratories.
This information is very limited. This also applies to the
question of the psychoactive content of the narcotic
plants. One study conducted in Afghanistan by UNODC
over two years indicated, for instance, that the morphine
content of Afghan opium was significantly higher than
had been thought earlier. Based on this study, and in
combination with information on the price structured,
it became clear that the conversion ratio that had been
used (10:1) had to be changed. In 2005, therefore, the
transformation ratio was estimated at 7:1, following
additional information obtained from interviews with
morphine/heroin producers in Afghanistan.
Many cannabis farmers also conduct the first processing
steps, either by removing the upper leaves and flowers of
the plant to produce cannabis herb or by threshing and
sieving the plant material to extract the cannabis resin.
The herb and resin yield per hectare can be obtained by
multiplying the plant material yield with an extraction
factor. In Morocco, this factor was established by using
information from farmers on the methods used and on
results from scientific laboratoriese. Information on the
yield was obtained from interviews with cannabis farmers. Greater details on the methodology to estimate
global cannabis herb and resin production are provided
in the Cannabis Production section of this Report.
‘Potential’ heroin or cocaine production shows the level
of production of heroin or cocaine if all of the cultivated
opium or coca leaf were transformed into the end
products in the respective producer country. Part of the
opium or the coca leaf is directly consumed in the producing countries or in neighbouring countries, prior to
the transformation into heroin or cocaine. In addition,
significant quantities of the intermediate products, coca
paste or morphine, are also consumed in the producing
countries. These factors are partly taken into account:
for example, consumption of coca leaf considered licit in
Bolivia and Peru is not taken into account for the transformation into cocaine. Potential production is a hypothetical concept to be used at the global level and not as
an indication of heroin or cocaine production at the
country levelf. The overall accuracy of the global heroin
d
e
f
Prices suggested that, using a 10:1 conversion ratio of opium to
heroin, laboratory owners would have been losing money.
For greater detail on studies with cannabis farmers, see: UNODC
(2007). Enquête sur le cannabis au Maroc 2005. Vienna: United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
The calculation of ‘potential’ cocaine production estimates for Peru,
for instance, probably exceeds actual local cocaine production as
some of the coca paste or cocaine base produced in Peru is thought
to be exported to neighbouring Colombia and other countries for
further processing into cocaine.
297
World Drug Report 2009
and cocaine estimates has certainly improved over the
last few years and can used with a good level of confidence.
ATS manufacture estimates
The approach taken to estimate ATS manufacture
changed significantly in this year’s Report. Since 2003,
UNODC triangulated three estimates: 1) estimates
based upon ATS consumption; 2) estimates based upon
ATS drug seizures, and 3) estimates based on seized
precursor chemicals likely used in the illicit manufacture
of ATS.g There have been significant changes, however,
in both ATS use and manufacture, which severely limit
the usefulness of this approach.h
In this Report, UNODC therefore presented a model
based only on estimated consumption, to produce a
range of ATS manufacture. This approach utilizes the
estimated range of annual global users, and multiplies
this by the average amount of pure ATS believed to be
consumed (i.e. among both casual and problem users)
for each drug type. The average user of amphetaminesgroup substance was estimated to consume 12 grams of
pure meth/amphetamine per year (range 1.6 – 34.4);
and the average ‘ecstasy’ user was estimated to consume
5 grams of pure MDMA per year (0.8 – 13.6). The
amount of seized drugs for each group are added to the
total quantity of ATS and ecstasy estimated to be consumed globally. Totals are derived to estimate the lower
and upper range of likely manufacture for amphetamines-group and ecstasy-group substances.
There are a range of issues with this approach related to
the quality of the data on the level and amount of consumption of ATS and ecstasy by users, and uncertainty
around the applicability of data on consumption patterns from studies of ATS and ecstasy users in a limited
number of countries to all such users in all countries.
Further, estimates using a similar consumption-based
approach for cannabis produced estimates with a much
lower range compared to other methods of estimating
cannabis production. Considerable caution should
therefore be taken when considering the estimates produced by this method.
UNODC is reviewing this approach to estimating ATS
manufacture, and is in discussions with experts in the
field to develop a more sophisticated approach to determining global levels of ATS manufacture.
g
h
See Ecstasy and Amphetamines, Global Survey 2003 (United Nations
publication, Sales No. E.03.XI.15).
See Amphetamines and Ecstasy: 2008 Global ATS Assessment (United
Nations publication, Sales No. E.08.XI.12).
298
Drug trafficking
The information on drug trafficking, as presented in this
report, is mainly drawn from the Annual Reports Questionnaires (ARQ). Additional sources, such as other
Government reports, INTERPOL, the World Customs
Organization (WCO), reports by the Heads of National
Law Enforcement Agency (HONLEA), data provided
via UNODC’s ‘Data for Africa‘ project, data provided
via UNODC’s, ‘Drug Use Information Network for
Asia and the Pacific’ (DAINAP), and UNODC’s field
offices, were used to supplement the information. Priority was given to officially transmitted data in the Annual
Reports Questionnaire. The analysis of quantities seized,
shown in this report, was provided from 107 ARQ’s over
the June 2008–May 2009 period. Including information from other sources, UNODC was able to obtain
seizure data from 143 countries for 2007. Seizures are
thus the most comprehensive indicator of the drug situation and its evolution at the global level. Although
seizures may not always reflect trafficking trends correctly at the national level, they tend to show reasonable
representations of trafficking trends at the regional and
global levels.
There are some technical problems as – depending on
the drugs - some countries report seizures in weight
terms (kilogram - kg), in volume terms (litres - l) while
other countries report seizures in ‘unit terms’. In the
online inter-active seizure report (www.unodc.org), seizures are shown as reported. In the World Drug Report,
seizure data have been aggregated and transformed into
a unique measurement: seizures in ‘kilogram equivalents’. For the purposes of the calculations a ‘typical
consumption unit’ (at street purity) was assumed to be:
cannabis herb: 0.5 g, cannabis resin: 0.135 g; cocaine
and ecstasy: 0.1 g, heroin and amphetamines: 0.03 g;
LSD: 0.00005 g (50 micrograms). A litre of seizures was
assumed to be equivalent to one kilogram. For opiate
seizures (unless specified differently in the text), it was
assumed that 10 kg of opium were equivalent to 1 kg of
morphine or heroin. Though all of these transformation
ratios can be disputed, they provide a means of combining all the different seizure reports into one comprehensive measure. The transformation ratios have been
derived from those normally used by law enforcement
agencies, in the scientific literature and by the International Narcotics Control Board, and were established in
consultation with UNODC’s Laboratory and Scientific
Section. No changes in the transformation ratios used in
last year’s World Drug Report were made.
Seizures are used as an indicator for trends and patterns
in trafficking. In combination with changes in drug
prices or drug purities, changes in seizures can indicate
whether trafficking has increased or declined. Increase in
seizures in combination with stable or falling drug prices
is a strong indication of rising trafficking activities.
Methodology
Increasing seizures and rising drug prices, in contrast,
may be a reflection of improved enforcement effectiveness. Changes in trafficking can also serve as an indirect
indicator for global production and use of drugs. Seizures are, of course, only an indirect indicator for trafficking activities, influenced by a number of additional
factors, such as variations in law enforcement practices
and changes in reporting modalities. Seizures can also
sometimes be double counted when more than one
organization is involved.
Overall seizures have proven to be a good indicator to
reveal underlying trafficking trends if analyzed over long
periods of time and across large geographical entities.
While seizures at the national level may be influenced by
large quantities of drugs in transit or by shifts in law
enforcement priorities, it is not very likely that the same
is true at the regional or at the global level. If a large
drug shipment, while in transit, is taken out of the
market in one country, fewer drugs will be probably
seized in the neighbouring countries. Similarly, if
enforcement efforts and seizures decline in one country,
the neighbouring countries are likely to suffer from
intensified trafficking activities, resulting in rising levels
of seizures. The impact of changes in enforcement priorities of an individual country are, in general, not significant at the regional or global level.
Drug price and purity data
UNODC also collects and publishes price and purity
data. These data, if properly collected, can be very powerful indicators of market trends. Trends in supply can
change over a shorter period of time when compared
with changes in demand and shifts in prices and purities
are good indicators for increases or declines of market
supply. Research has shown that short-term changes in
the consumer markets are first reflected in purity changes
while prices tend to be rather stable over longer periods
of time. UNODC collects its price data from the Annual
Reports Questionnaire, and supplements this data with
other sources, such as price data collected by Europol
and other organisations. Prices are collected at farm-gate
level, wholesale level (‘kilogram prices’) and at retail level
(‘gram prices’). Countries are asked to provide minimum, maximum and typical prices and purities.
Data on drug consumption
Overview
UNODC estimates of the extent of illicit drug use in the
world have been published periodically since 1997. The
latest estimates, presented in this report, are based on
information received until April 2009.
Assessing the extent of drug use (the number of drug
users) is a particularly difficult undertaking because it
involves measuring the size of a ‘hidden’ population.
Margins of error are considerable, and tend to multiply
as the scale of estimation is raised, from local to national,
regional and global levels. Despite some improvements
in recent years, estimates provided by Member States to
UNODC are still very heterogeneous in terms of quality
and reliability. These estimates cannot simply be aggregated globally to arrive at an “exact” number of drug
users in the world. In this year’s World Drug Report, the
new country data presented (not reported in previous
World Drug Reports) are expressed in ranges where point
estimates could not be produced given the level of uncertainty. Regional and global estimates are also reported as
ranges reflecting the lack of information in some countries. It can be noted that the level of confidence expressed
in the estimates vary across regions and across drugs.
This approach marks a departure from the approaches
used in all previous World Drug Reports. Comparisons
are therefore not valid for this year’s global and regional
estimates with those made in previous years.
A global estimate of the level of use of specific drugs
involved the following steps:
1. Identiﬁcation and analysis of appropriate sources;
2. Identiﬁcation of key benchmark ﬁgures for the level of
drug use in all countries where data are available (annual prevalence of drug use among the general population aged 15-64) which then serve as ‘anchor points’
for subsequent calculations;
3. ‘Standardisation’ of existing data if reported with a different reference population than the one used for the
Report (for example, from age group 12 and above to a
standard age group of 15-64) ;
When countries do not provide typical prices/purities,
UNODC calculates the mid-point of these estimates as
a proxy for the ‘typical’ prices/purities (unless scientific
studies are available which provide better estimates).
What is not known, in general, is how data were collected and how reliable it is.
4. Adjustments of national indicators to annual prevalence
rate if annual prevalence is not available (for example,
lifetime prevalence or current use to annual prevalence
or school survey results to annual prevalence among
the general population). This included the identiﬁcation of adjustment factors based on information from
neighbouring countries with similar cultural, social
and economic situations;
Although improvements have been made in some countries over the last few years, a number of law enforcement bodies in several countries have not yet established
a regular system for collecting purity and price data.
5. Imputation for countries where data is not available based on data from countries in the same region.
Ranges were calculated considering the 10th and 90th
percentile of the regional distribution.
299
World Drug Report 2009
6. Extrapolation of available results from countries in
a region to the region as a whole. Regional estimates
were calculated only for regions where data for at least
two countries covering at least 20% of the population
was available;
7. Aggregation of regional results to arrive at global results.
Country-level estimates of the number of
people who have used drugs at least once
in the past year
Estimates of illicit drug consumption for a large number
of countries have been received by UNODC over the
years (in the form of Annual Reports Questionnaires
(ARQ) submitted by Governments), and have been
identified from additional sources, such as other governmental reports and research results from scientific literature. Officially transmitted information in any specific
year, however, would not suffice to establish global estimates. Over the period June 2008 to May 2009, for
instance, 115 countries provided UNODC with
responses to the ARQ on Drug Use (Part II), but less
than half of them (42 countries) provided new quantitative estimates and most of these estimates did not refer
to 2007 but to some previous year. For countries that
did not submit information, or in cases where the data
were older than 10 years, other sources were identified,
where available. In addition, a number of estimates
needed to be ‘adjusted’ (see below). Since 1998, with the
inclusion of estimates referring to previous years,
UNODC has collected quantitative estimates of drug
use among the general population for 128 countries and
territories and 99 for student/youth populations. In
cases of estimates referring to previous years, the prevalence rates were left unchanged and applied to new
population estimates for the year 2007. Results from
these countries were extrapolated to the sub-regional
level and then aggregated into the global estimate
Detailed information is available from countries in
North America, a large number of countries in Europe,
a number of countries in South America, the two main
countries in the Oceania region and a limited number of
countries in Asia and in Africa. For other countries,
available qualitative information on the drug use situation only allows for some ‘guess estimates’.
One key problem in national data reported is still the
level of accuracy, which varies strongly from country to
country. While a number of estimates are based on
sound epidemiological surveys, some are the result of
guesswork. In other cases, the estimates simply reflect
the aggregate number of drug users found in drug registries which probably cover only a small fraction of the
total drug using population in a country.
Even in cases where detailed information is available,
there is often considerable divergence in definitions used
- registry data (people in contact with the treatment
300
system or the judicial system) versus survey data (usually
extrapolation of results obtained through interviews of a
selected sample); general population versus specific surveys of groups in terms of age (such as school surveys),
special settings (such as hospitals or prisons), lifetime,
annual or monthly prevalence, et cetera.
In order to reduce the error from simply aggregating such
diverse estimates, an attempt was made to standardize as a far as possible - the very heterogeneous data set.
Thus, all available estimates were transformed into one
single indicator - annual prevalence among the general
population aged 15 to 64 - using transformation ratios
derived from analysis of the situation in neighbouring
countries, and if such data were not available, on
estimates from the USA, the most studied country worldwide with regard to drug use.
The basic assumption is that the level of drug use differs
between countries, but that there are general patterns
(for example, lifetime prevalence is higher than annual
prevalence; young people consume more drugs than
older people) which apply to most countries. It is also
assumed that the ratio between lifetime prevalence and
annual prevalence among the general population or
between lifetime prevalence among young people and
annual prevalence among the general population, do not
vary too much among countries with similar social,
cultural and economic situation. Various calculations of
long-term data from a number of countries seem to
confirm these assumptions.
Indicators used
The most widely used indicator at the global level is the
annual prevalence rate: the number of people who have
consumed an illicit drug at least once in the last twelve
months prior to the study. As “annual prevalence” is the
most commonly used indicator to measure prevalence,
it has been adopted by UNODC as a key indicator to
measure the extent of drug use. It is also part of the
Lisbon Consensusi on core epidemiological demand
i
The basic indicators to monitor drug use, agreed by all participating
organizations that formed part of the Lisbon Consensus in 2000,
and endorsed by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, are:
- Drug consumption among the general population
(estimates of prevalence and incidence);
- Drug consumption among the youth population
(estimates of prevalence and incidence);
- High-risk drug use (estimates of the number of injecting drug
users and the proportion engaged in high-risk behaviour,
estimates of the number of daily drug users);
- Utilization of services for drug problems
(number of individuals seeking help for drug problems);
- Drug-related morbidity (prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B virus and
hepatitis C virus among illicit drug consumers);
- Drug-related mortality
(deaths directly attributable to drug consumption).
While in the analysis of the drug use situation and drug use trends
all these indicators were considered, when it came to provide a global
comparison a choice was made to rely on the one key indicator that is
most available and provides an idea of the magnitude for the drug use
situation: annual prevalence among the population aged 15 to 64.
Methodology
indicators (CN.7/2000/CRP.3).
The use of “annual prevalence” is a compromise between
“lifetime prevalence” data (drug use at least once in a
lifetime) and data on current use (drug use at least once
over the last month). Lifetime prevalence data are often
collected, but they are less useful in providing information about recent trends in the levels of drug use across
countries. Data on current use could provide information to study even more recent trends. However, they
often require larger samples in order to obtain meaningful results, and are thus more costly to generate, notably
if it comes to drugs other than cannabis which is widespread.
The “annual prevalence” rate is usually shown as a percentage of the youth and adult population. The definitions of the age groups vary, however, from country to
country. Given a highly skewed distribution of drug use
among the different age cohorts in most countries (youth
and young adults tend to have substantially higher prevalence rates than older adults or retired persons), differences in the age groups can lead to substantially diverging
results. Typical age groups used by UNODC Member
States are: 12+; 14+: 15+; 18+; 12-60; 16-59; 18-60;
15-45; 15-75; and, increasingly, aged 15-64. The revised
version of the Annual Reports Questionnaire (ARQ)
stipulates the age group 15-64 as the key population
group to be measured. Where the age groups reported
by Member States did not differ significantly from this
age group, they were presented as reported and the age
group specified. Where studies were based on significantly different age groups, results were adjusted to the
age group of 15-64.
However, when it comes to heroin use (or drug injecting), annual prevalence data derived from national
household surveys tend to grossly under-estimate such
use j, because heroin users often do not live in “typical”
households (and may be homeless, in hospitals or in
prisons); heroin use is often highly stigmatised so that
the willingness to openly report heroin use may be lower;
and users are often geographically concentrated in certain areas. A number of “indirect” methods have been
developed to provide estimates for this group of drug
users. They include various multiplier methods (such as
treatment multipliers, police data multipliers, HIV/
AIDS multipliers or mortality multipliers), capture-recapture methods and multivariate indicators. In countries where evidence existed that the primary “problem
drug” in those countries was opiates, and an indirect
estimate existed for “problem drug use” or injecting
drug use (largely Western European countries), this was
used in preference to household survey estimates of
heroin use.
For other drug types, priority was given to annual prevalence data found by means of household surveys. A
number of countries, however, did not report annual
prevalence data, but lifetime or current use of drug consumption, or they provided annual prevalence data but
for a different age group. In order to arrive at basically
comparable results, it was thus necessary to extrapolate
from reported current use or lifetime prevalence data to
annual prevalence rates and/or to adjust results for differences in age groups.
The methods used for collecting data on illicit drug use
vary from country to country. This reduces comparability. The options for post adjustment to reduce these
differences are limited. UNODC thus welcomes efforts
at the regional level to arrive at more comparable data
(as is currently the case in Europe under the auspices of
EMCDDA and in the Americas under the auspices of
CICAD).
Diverging results have also been obtained for the same
country by applying differing methodological approaches.
In such cases, the sources were analysed in-depth and
priority was given to the most recent data and to the
methodological approaches that are considered to produce the best results. For example, it is generally accepted
that household surveys are reasonably good approaches
to estimating cannabis, ATS or cocaine use among the
general population, at least in countries where there are
no adverse consequences for admitting illicit drug use.
Thus, household survey results were usually given priority over other sources of prevalence estimates, such as
reported registry data from the police or from treatment
providers.
j
The problem of under-estimation is more widespread for heroin,
but does also exist for other drugs such as cocaine or methamphetamine.
301
World Drug Report 2009
Indirect methods of estimating heroin use
Treatment multiplier: If a survey among heroin users reveals, for instance, that one quarter of them were in treatment
in the last year, the multiplication of the total 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 users reveals that one out of five 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 use 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.a If in one register (for example,
an arrest register) 5000 persons are found (for possession of heroin) and in a second register (such as a treatment
register) 2000 persons are found (for treatment of heroin use), and 400 persons appear in both registers, the total
population of heroin dependent users can be estimated through the following calculations. It can be assumed that
20% (400/2000) of heroin-dependent users have been arrested, so that the total heroin-using population could be
around 25,000 (5000/20%).b Results can usually be improved if data from more than two registers are analysed
(such as data from an arrest register, treatment register, ambulance register, mortality register, substitution treatment
register, HIV register, et cetera). More sophisticated capture-recapture models exist, and are used by some countries
to make calculations based on more than two registries.
Another 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 use 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 use is high and lower in communities where heroin use is low. In addition, heroin use 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 et cetera). Taking all of this additional information into account, results from the local
studies are then extrapolated to the national level.
a
b
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.
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).
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 age groups
The approach to age adjustments is highlighted using an
example from New Zealand. New Zealand carried out a
household survey in 2006, covering the population aged
15-45. According to this survey, annual prevalence of
ecstasy use was found to affect 3.4% of the population
aged 15-45, equivalent to about 71,200 people. Given
the strong association between ecstasy use and younger
302
age groups it can be assumed that there is little ecstasy
use in the 45+ age group. Thus, dividing the ecstasy
using population established above by the population
size 15-64 (2.764 million) gives an estimated prevalence
rate of 2.6%.
The situation is slightly more complex when it comes to
cannabis. New Zealand reported a cannabis prevalence
rate of 17.9% among the population aged 15-45; it is
more likely that use would continue past the age of 45
years, based on studies of cannabis users in other countries. An estimate of cannabis use among those aged
15-64 years was therefore derived from an extrapolation
from the age structure of cannabis users found in Australia, which was then applied to existing data for New
Methodology
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
Annual and lifetime prevalence rates of cocaine
use in Western Europe
Sources: UNODC, Annual Reports Questionnaire Data /
EMCDDA, Annual Report.
3.0
annual prevalence
in % of population age 15-64
Zealand. Based on the assumption that the age structure
of cannabis users in New Zealand is similar to the one
found in Australia the likely annual prevalence rate of
cannabis use in New Zealand for the population aged
15-64 can be estimated at around 13.3%; this is the
estimate reported in the Statistical Annex. Similar
approaches were also used for the age-group adjustments
of data from other countries.
y = 0.3736x - 0.0455
R = 0.94
R2 = 0.880
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
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 were
extrapolated to arrive at annual prevalence estimates.
Let’s assume for example that a country in Europe
reported a life time cocaine use of 2% and an annual
prevalence rate is estimated based on this life time data.
Taking data for lifetime and annual prevalence of cocaine
use in countries of Western Europe it can be shown that
there is a strong positive correlation between the two
measures (correlation coefficient R = 0.94); that is, the
higher the lifetime prevalence, the higher is the annual
prevalence and vice versa. Based on the resulting regression curve (y = annual prevalence and x = lifetime prevalence) it can be estimated that a West European country
with a lifetime prevalence of 2% is likely to have an
annual prevalence of around 0.7% (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 lifetime prevalence
rate (0.93/2.61 = 0.356) and multiplying this ratio with
the lifetime prevalence of the country concerned (2% *
0.356 = 0.7%).
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
life-time prevalence in % of population age 15-64
Data points
Regression curve
Good quality results (showing only a small potential
error) can only be expected from extrapolations done for
a country in the same region. If instead of using the
West European average (0.387), the ratio found in the
USA was used (0.17), the estimate for a country with a
lifetime prevalence of cocaine use of 2% would decline
to 0.3% (2% * 0.17). Such an estimate is likely to be
correct for a country with a drug history similar to the
USA, which has had a cocaine problem for more than
two decades which is different from Western Europe,
where the cocaine problem is a phenomenon of the last
decade.
Data from countries in the same region with similar
patter in drug use were used, wherever possible, for
extrapolation purposes.
Extrapolations based on treatment data
A similar approach used was to calculate the overall ratio
by averaging the annual/lifetime ratios, calculated for
each countryk. Multiplying the resulting average ratio
(0.387) with the lifetime prevalence of the country concerned provides the estimate for the annual prevalence
(0.387 * 2% = 0.8%). Given this close relationship
between lifetime and annual prevalence (and an even
stronger correlation between annual prevalence and
monthly prevalence), extrapolations from lifetime or current use data to annual prevalence data was usually given
preference to other kinds of possible extrapolations.
For a number of developing countries, the only drugrelated data available on the demand side was treatment
demand. In such cases, the approach taken was to look
for other countries in the region with a similar socioeconomic structure, which reported annual prevalence
data and treatment data. A ratio of people treated per
1000 drug users was calculated for each country. The
results from different countries were then averaged and
the resulting ratio was used to extrapolate the likely
number of drug users from the number of people in
treatment.
k
Extrapolations based on school surveys
For each country the ratio between annual prevalence and lifetime
prevalence is calculated. The results are than averaged: In our example: ( 0.64 + 0.32 + 0.43 + 0.14 + 0.32 + 0.38 + 0.35 + 0.32 + 0.75
+ 0.31 + 0.32 + 0.33 + 0.46+ 0.34) : 14 = 0.387.
Analysis of countries which have conducted both school
surveys and national household surveys shows that there
303
World Drug Report 2009
is, in general, a positive correlation between the two
variables, particularly for cannabis, ATS and cocaine.
The correlation, however, is weaker than that of lifetime
and annual prevalence or current use and annual prevalence among the general population. But it is stronger
than the correlation between opiate use and IDU-related
HIV cases, and between treatment and drug use.
These extrapolations were conducted using the ratios
between school surveys and household surveys of countries in the same region or with similar social structure.
Two approaches were taken: a) the unweighted average
of the ratios between school and household surveys in
the comparison countries; and b) a regression-based
extrapolation, using the relationships between estimates
from the other countries to predict the estimate in the
country concerned based upon the school survey estimate
in that country.
A range was generated by these two estimates. These
were used as the low and high range of the estimates of
the annual prevalence of drug use among those aged
15-64 years in that country.
A note on ranges at the country level
As is no doubt clear from the discussion above, in many
instances there is uncertainty about the exact values for
extrapolated or imputed data. Different approaches can
be used within a study, or to make estimates of the
prevalence of drug use across studies. In this year’s World
Drug Report, where a number of estimates existed, or a
variety of approaches to making estimates could be used,
ranges were reported at the country level. This was
intended to reflect the variation that can occur even
within a country when different approaches to estimating the level of drug use are taken.
Making regional and global estimates of the
number of people who use drugs
For this purpose the estimated prevalence rates of countries were applied to the population aged 15-64, as
provided by the United Nations Population Division for
the year 2007. The methods of calculating regional and
global numbers were changed in this year’s report relative to previous years.
Due to the considerable uncertainty and in the spirit of
reflecting data gaps, no “absolute” numbers are provided, but rather, ranges have been produced. These
reflect the uncertainty that exists when data are being
either extrapolated or imputed. Ranges (not absolutes)
are provided for estimated numbers and prevalence.
Larger ranges will exist for those regions where there is
less certainty about the likely level of drug use – in other
words, those regions for which fewer direct estimates are
available, for a comparatively smaller proportion of the
region’s population.
304
The data being used to generate the estimates comprise
only those estimates considered sufficiently robust and/
or recent to be published at the country level in the
2009 World Drug Report’s tables. Unpublished estimates
are not de facto included in estimates of prevalence at
the country, subregional or global level.
Efforts were made to produce subregional and regional
estimates. Such estimates were only made where direct
estimates were published for at least two countries that
comprise at least 20% of the subregion or region’s population aged 15-64. Countries with one published estimate (typically those countries with a household survey,
or an indirect prevalence estimate that did not report
ranges) did not have uncertainty estimated. The same
estimate was used for the lower and upper range.
In estimating ranges for populations in countries with
no published estimate, the 10th and 90th percentile in
the range of direct estimates was used to produce a lower
and upper estimate. This produces conservative (wide)
intervals for regions where there is geographic variation
and/or variance in existing country-level estimates; but
it also reduces the likelihood that very skewed estimates
will have a dramatic effect upon regional and global
figures (since these would most likely fall outside the
10th and 90th percentile).
World Drug Report estimates of the total
number of people who used illicit drugs at
least once in the past year
The approach used in this year’s Report was the same as
that of previous years, with the exception that ranges are
now reported. Two ranges were produced, and the lowest
and highest estimate of each the approaches were taken
to estimate the lower and upper ranges, respectively, of
the total illicit drug using population. This estimate is
obviously tentative given the limited number of countries upon which the data informing the two approaches
were based (see the list of countries below). The two
approaches were as follows:
Approach 1. The global estimates of number of people
using each of the five drug groups in the past year were
summed together. To adjust for the fact that people use
more than one drug type and these five populations
overlap, the total was then adjusted downward. The size
of this adjustment was made based upon household
surveys conducted in the USA, Canada, Australia, the
United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil, Mexico and Germany,
which all assessed all five drug types, and reported an
estimate of total illicit drug use. Across all of these
studies, the extent to which adding each population of
users overestimated the total population was an average
of 116%. The summed total was then therefore divided
by 1.17.
Methodology
“Relative risk coefﬁcient”
Treatment index
IDU index
Toxicity index
Deaths index
“Relative risk
coefficient”*
Opiates
100
100
100
100
100
Cocaine
85.3
47.8
88
18.5
59.9
Amphetamines
20.1
59.5
32
6.8
29.6
Ecstasy
3.8
6.1
20.7
1
7.9
9
0
1.5
0.6
2.8
Cannabis
* Unweighted average across the four indices.
Approach 2. This approach was based on the average
proportion of the total drug using population that comprises cannabis users. The average proportion was
obtained from household surveys conducted in the USA,
Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil,
Mexico and Germany, which all assessed all five drug
types, and reported an estimate of total illicit drug use.
Across all of these studies, the average proportion of
total drug users that comprised cannabis users was 76%.
The range of cannabis users at the global level was therefore divided by 0.76.
World Drug Report estimates of the
number of “problem drug users”
There is clear utility in making estimates of the number
of drug users who are experiencing problems related to
their use. It is this subgroup of drug users who are most
likely to come to the attention of health and law enforcement, and who drug use has been estimated to cause the
majority of the public health and public order burden.
The number of problem drug users are typically estimated with the number of dependent drug users. Sometimes an alternative approach is used, employing a
definition of injecting or long duration use of opioids,
amphetamines or cocaine, as the European Monitoring
Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) uses
to guide country level indirect prevalence estimation
studiesl.
Making such estimates is a challenging undertaking,
even at the country level. These challenges become even
more salient when attempting to make regional and
global estimates of the size of this population, where
there are additional issues of data gaps at country and
subregional levels on dependent or injecting drug use.
The most common approach is to use some kind of
extrapolation techniques.
In this Report, as in previous years, the following
approach was taken. Each of the five range estimates for
number of people using each of the five drug groups was
l
See http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/themes/key-indicators/pdu.
converted into a “heroin user equivalent”. This was calculated through the use of “relative risk coefficients” (see
below) derived using the UNODC’s Harm Indexm. This
allows for aggregating results from different drugs into
one single reference drug (in this case, heroin). Using
this coefficient, each of the five drug use estimates was
converted into an estimate of the number of “heroin
user equivalents”. A lower range was calculated through
summing each of the five lower range estimates; the
upper end of the range was calculated by summing the
upper range of the five estimates.
To obtain an estimate of the number of “problem drug
users”, these totals were multiplied by the proportion of
past year heroin users in the United States National
Survey on Drug Use and Health (range 53-68% over the
past six years of the NSDUH). Hence, The LOW estimate of “problem drug users” is the lower proportion
(53%) multiplied by the lower estimated size of the
heroin use equivalent population (34.1 million heroin
user equivalents).The HIGH estimate of “problem drug
users” is the higher proportion (68%) multiplied by the
higher estimated size of the heroin use equivalent population (56.3 million heroin user equivalents).
Concluding remarks
It goes without saying that each method of extrapolating
results from other countries has weaknesses. These estimates should still be interpreted with caution. The 2009
World Drug Report reflects the different uncertainty that
exists in the data. UNODC made an attempt to reduce
the risk of bias by extrapolating data using, as far as possible, data from nearby countries in the region.
The global estimates presented in this report reflect
likely orders of magnitude, as opposed to precise statistics on the prevalence and evolution of global drug use.
More precise ranges can be produced when a greater
number of countries provide estimates based on rigorous
scientific methods.
m For considerable detail on the logic and data underlying this Harm
Index, please consult the 2005 World Drug Report.
305
World Drug Report 2009
Editorial and production team
The 2009 World Drug Report was produced under
the supervision of Sandeep Chawla, Director,
Division of Policy Analysis and Public Affairs,
by the Statistics and Surveys Section and the
Studies and Threat Analysis Section.
Core team
Coen Bussink
Louisa Degenhardt
Raggie Johansen
Laureta Kazanxhiu
Anja Korenblik
Suzanne Kunnen
Kristina Kuttnig
Steven Malby
Angela Me
Matthew Nice
Preethi Perera
Thomas Pietschmann
Catherine Pysden
Martin Raithelhuber
Ali Saadeddin
Chapter 2
Ted Leggett
Contributors
Giovanna Campello
Gilberto Gerra
Deniz Mermerci
Barbara Remberg
Justice Tettey
Antoine Vella
The 2009 World Drug Report also benefited from
the work and expertise of many other UNODC
staff members in Vienna and around the world.
306
Printed in Malta
June 2009–1,700
United Nations publication
Sales No. E.09.XI.12
ISBN: 978-92-1-148240-9
Vienna International Centre, PO Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +(43) (1) 26060-0, Fax: +(43) (1) 26060-5866, www.unodc.org
WORLD
DRUG REPORT
2009
WORLD DRUG REPORT 2009
WORLD
DRUG REPORT
The World Drug Report presents comprehensive
information on the illicit drug situation. It provides
detailed estimates and trends on production, trafficking and consumption in the opium/heroin,
coca/cocaine, cannabis and amphetamine-type
stimulants markets. This year, for the first time,
the World Drug Report includes special feature
sections on the quality of drug data available to
UNODC, trends in drug use among young people
and police-recorded drug offences. It also discusses one the most formidable unintended consequences of drug control - the black market for
drugs - and how the international community
best can tackle it.
2009
Scarica
3.1.3 Colombia - Dipartimento Politiche Antidroga

3.1.3 Colombia - Dipartimento Politiche Antidroga

Global cannabis cultivation and trafficking - Emcdda
