The use of illegal drugs, and the policy responses to it, has a significant impact on the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Developing and implementing effective policies in this field is therefore an important aspect of social policy. It remains a matter of concern, therefore, that debates and decisions on drug policy - in national parliaments, and international settings such as the European Parliament, the OAS-CICAD, ASEAN/China ACCORD, or the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) - are often dominated by ideological, political or diplomatic considerations, rather than an objective search for policies and programmes that maximise human health and welfare.

The availability of data and analysis on drug use, related problems, and the impact of drug policies, has improved massively over the last 10 years, but not enough of this analysis currently finds its way into international policy debates. Many governments created comprehensive national drug strategies during the 1990s, and committed themselves to ongoing evaluation and review in the light of experience and evidence. In practice, only a handful of countries have conducted independent evaluations - the common experience has been of a cursory internal review, followed by a restatement and continuation of the main elements of existing strategy. Similarly, the United Nations is now approaching the end of a 10-year strategy agreed at a General Assembly Special Session in 1998, which set ambitious global goals for the reduction of the supply of, and demand for, illegal drugs. The arrangements for reviewing the available evidence for this key milestone are, however, worryingly thin, giving the impression that member states are preparing to simply reaffirm the current set of policies and programmes. Given the significant changes in the scale and nature of the global drug market over the last 10 years, and the fact that national policies and international co-operation have not yet been conspicuously successful in reducing drug use, (or combating the consequential harms), we would argue that a comprehensive evaluation of progress so far, and of options for future policy, is particularly appropriate, and feasible, now.