As long as there is a demand for the products deriving from plant-based drugs such as Opium, Cocaine and Cannabis, and as long as profits can be made from their distribution, these plants will be grown (or alternatives produced synthetically) somewhere in the world. This holds true even for Amphetamines-type Stimulants and Ecstasy that, in spite of their perception of being 'synthetic' drugs, are still largely based on ephedra and sassafras plants. All efforts to stifle the cultivation of these plants have resulted either in failure, the relocation of the pattern of cultivation to another area (the 'balloon' effect), or at best a short term disruption of supply to consumers. Reductions in Coca cultivation in Peru in the early 1990s and in Bolivia in the late 1990s simply shifted more production into Colombia. Similarly, successful action to reduce Opium poppy cultivation in Thailand and Pakistan in the 1990s has led to a higher level of production in Afghanistan. In the light of this experience, it is difficult to see how continued efforts to reduce cultivation of these substances will ever achieve the stated objective of preventing the supply of the concentrated or synthesised products to consumer markets.

Action by governments and international agencies to tackle the growing reach and influence of criminal organisations and networks, which derive much of their wealth from the distribution of illegal drugs, is clearly important. However, this challenge should be driven by wider objectives relating to the suppression of organised crime, rather than a simple focus on the amount of drugs intercepted. Similarly, international action to bring stability and prosperity to areas of drug cultivation (currently focussed on Afghanistan and the Andean region of South America) are needed, but the priority within these efforts should be the creation of sustainable livelihoods and improved quality of life for some of the poorest people on earth. This is both a more humane and more effective approach. Poor farmers grow crops used in illicit drug production as a means of basic subsistence. Eradicating their often only source of income prior to the establishment of alternative livelihoods results in a downward spiral of poverty for those affected and ensures that they will replant, leading to the geographical expansion of such crops. The continued promotion of forced eradication programmes in the Andes and Afghanistan cannot be justified either in terms of the prospects for success in reducing overall drug supply, or of their impact on the local situation. Forced eradication programmes are often counter-productive, generating social conflict and political violence and undermining government legitimacy. Aerial spraying negatively impacts on the fragile economies and environment in growing areas, and contribute to the poverty and exclusion of rural communities. This brings the anti-drug policies of the US government, supported by the UNODC, into direct contradiction with the development and human rights policies of other UN agencies such as the UNDP, UNAIDS, FAO, UNESCO and the UNHCR.

A more effective and responsible policy on reducing the supply of illegal drugs would focus on development and conflict-resolution goals in areas of current cultivation, rather than treating entire communities and cultures as criminals, and would more explicitly direct law enforcement attention towards the criminal networks that make the largest profits from synthesising and distributing illegal substances.