DPA is a leading organisation in the USA promoting new drug policies based on science, compassion, health and human rights and a just society in which the fears, prejudices and punitive prohibitions of today are no more.

La DPA es una organización estadounidense clave que promueve el establecimiento de políticas de drogas centradas en la ciencia, la compasión, la salud, los derechos humanos, y una sociedad justa en la que el miedo, los prejuicios y las prohibiciones punitivas actuales ya no existirán.

La DPA est une organisation américaine qui promeut la mise en place de politiques des drogues basées sur la science, la compassion, la santé, les droits humains, et une société juste dans laquelle la peur, les préjudices et les condamnations actuelles n’auront plus leur place.

Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)

A new joint report from Human Rights Watch and the Drug Policy Alliance shows thousands of people are being deported every year for drug offenses that in many cases no longer exist under state laws, harming and separating immigrant families.

Punitive federal immigration laws separate families, destabilize communities, and terrorize noncitizens, all while overdose deaths have risen and drugs have become more potent and available.

Congress should reform immigration law to give immigration judges discretion to make individualized decisions. States should ensure drug reforms apply to non-citizens as well.

'Disrupt and vilify': The war on immigrants inside the US war on drugs

Americans from all walks of life are deeply concerned about addiction, overdose, and the impact of fentanyl. Families across the U.S.—whether from cities, suburbs, or rural communities— desperately want to protect their loved ones and keep them alive.

When it comes to solutions, Americans broadly agree that access to treatment, the opioid/fentanyl reversal medication naloxone, and other health services are critical for saving lives and offering a path to recovery.

Yet, the Trump Administration’s and Congress’s proposed federal funding cuts pose an immediate and catastrophic threat to these vital services. By slashing Medicaid and public health grant programs, Trump’s cuts will directly hinder access to treatment, naloxone, and vital health services. The results could be devastating: more lives lost to overdose, increased suffering, and addiction spiraling out of control. We cannot let these cuts go through—every second counts.

Kassandra Frederique, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, answers urgent questions to help us understand the immense threat posed by Trump’s federal funding cuts and what can be done to protect our loved ones and ourselves.

US: Trump’s funding cuts jeopardize fentanyl overdose prevention and recovery

Reform Drug Policy. Join us in Detroit. #Reform2025

The Reform Conference is the premier gathering of the growing and dynamic drug policy reform movement. Every other year, the 

 hosts this event, bringing together people working on the full range of drug policy issues from across the United States and around the world to listen, learn, and strategize. In 2025, the conference will take place in Detroit, Michigan from November 12-15.

The International Drug Policy Reform Conference took place October 18-21, 2023, in Phoenix, Arizona. Attendees spent three days building community with people committed to finding alternatives to the war on drugs while participating in sessions given by leading experts from around the world. More than 1,500 attendees representing over 50 countries joined us!

 and to strategize and mobilize reform with you in 2023.

We strategized, built community, and organized around:

Decriminalizing Drugs and Building Health-Based Alternatives

Ensuring Our Systems Help, Not Hurt by Uprooting the Drug War from Our Daily Lives

Reinvesting Resources into Communities and Divesting from Punitive Police Responses

Rethinking and Reducing Punishment of People in the Drug Trade

Legalizing and Regulating Drugs the Right Way

 to see programs and videos from previous years.

International Drug Policy Reform Conference 2025

The role of the United States in exporting the destructive war on drugs to other countries is unparalleled. Since 1971, the U.S. has spent more than a trillion dollars on the war on drugs, prioritising law enforcement responses and fuelling mass incarceration within its borders. It has also played a leading role in pushing and funding punitive responses to drugs internationally. This has continued despite clear evidence that such approaches don’t work to achieve their stated aims (ending drug use and sales) while having devastating effects on rights and health, including mass criminalisation, disease transmission, repression and displacement.

This report demonstrates how U.S. assistance has supported and expanded destructive and deadly anti-drug responses in low- and middle-income countries around the world. It also presents new follow-the-money data analysis on U.S. international drug control spending by various government departments and budgets. This includes official development assistance (ODA) intended to support poverty reduction and other global development goals; and three case studies – Colombia, Mexico, and the Philippines – to reveal the damage done by this spending.

The 2023 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report by the U.S. State Department described a “whole of government approach” to drug control and a strategy of deep collaboration and “capacity building” with counterparts in other countries. A vast and complex global network of U.S. government agencies, programs, and activities has been developed in the ongoing “war on drugs.”

U.S. support for drug enforcement internationally includes financial, material and technical assistance. The U.S. drug war bureaucracy is expansive, involving numerous agencies of the government, including the Department of Defense (DOD), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), State Department, Department of Homeland Security, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as the infamous Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), under the Department of Justice (DOJ). By 2023, the DEA had 93 foreign offices in 69 countries.

Over the decade between 2015-2024, a total of almost $13 billion of U.S. taxpayer money was allocated to “counternarcotics” activities internationally.

For fiscal year 2025, the President requested $1 billion for international “counternarcotics” activities. Almost half of this request was to be received and spent by the DEA ($480 million); the second largest planned intermediary for this spending was to be the State Department’s INL bureau (about $350 million).

Separate budget documents from the involved departments contain further detail on where and how international drug control funding is to be spent. For instance, the U.S. Department of State’s 2023 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) showed that Latin America was budgeted to receive more than half ($225 million) of the total $375 million for “counternarcotics” requested by the department and its agencies (including INL and USAID). Colombia was to be the largest single country recipient ($115 million).

Aid donors (led by the U.S.) spent almost $1 billion of their ODA on “narcotics control” projects in dozens of low- and middle-income countries over the decade 2013-2022. No donor contributed more to these “narcotics control” budgets than the U.S.

Controversially, the U.S. has been increasingly classifying drug control spending as ODA: in 2020, it counted just over $30 million like this; in 2021 that figure was $309 million (and while it dropped to $106 million in 2022, this was still higher than earlier years).

Profit-making companies are also benefiting from this ODA spending on “narcotics control.” The top “channel” for this spending has been private companies (“private sector institutions,” receiving $244 million over the decade) followed by the governments of countries funded ($202 million), and then multilateral organisations such as UNODC ($77 million).

on international “counternarcotics” activities than it does on education, water supply, sanitation, and women’s rights in low- and middle-income countries:

 Almost $13 billion of U.S. taxpayer money has been allocated to “counternarcotics” activities internationally since 2015, by various government departments and from various budget lines. This amount is more than the U.S. government spent over that decade on primary education or water supply and sanitation in low- and middle-income countries around the world.

is going to “counternarcotics” activities. A growing amount of this “counternarcotics cash” has even come from the same U.S. official development assistance budgets that are supposed to help end global poverty and support other sustainable development goals while doing no harm:

 No international aid donor has spent more on “narcotics control” than the U.S. (contributing more than half of the about $1 billion in official development assistance that has been spent on this controversial sector since 2013.

Funding for “narcotics control” and “counternarcotic activities” has resulted in human rights abuses, rising HIV rates, aerial fumigation with toxic chemicals, and militarised responses in various regions.

Damaging effects internationally have included:

Human rights abuses and rising rates of HIV in the Philippines, where millions of dollars from USAID have supported “forced rehabilitation” of people who use drugs amidst a drive to expand “drug-free communities”.

Ongoing struggles for truth and justice in Colombia, for communities that were displaced or who suffered health consequences of U.S.- funded crop destruction activities, including aerial fumigation with toxic chemicals.

An enormous amount of repression in Mexico, where the U.S.-supported war on drugs is increasingly militarised, making it harder for civil society to hold the government accountable for these activities and their impacts.

Divest from punitive and prohibitionist drug control control.

Stop using taxpayers’ money to support punitive drug responses around the world, including the use of U.S. foreign aid, which is supposed to help end poverty and achieve global development goals, for “narcotics control” activities.

Cease using aid as a means to pressure low- and middle-income countries to adopt or maintain punitive drug responses.

Be more transparent about international spending on drug-related activities, regardless of what budget line this money comes from.

Increase investments in evidence-based and health- and human rights-centred harm reduction initiatives that align with global development and other commitments – including by reorienting funding for punitive and prohibitive responses to drugs.

Use metrics aligned with global development commitments to evaluate the success of international aid programmes.

Expand access to evidence-based treatment and support harm reduction services, including by ending the ban on using federal funds to purchase syringes.

Civil society and journalists in the U.S. should:

Demand greater transparency in how U.S. taxpayer money is spent.

Conduct further, in-depth investigations into how U.S. money has been spent on drug control internationally, including how it was justified, any results claimed, and any direct or indirect impacts that may have undermined other goals or aid rules. In addition to identifying harms of this spending, further investigations should also expose who might benefit from it, including private companies that profit off government contracts for international drug control projects.

Build public awareness on the use and impacts of taxpayer funds to support damaging punitive drug policies around the world.

Call for a divestment from punitive drug responses and investment in community, health and justice, including harm reduction.

Demand integrity and transparency in the government’s international spending, including that from limited aid budgets.

Demand that support from public budgets flows to evidence-based and health- and human rights-centred measures, not for punitive drug control abroad.

Solicit and listen to advice from health and human rights experts, as well as people who use drugs, on whether to remove “narcotics control” from their list of categories of spending eligible to be counted as aid.

Conduct and publish a thorough review of all ODA spent on “narcotics control” so far, whether any spending breached guidance on this category, and including the high level of redactions in this data and the use of national security or other justifications by donors to withhold details about funded projects.

Increase transparency of all current and previous aid spending, making data and details of projects easier to access, to facilitate accountability.

A world of harm: how U.S. taxpayers fund the global war on drugs over evidence-based health responses

Harm Reduction International (HRI) and Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) are holding a virtual launch of their recent report, through a webinar titled “A World of Harm: How US taxpayers fund the global war on drugs over evidence-based health responses". The webinar will take place on December 4, 2024; 3-4:30pm London time/10-11:30 EAT.

HRI & DPA convened the study to investigate on the US funding on global war on drugs. This report aims to:

Demonstrate how US assistance has supported and expanded destructive and deadly anti-drug responses in low- and middle-income countries around the world.

Present new follow-the-money data analysis on US international drug control spending by various government departments and budgets – including official development assistance (ODA) intended to support poverty reduction and other global development goals.

Showcase three case studies – Colombia, Mexico and Philippines –to reveal the damage done by this spending.

The launch will be chaired by Colleen Daniels, Deputy Director- HRI; and other key speakers include Kassandra Frederique, Executive Director- DPA; Claire Provost, the consultant and country representatives from Colombia, Mexico and Philippines.

A World of Harm: How US taxpayers fund the global war on drugs over evidence-based health responses

Amidst proposals calling for U.S. military action in Mexico or further migration crackdowns in response to illicit fentanyl smuggling and drug overdose deaths, experts from both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border will discuss the ineffectiveness and negative impacts of interdiction and militarized drug enforcement policies, while highlighting more effective, evidence-based, and humane strategies to address the overdose crisis. 

Simultaneous English<>Spanish interpretation will be available on Zoom during the event.

Addressing the fentanyl overdose crisis effectively: evidence from the border and beyond

In 2020, Oregon voters overwhelmingly approved Ballot Measure 110. This made Oregon the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize possession of small amounts of all drugs, while greatly expanding addiction services and social supports. But in 2024, state leaders recriminalized drug possession after a disinformation campaign led by drug war defenders and backed by corporate interests.

Statewide criminal penalties for drug possession returned on September 1, 2024. Promised deflection programs were not ready, meaning people will be arrested and prosecuted because of their addictions. As before, drug use will be used as an excuse to arrest Black and Brown Oregonians at higher rates (they are statistically more likely to face incarceration and harsher sentencing due to targeted policing and enforcement). Oregon’s public defender shortage continues. People who are arrested will likely have their cases dismissed for lack of counsel. In a return to the failed war on drugs, people will cycle through the criminal legal system without connection to services.

The successes of Measure 110 should neither be downplayed nor contributed to H.B. 4002. Measure 110 provided over $300 million for addiction services, including a program where police connect people to care without arrest. Policymakers must focus on implementing a thorough public health approach to drugs and real solutions to other pressing issues, not on the false promises of criminalizing drug possession.

The false promises of Oregon’s drug recriminalisation - Factsheet

, which made Oregon the first state in the United States to remove criminal penalties for possession of a small amount of any drug, was and remains a historic turning point for the decriminalization movement. Sadly, the Oregon legislature has partially repealed the measure, creating new “drug enforcement misdemeanors” punishable by a term of supervised probation or up to 180 days in jail. Instead of taking steps to improve the health-based model, the legislature doubled down on criminal penalties, bowing to political pressure and an intense misinformation campaign by opponents, including the former chief of the prison system, business interests and law enforcement. Though this is undoubtedly a setback, Measure 110’s impact will reverberate for years to come.As the reform movement analyzes the 

and strategizes in other jurisdictions, some important lessons stand out:

Messaging and narrative building is a never-ending fight, even when evidence supports the policy shift

Promoting and defending a new reform policy is important well beyond the initial campaign.Whoever sets the narrative first has the upper hand, and it is important to publicize real impact and counter misinformation early on. Otherwise, any new policy can become an easy scapegoat for persistent societal problems, even with no evidence to show a causal link between them. This is precisely what happened in Oregon where M110 detractors took advantage of the valid frustrations with public suffering and blamed it on decriminalization:

The overdose crisis fueled by fentanyl has affected every area of the United States, regardless of varying drug laws, but Measure 110 has been blamed for the overdose crisis in Oregon. After 110, Oregon’s overdose death rate closely 

 the national average and remained lower than states that impose harsh criminal penalties for drug possession.Moreover, two longitudinal studies (available 

) found no association between Measure 110 and fatal overdoses.

Despite evidence that rates of homelessness were directly tied to Oregon’s 

 politicians and drug war sympathizers found 110 to be a convenient target to deflect public frustration with the increased visibility of unhoused people.

did not lead to an increase in crime rates

major crime rates in Oregon are declining

 – the new policy was blamed for the public’s anxiety about increased criminal activity.A driver of this perception was public drug use, which has risen in tandem with increased homelessness.Opponents argued that Measure 110 caused an increase in drug use, which resulted in an increase in homelessness.Though this politically toxic message was not born out by the evidence, it was a key factor in the push to reinstate criminal penalties.

Implementation of decriminalization is as important as establishing the policy

Reshaping existing systems to implement a new policy is critical to the policy’s success.In Oregon, state officials were slow to implement key components and undercut the full potential of Measure 110 in a number of ways:

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) provided 

, which resulted in significant delays in allocating funding for needed services.We know from successful health-based models how critical it is for decriminalization measures to be implemented in parallel with expanded and fully-funded health and recovery support services. Unfortunately, the delay in Oregon impeded access to needed services.

The state did not educate the public about the drug treatment screening hotline that the measure created, and failed to provide training to law enforcement, many of whom were opposed to Measure 110.Law enforcement can sabotage the policy in both obvious and subtle ways if they are hostile to it, and it was important to educate them about the benefits of the policy and ensure they are not obstacles to successful implementation.

Implementation of Measure 110 unfortunately coincided with a number of other crises:

The COVID-19 pandemic, which had ripple effects throughout Oregon, especially for evictions, housing policies, and taxing an already overburdened health system.

The proliferation of fentanyl across the United States, starting in 2019 on the West Coast (including Oregon), led to a sharp increase in overdose rates.

National fearmongering concerning crime was exploited by longstanding opponents of drug policy reform.

Despite setbacks, M110 will have lasting impacts for the decriminalization movement

 for thousands of people by decreasing arrests and barriers to jobs and housing that result from those records.

increased access to and engagement with services

the number of people accessing the addiction services and social supports they need, including substance use disorder treatment, housing services and overdose prevention services.The services created by M110 will stay in place even after drug possession is recriminalized.

There has been a decrease in criminal penalties for drug possession even after recriminalization – cutting the potential maximum sentence in half - compared to the state of the law before Measure 110.

Criminal penalties are not the answer to problematic drug use.Decades of research and experience have made this clear. Politicians who, in an effort to find cover from public anger, turn to the criminal system for answers will quickly relearn this lesson. Though the legislation will prevent the full benefits of decriminalization from being realized, M110 remains an important step in taking drug possession out of the criminal system. The experience in Oregon also highlights the need for safer supply, drug consumption facilities, and why legal regulation based on health and human rights is essential for a true health-based approach.The legacy of Measure 110 is far from over – it will continue to grow and the lessons learned from it will strengthen the movement to reduce the role of the criminal legal system in drug policy.

Backpedalling on progress: Understanding Oregon’s U-turn on drug decriminalisation

 Thursday, 30 November 2023 / 15:00 - 16:30 (GMT - London)

This recording is available in English and 

Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drugs Threats

 with the objective of mobilising the international community to “come together to collectively combat this shared challenge”. By October 2023, some 120 governments had signed up to be part of the Coalition.

In parallel, the USA will table a resolution at the 78th Session of the UN General Assembly that calls on UN Member States to prioritise global action to address the public health and security challenges posed by synthetic drugs.

Nonetheless, the question remains as to whether the Global Coalition will seek to promote innovative approaches to synthetic drugs, that are grounded in health and human rights, or whether it will be yet another vehicle to continue promoting interdiction and eradication.

This online event aims to inform and feed into this discussion, with inputs from health and human rights experts. Speakers will discuss a breadth of issues which include:

How prohibition itself has fuelled the increase in the diversity and use of synthetic substances (the so-called balloon effect) and the flaws this exposes in international drug control.

The medical significance of synthetic drugs like tramadol and ketamine in many parts of the world and how international scheduling would drastically reduce their availability.

The importance of harm reduction as the foremost pillar in the response to all drug use, including synthetic drugs, especially as it relates to preventing and responding to overdoses - as well as measures aimed at ending sanctions and reducing stigma against people who use drugs.

A discussion of the potential offered by the Global Coalition and its resolution to directly and progressively address these issues.

Keynote: Professor Adeeba Kamarulzaman, Global Commission on Drug Policy

Daan van der Gouwe, Drug Markets Researcher, Trimbos Instituut, Netherlands

Theshia Naidoo, Managing Director of U.S. Foreign Policy, Drug Policy Alliance, USA

Andrzej Celinski, Contract Manager & Executive Administrator, Canadian Association of People who Use Drugs

Lisa Sánchez, Executive Director, Mexico Unido Contra la Delincuencia

Smriti Rana, Head of Strategic Programs and Partnerships, Pallium India 

Moderated by Ann Fordham, International Drug Policy Consortium.

Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)

Region

Translations

Related Content