Executive summary In September 2015, the member states of the United Nations endorsed sustainable development goals (SDG) for 2030 that aspire to human rights-centered approaches to ensuring the health and well-being of all people. The SDGs embody both the UN Charter values of rights and justice for all and the responsibility of states to rely on the best scientific evidence as they seek to better humankind. In April 2016, these same states will consider control of illicit drugs, an area of social policy that has been fraught with controversy, seen as inconsistent with human rights norms, and for which scientific evidence and public health approaches have arguably played too limited a role. The previous UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs in 1998 – convened under the theme “a drug-free world, we can do it!” – endorsed drug control policies based on the goal of prohibiting all use, possession, production, and trafficking of illicit drugs. This goal is enshrined in national law in many countries. In pronouncing drugs a “grave threat to the health and well-being of all mankind,” the 1998 UNGASS echoed the foundational 1961 convention of the international drug control regime, which justified eliminating the “evil” of drugs in the name of “the health and welfare of mankind.” But neither of these international agreements refers to the ways in which pursuing drug prohibition itself might affect public health. The “war on drugs” and “zero-tolerance” policies that grew out of the prohibitionist consensus are now being challenged on multiple fronts, including their health, human rights, and development impact. The Johns Hopkins – Lancet Commission on Drug Policy and Health has sought to examine the emerging scientific evidence on public health issues arising from drug control policy and to inform and encourage a central focus on public health evidence and outcomes in drug policy debates, such as the important deliberations of the 2016 UNGASS on drugs. The Johns Hopkins-Lancet Commission is concerned that drug policies are often colored by ideas about drug use and drug dependence that are not scientifically grounded. The 1998 UNGASS declaration, for example, like the UN drug conventions and many national drug laws, does not distinguish between drug use and drug abuse. A 2015 report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, by contrast, found it important to emphasize that “[d]rug use is neither a medical condition nor does it necessarily lead to drug dependence.” The idea that all drug use is dangerous and evil has led to enforcement-heavy policies and has made it difficult to see potentially dangerous drugs in the same light as potentially dangerous foods, tobacco, alcohol for which the goal of social policy is to reduce potential harms. Health impact of drug policy based on enforcement of prohibition The pursuit of drug prohibition has generated a parallel economy run by criminal networks. Both these networks, which resort to violence to protect their markets, and the police and sometimes military ...

Shekhar Saxena and colleagues summarize the recent WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) intervention guide that provides evidence-based management recommendations for mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders.

Summary Background Alcohol use is causally linked to multiple cancers. We present global, regional, and national estimates of alcohol-attributable cancer burden in 2020 to inform alcohol policy and cancer control across different settings globally. Methods In this population-based study, population attributable fractions (PAFs) calculated using a theoretical minimum-risk exposure of lifetime abstention and 2010 alcohol consumption estimates from the Global Information System on Alcohol and Health (assuming a 10-year latency period between alcohol consumption and cancer diagnosis), combined with corresponding relative risk estimates from systematic literature reviews as part of the WCRF Continuous Update Project, were applied to cancer incidence data from GLOBOCAN 2020 to estimate new cancer cases attributable to alcohol. We also calculated the contribution of moderate (<20 g per day), risky (20–60 g per day), and heavy (>60 g per day) drinking to the total alcohol-attributable cancer burden, as well as the contribution by 10 g per day increment (up to a maximum of 150 g). 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) were estimated using a Monte Carlo-like approach. Findings Globally, an estimated 741 300 (95% UI 558 500–951 200), or 4·1% (3·1–5·3), of all new cases of cancer in 2020 were attributable to alcohol consumption. Males accounted for 568 700 (76·7%; 95% UI 422 500–731 100) of total alcohol-attributable cancer cases, and cancers of the oesophagus (189 700 cases [110 900–274 600]), liver (154 700 cases [43 700–281 500]), and breast (98 300 cases [68 200–130 500]) contributed the most cases. PAFs were lowest in northern Africa (0·3% [95% UI 0·1–3·3]) and western Asia (0·7% [0·5–1·2]), and highest in eastern Asia (5·7% [3·6–7·9]) and central and eastern Europe (5·6% [4·6–6·6]). The largest burden of alcohol-attributable cancers was represented by heavy drinking (346 400 [46·7%; 95% UI 227 900–489 400] cases) and risky drinking (291 800 [39·4%; 227 700–333 100] cases), whereas moderate drinking contributed 103 100 (13·9%; 82 600–207 200) cases, and drinking up to 10 g per day contributed 41 300 (35 400–145 800) cases. Interpretation Our findings highlight the need for effective policy and interventions to increase awareness of cancer risks associated with alcohol use and decrease overall alcohol consumption to prevent the burden of alcohol-attributable cancers. Funding None.

Drug use represents a significant burden to public health, through disease, disability and social problems, and policy makers are becoming increasingly interested in how to develop evidence-based drug policy. It is therefore crucial to strengthen the links between addiction science and drug policy. Drug Policy and the Public Good is collaboratively written by an international group of career scientists, to provide an analytical basis on which to build relevant global drug policies, and to inform policy makers who have direct responsibility for public health and social welfare. Drug Policy and the Public Good presents the accumulated scientific knowledge on illicit drugs that has direct relevance to the development of drug policy on local, national, and international levels. The authors describe the conceptual basis for a rational drug policy, and present new epidemiological data on the global dimensions of drug misuse. The core of the book is a critical review of the cumulative scientific evidence in five general areas of drug policy: primary prevention programs in schools and other settings; supply reduction approaches, including drug interdiction and legal enforcement; treatment interventions and harm reduction approaches; criminal sanctions and decriminalization; and control of the legal market through prescription drug regimes. The final chapters discuss the current state of drug policy in different parts of the world, and describe the need for a new approach to drug policy that is evidence-based, realistic, and coordinated.

Aims This paper examines (1) gender and country differences in negative consequences related to drinking; (2) relative rates of different consequences; (3) country-level predictors of consequences. Design, setting and participants Multi-level analyses used survey data from the GENACIS collaboration. Measurements Measures included 17 negative consequences grouped into (a) high endorsement acute, (b) personal and (c) social. Country-level measures included average frequency and quantity of drinking, percent current drinkers, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Human Development Index (HDI). Findings Overall, the three groupings of consequences were reported by 44%, 12% and 7% of men and by 31%, 6% and 3% of women, respectively. More men than women endorsed all consequences but gender differences were greatest for consequences associated with chronic drinking and social consequences related to male roles. The highest prevalence of consequences was in Uganda, lowest in Uruguay. Personal and social consequences were more likely in countries with higher usual quantity, fewer current drinkers, and lower scores on GDP and HDI. However, significant interactions with individual-level quantity indicated a stronger relationship between consequences and usual quantity among drinkers in countries with lower quantity, more current drinkers and higher scores on GDP and HDI. Conclusions Both gender and country need to be taken into consideration when assessing adverse drinking consequences. Individual measures of alcohol consumption and country-level variables are associated with experiencing such consequences. Additionally, country-level variables affect the strength of the relationship between usual quantity consumed by individuals and adverse consequences.