BY HELEN CLARK & JUAN-MANUEL SANTOS
Ten years ago, the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS) was widely heralded as a turning point – a moment when the international community began to question the decades-long orthodoxy of the so-called “war on drugs.” It signalled a shift, however tentative, toward policies grounded in public health, human rights, and evidence.
A decade on, that promise remains unfulfilled – and increasingly under threat.
Over the past ten years, there has been undeniable progress. The taboo around questioning prohibition has been broken. Countries and jurisdictions across the world have moved to decriminalize drug use, expand harm reduction services, and, in some cases, regulate drug markets. Drug checking services are slowly gaining acceptance. At the multilateral level, the establishment of a new expert panel following the recent Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) resolution, signals a willingness to reassess the foundations of global drug policy.
At the sub-national level, leadership has emerged. While supervised consumption sites have faced closure in places like Ontario, political leaders elsewhere – including in New York City – have publicly defended their role in saving lives. These developments reflect a growing recognition that punitive approaches cannot resolve complex health and social challenges.
But this progress is fragile, and in many places we are seeing regression.
Prohibition has not reduced drug use or supply. Instead, it has accelerated the emergence of synthetic substances – more potent, more unpredictable, and more dangerous – while fuelling public health crises, mass incarceration, and systemic human rights violations across the globe.
In recent months, we have seen a renewed escalation of punitive drug control efforts, particularly across Latin America and the Caribbean. The return to aggressive interdiction strategies, including United States-led operations in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, has been associated with a significant and rising number of fatalities, with reporting indicating over a hundred deaths since the start of these operations. These actions, including reported boat strikes in the Caribbean, have raised serious legal and ethical concerns regarding the use of military force in counter-narcotics operations. These developments risk repeating patterns of violence and instability that have defined past failures of militarised drug enforcement.
Across the region, governments facing legitimate concerns around organized crime and insecurity are increasingly resorting to militarized responses – approaches that have historically exacerbated violence, weakened institutions, and displaced rather than reduced illicit markets. This comes at a moment marking nearly a decade since the 2016 Colombian Peace Agreement signed in Havana between the Government of Colombia and the FARC under President Juan Manuel Santos – a landmark accord that highlighted the deep links between drug policy, armed conflict, and state fragility. Its implementation has since underscored both the promise of peacebuilding and the persistent challenge of addressing the structural drivers of illicit economies.
At the same time, punitive approaches continue to exact a devastating human cost globally. The use of the death penalty for drug-related offences has surged, accounting for nearly half of all executions in 2025. Harm reduction services – proven to reduce overdose deaths and the spread of infectious diseases – are being undermined by funding cuts and political opposition.
Even in jurisdictions which have embraced reform, progress is uneven. Decriminalization efforts have been rolled back. Regulatory models have, at times, prioritized commercial interests over public health. Lifesaving services remain vulnerable to shifting political winds.
This contradiction defines the current moment: while the evidence for reform has never been stronger, political commitment remains inconsistent.
More than fifty years after its launch, the “war on drugs” continues to shape policy – despite overwhelming evidence of its harms. It has entrenched mass incarceration, undermined public health, and strengthened organized crime, which has become more sophisticated and entrenched as a direct consequence of prohibition, while driving the shift toward increasingly dangerous substances.
The question is no longer whether the current system works. The question is whether governments are willing to act on what the evidence already shows will work.
Fifteen years ago, the Global Commission on Drug Policy broke the silence on the failures of prohibition, advocating for evidence-based, health- and human rights-centred approaches. Its work has helped normalize debate around alternatives to punitive drug policies.
We are now at a crossroads.
The next decade must not be defined by a return to repression and militarization. It must build on the progress already made: expanding harm reduction, advancing decriminalization, ensuring access to essential medicines, and developing responsible models of regulation that prioritize public health and safety.
The tools exist. The evidence is clear. The costs of inaction – or of regression – are far too high.
Ten years after UNGASS – and fifteen years after the Global Commission first challenged the status quo – the path forward is no longer a matter of debate. It is a matter of political will.