Revisiting Afghanistan's Drug Policy: A Policy Analysis of Eradication, Harm Reduction, and Economic Dependencies
Issued Date
2025-07-01
Resource Type
eISSN
23988835
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105010160318
Journal Title
Health Science Reports
Volume
8
Issue
7
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Health Science Reports Vol.8 No.7 (2025)
Suggested Citation
Azizi M.Q., Wardak M.F., Afzali E., Rahimi A., Ogaya J.B., Ejaz E., Hasin B.A., Masudi M., Lucero-Prisno D.E. Revisiting Afghanistan's Drug Policy: A Policy Analysis of Eradication, Harm Reduction, and Economic Dependencies. Health Science Reports Vol.8 No.7 (2025). doi:10.1002/hsr2.71008 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/111296
Title
Revisiting Afghanistan's Drug Policy: A Policy Analysis of Eradication, Harm Reduction, and Economic Dependencies
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Afghanistan's responses to illicit drugs have oscillated between punitive eradication and limited harm-reduction initiatives. Two decades of heavy external spending, entrenched conflict, and an economy intertwined with opium have blunted policy effectiveness. Methods: Guided by Walt and Gilson's policy-triangle, we undertook a document-based review (2001–2024). Twenty-seven national laws, strategies, and analytical reports were retrieved from government and multilateral repositories. Data were coded thematically using Braun-and-Clarke's six-phase approach to map policy content, actors, context, and implementation barriers. Results: Four themes emerged. First, Afghan drug policy has passed through distinct phases—post-2001 tolerance, eradication campaigns, a harm-reduction window, and the current Afghan government's prohibition—each shaped by shifting political economies. Second, a complex actor constellation spans ministries, insurgent groups, multilateral donors, and opium-dependent farming communities, often with conflicting incentives. Third, implementation is hampered by corruption, chronic insecurity, rural poverty, and a shrinking treatment infrastructure (113 centres for an estimated 1.5 million users in 2024). Fourth, persisting failures fuel cycles of addiction, rural impoverishment, and insurgent financing, while recent poppy bans have accelerated a pivot to methamphetamine production. Conclusion: Sustainable progress demands moving beyond short-term enforcement toward an integrated rural-development and public-health agenda. Priorities include: (i) secure livelihood alternatives for farmers; (ii) restoration and scale-up of evidence-based treatment and harm-reduction services; (iii) transparent governance mechanisms that engage local communities. A balanced, context-sensitive policy mix offers the best prospect of reducing drug-related harm while addressing the structural drivers that have long frustrated Afghan counter-narcotics efforts.