This paper explores the current state of counternarcotics policy and policy reform debates in Myanmar. It analyzes the main trends in drug production, trafficking, and consumption, and assesses the key harms and threats these pose to the country. The paper will provide an overview of Myanmar’s current drug policies and related legislative framework, and assess whether these are effective in addressing the drug-related problems in the country.

Download the paper (PDF)

It will also consider what other impact these policies and laws may have on important issues such as human rights, sustainable development, ethnic conflict, and the peace process. Finally, the paper will make some recommendations for change and provide suggestions on how Myanmar could benefit from the 2016 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 2016).

This paper is part of the project Improving global drug policy: Comparative perspectives and UNGASS 2016 by the Brookings Institute.

SUMMARY

Key findings

• Myanmar is the world’s second largest producer of opium after Aghanistan. Following a decade of decline, cultivation has more than doubled since 2006. The production and use of amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) is also rising.

• Most of the opium is turned into heroin and exported via neighboring countries, especially to China.

• Decades of civil war and military rule have stimulated drug production and consumption, and marginalized ethnic communities.

• Myanmar has high levels of injecting drug users infected with HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C.

• Drug policies in Myanmar are repressive and outdated, with an ineffective focus on arresting drug users and eradicating poppy fields.

• The central government is unable to provide quality treatment for drug users. Past political repression and human rights violations by the military government caused an international boycott which prevented international donors from providing assistance.

• The reform process by the new quasi-civilian government includes both a peace process to end the civil war and a review of the country’s drug laws, raising hope for more effective and humane drug policies.

Policy recommendations

• Myanmar’s drug policies should shift focus and prioritize the provision of services for drug users and promote alternative livelihoods for opium growing communities.

• Drug-related legislation should decriminalize drug use, reduce sentences for other drug-related offenses, and allow space for needle exchange programs.

• The government should expand harm reduction projects and provide voluntary treatment programs for drug users.

• The government should formulate a strategic plan to prioritize alternative development programs. Eradication of poppy farms should not take place unless people have sufficient access to alternative livelihoods. As such, China’s opium substitution policy should not continue in its present form.

• Affected communities, especially drug users and opium farmers, need to be involved in drug policy making.

• More attention should be paid to ATS-related problems, which are largely overlooked by current policies

Looking to UNGASS 2016

Myanmar—like many ASEAN member states—is often silent in UN drug policy meetings, though this has begun to change since the reform process that began in 2010. During the years of international isolation, Myanmar mainly tried to defend itself in UN forums against accusations of human rights abuses and lack of democracy. However, the government is now looking to international examples and best practices to reform the country’s many outdated laws, including the 1993 Narcotics Law. Myanmar would greatly benefit if internationally respected forums gave a strong and clear message that deadline-oriented thinking and zero-tolerance approaches—such as ASEAN’s drug free target—are not only unachievable but also counterproductive, and instead stressed a more positive and realistic process rooted in health and rural development. This would give countries like Myanmar space to formulate and implement a national drug policy that is realistic, respectful of human rights, and much more beneficial to affected communities.

Recommendations for Change

Myanmar’s drug policies should shift focus and prioritize alternative livelihoods in opium growing communities and the provision of services for drug users. Poverty—in its widest definition—is one of the key drivers of opium cultivation, and it is important for AD programs to expand to key opium cultivating areas. The government should formulate a strategic plan for coverage, and sequence and prioritize interventions in close cooperation with local communities, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders. Eradication of poppy farms should not take place unless people have sufficient access to alternative livelihoods. Moreover, the traditional and medicinal use of opium should be assessed. There needs to be a policy debate about opportunities for licit opium cultivation, perhaps operated jointly by community and government control systems. AD programs will also require international support and coordination with neighbors. In particular, China’s opium substitution policy should not continue in its present form.

The drug problem should be high on the peace agenda. Most of the opium cultivation and production takes place in conflict-affected areas, therefore alternative development programs for poppy farming communities could provide an important contribution to the peace process; an eradication-led approach, on the other hand, may contribute to further conflict. To achieve an inclusive and sustainable peace, the government should also end its militia program, as these groups have become heavily involved in drug production and trade with tacit support from the Tatmadaw.

Current counternarcotics policies have resulted in large numbers of people serving lengthy jail sentences for relatively small drug-related offenses. Recent discussions among relevant government departments have favored compulsory treatment centers over criminalization. While this may be an improvement in terms of seeing drug users as patients rather than criminals, it does not solve problems related to the ineffectiveness of non-voluntary treatment and the fact that most users do not need medical treatment. Instead, the government should provide voluntary treatment programs as well as targeted services to address the needs of drug users.

Affected communities, especially drug users and opium farmers, need to be involved in drug policy making. The indicators of a successful drug policy should move away from "negative" achievements such as numbers of arrests made and hectares of poppy eradicated, and toward more "positive" indicators that reflect benefits to local communities, such as number of overdoses prevented, drug users in voluntary treatment, improvement of human development indicators in opium growing communities, and reductions in violence and conflict. Harm reduction projects should be improved and expanded, which will require changes in the laws to decriminalize drug use, reduce sentences for other drug-related offenses, and open space for needle exchange programs. More attention should also be paid to ATS-related problems which are largely overlooked by current policies. Finally, the government should allow research on drug use trends and patterns and other surveys to better inform policy.