Drug abuse in Pakistan - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

MAPPING THE NATIONAL CONTOURS OF DRUG ABUSE
Table 2.
Number of contacts by
respondents <strong>in</strong> the last year
with drug <strong>abuse</strong>rs
Mean number
of contacts
Any drug
Mean number
of contacts
Hero<strong>in</strong> or IV only
All 83 44
Urban locales 89 50
Rural locales 70 31
Punjab 86 61
S<strong>in</strong>dh 87 53
Balochistan 75 43
NWFP 77 13
12 months prior to <strong>in</strong>terview, on average key <strong>in</strong>formants
reported contact with over 80 drug <strong>abuse</strong>rs of
who about half were hero<strong>in</strong> users. These data are
given <strong>in</strong> table 2. Data provided <strong>in</strong> this table should
be <strong>in</strong>terpreted with caution as some occupational
groups (for example the police or medical personnel)
reported contact with extremely large numbers
of drug users. However, two po<strong>in</strong>ts are worth not<strong>in</strong>g.
Contact with drug <strong>abuse</strong>rs as a group, whilst vary<strong>in</strong>g,
was high for the sample as a whole. Only four
<strong>in</strong>dividuals (1.5% of the sample) reported no contact
<strong>in</strong> the preced<strong>in</strong>g year with the users of any drug, and
only 11 (4%) <strong>in</strong>dividuals did not report any contact
with “hero<strong>in</strong> <strong>abuse</strong>rs” <strong>in</strong> the preced<strong>in</strong>g 12 months.
Contact was rarely limited to just a few <strong>in</strong>dividual
drug users. N<strong>in</strong>ety-two per cent of key <strong>in</strong>formants
reported contact with 10 or more “<strong>abuse</strong>rs of any
drug” <strong>in</strong> the last year. Slightly less, but still over twothirds
(72%) of the sample, reported contact with 10
or more “hero<strong>in</strong> <strong>abuse</strong>rs” <strong>in</strong> the previous twelve
months. These data suggest that drug <strong>abuse</strong> <strong>in</strong> general,
and the use of hero<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> particular, is both geographically
widespread <strong>in</strong> <strong>Pakistan</strong>, and that significant
numbers of <strong>in</strong>dividuals are <strong>in</strong>volved. The data
also suggest geographical differences exist <strong>in</strong> respect
to consumption patterns.
Whilst the average number of <strong>abuse</strong>rs of “any drug”
that the key <strong>in</strong>formants had contact with did not
vary significantly between locales, this is not the
case when “hero<strong>in</strong> <strong>abuse</strong>rs” are considered. Those
<strong>in</strong> rural locales reported less contact with “hero<strong>in</strong>
<strong>abuse</strong>rs” than key <strong>in</strong>formants <strong>in</strong> urban areas.
However, the most strik<strong>in</strong>g difference here relates to
the prov<strong>in</strong>cial analysis. Respondents <strong>in</strong> NWFP
reported on average approximately the same level of
contact with “drug <strong>abuse</strong>rs <strong>in</strong> general”, but far lower
contact with “hero<strong>in</strong> <strong>abuse</strong>rs”. This po<strong>in</strong>t is borne
out further by not<strong>in</strong>g that no key <strong>in</strong>formants <strong>in</strong>
Punjab or Balochistan, and only one respondent <strong>in</strong>
S<strong>in</strong>dh, reported “no contact” with hero<strong>in</strong> users <strong>in</strong> the
twelve months before <strong>in</strong>terview, whilst <strong>in</strong> NWFP this
figure was 13% of all the key <strong>in</strong>formants <strong>in</strong>terviewed.
Perceptions of drug use
<strong>in</strong> the locale
Key <strong>in</strong>formants were asked for each of the <strong>in</strong>dex
drugs considered by the study how “commonly used”
that drug was <strong>in</strong> the locale. Respondents had the
opportunity to respond across the follow<strong>in</strong>g scale:
“commonly used”, “some use” “rarely used” or “don’t
know”. The “don’t know” category was <strong>in</strong>cluded as an
active category (i.e. it was read out as part of the
scale) so as not to encourage respondents to answer
arbitrarily.
In table 3 data on the overall perception patterns of
use can be found and <strong>in</strong> figure I the percentage of
respondents report<strong>in</strong>g that a drug was commonly
used <strong>in</strong> their locale is presented. Cannabis type
drugs (hashish and charas) were most often reported
to be commonly used <strong>in</strong> the locales. This is <strong>in</strong>
accord with the general impressions of the research
team after the field visits to <strong>Pakistan</strong> but <strong>in</strong> conflict
with the picture produced by the 1993 research exercise.
In this study only 5% of respondents reported
hashish or charas were rarely used <strong>in</strong> their locale
suggest<strong>in</strong>g this drug type represented the major
illicit drug consumed <strong>in</strong> <strong>Pakistan</strong> <strong>in</strong> respect to the
total numbers of consumers.
After cannabis type drugs, hero<strong>in</strong> and alcohol are
reported as the next two most commonly <strong>abuse</strong>d
substances. Both drugs receive high “commonly
used” rat<strong>in</strong>g (46% and 45%) suggest<strong>in</strong>g that the consumption
of both substances is relatively widespread
<strong>in</strong> <strong>Pakistan</strong>. It is worry<strong>in</strong>g to note that only
8% of respondents reported that hero<strong>in</strong> <strong>abuse</strong> was
rare <strong>in</strong> their locale.
13