A Common Language for a Common Problem: The Developing Role of Drug Epidemiology in a Global Context

  • Paul Griffiths
  • Rebecca McKetin


Drug Problem Data Collection Activity Narcotic Drug United Nations Publication Single Convention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bayer, I. and Ghodse, H. (1999). Evolution of international drug control, 1945–1995. Bulletin on Narcotics, 51(1 and 2), pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  2. Bless, R. (2003). Experiences of the multi-city network of the Pompidou Group, 1983–2002. In Bulletin on Narcotics, vol. 55, no 1 and 2. United Nations World Drug Report 2004, New York and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, United Nations Publications, Vienna, Austria, pp. 31–40.Google Scholar
  3. Dehne, K.L., Adelekan, M., Chatterjee, A., and Weiler, G. (2002). The need for a global understanding of epidemiological data to inform human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention among injecting drug users. Bulletin on Narcotics 54(1 and 2), pp. 117–142.Google Scholar
  4. Douglas, K.G. and Hillebrand, J. (2003). The Caribbean epidemiological network: the complexities of developing a regional perspective. Bulletin on Narcotics 55(1 and 2), pp. 73–82.Google Scholar
  5. Fazey, C. (2002). Commentary: estimating the world illicit drug situation—reality and the seven deadly political sins. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 9(1), Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 95–103.Google Scholar
  6. Fitch, C., Rhodes, T., Hope, V., Stimson, G.V., and Renton, A. (2002). The role of rapid assessment methods in drug use epidemiology. Bulletin on Narcotics 54(1 and 2), pp. 61–72.Google Scholar
  7. Griffiths, P. Gossop M., Wickenden, S., Dunworth, K., Harris, K., and Lloyd C. (1997). A transcultural pattern of drug use: qat (khat) in the UK. British Journal of Psychiatry 170, pp. 281–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hartnoll, R. (2003). Drug epidemiology in the European institutions: historical background and key indicators. Bulletin on Narcotics 55(1 and 2), pp. 53–72.Google Scholar
  9. Hibell, B., Andersson, B., Ahlstrom, S., Balakireva, O., Bjarnasson, T., Kokkavi, A., and Morgan M. (1999). The 1999 ESPAD report—Alcohol and other drugs in 30 European Countries. The Swedish Council for information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (CAN) and The Pompidou Group of the Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  10. Mott, J. (1994). Notification and the Home Office. In: Strang, J. and Gossop, M. (Eds.), Heroin Addiction and Drug Policy: the British System, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Chapter 21.Google Scholar
  11. Musto, D. (1973). The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.Google Scholar
  12. Musto D.F. and Sloboda Z. (2003). The influence of epidemiology on drug control policy. Bulletin on Narcotics, 55(1 and 2), pp. 9–22.Google Scholar
  13. Niaz, K. (2002). Illicit Drug Use Trends in Central Asia. Global Workshop on Drug Information Systems: Activities, Methods and Future Opportunities. December 3–5, 2001. Vienna International Centre, Austria. United Nations, Vienna.Google Scholar
  14. Parry, C.D.H., Plüddemann, A., and Strijdom J. (2003). Developing the Southern African Development Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use: methods and issues. Bulletin on Narcotics 55(1 and 2). pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
  15. Rossi, C. (2002). Review essay: A critical reading of the World Drug Report 2000. International Journal of Drug Policy 13, pp. 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sloboda, Z. and Kozel, N.J. (2003). Understanding drug trends in the United States of America: the role of the Community Epidemiology Work Group as part of a comprehensive drug information system. Bulletin on Narcotics 55(1 and 2), pp. 41–52.Google Scholar
  17. Stauffacher, M. (2002). Drug treatment data as an epidemiological indicator: methodological considerations and improved analyses. Bulletin on Narcotics 54(1 and 2), pp. 73–85.Google Scholar
  18. United Nations. (1961). Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, As Amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. Scholar
  19. United Nations. (1971). Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971. Scholar
  20. United Nations. (1988). Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988. Scholar
  21. United Nations. (1991). United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, 1988. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
  22. United Nations. (1993). Single convention on narcotic drugs, 1961: as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
  23. United Nations, (1998). Proceedings United Nations 20 th Special Session. Political Declaration and Guiding Principles of Drug Demand Reduction, United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
  24. United Nations. 3 March 2000. Drug Information Systems: Principles, Structures and Indicators (E/CN.7/CRP3).Google Scholar
  25. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2004). Amphetamine-type stimulant use in East Asia and the Pacific. UNODC Regional Centre for East Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.Google Scholar
  26. World Health Organization. (2000). Guide to drug abuse epidemiology, Geneva, World Health Organization Geneva.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Griffiths
    • 1
  • Rebecca McKetin
    • 2
  1. 1.Coordinator of the Situation Analysis ProgrammeEuropean Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug AddictionLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.National Drug and Alcohol Research CentreUniversity of New South Wales SydneyNew South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations