Abstract
In view of evolving problematic drug use patterns and shifts in social governance, China’s drug control efforts have undergone significant changes over the past few decades. The aim of this paper is to describe the evolution of three features of China’s drug policy. First, although still operating within a reactive framework, the legislative basis for drug control is progressively improving and exhibits shifts towards greater precision and responsiveness, especially with reference to New Psychoactive Substances. Second, the scope of drug crimes under criminal law has broadened, accompanied by a trend toward harsher sentencing. This trend signifies the punitive and deterrent objectives in addressing drug crimes. Third, despite notable improvements, the current rehabilitation system remains focused on containment and control, with punitive undertones. These features exhibit a high degree of overlap and are shaped by shared underlying logics. While these transformations have been influenced by historical, political and international circumstances and environments, the principle of prohibition remains deeply rooted in the policy.
Introduction
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2024b) estimated that approximately 292 million people globally used drugs in 2022, reflecting a 20 % increase over the past decade. Drug use disorder has become a major public health issue globally (Degenhardt et al., 2018; Pan et al., 2020; United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime, 2020; Whiteford et al., 2015). Similarly, China is confronted with a progressively complex drug problem (The Academy Research Group of Zhejiang Police College & Zhou, 2024). Two key trends are revealed by China’s Drug Situation Reports: (1) the use of new psychoactive substances (NPS) (synthetic cannabinoids, etomidate, and others) continues to increase, along with a shift in the structure of drug use ;1 (2) an increasingly severe situation regarding drug crime, characterized by the rise of transnational organized drug trafficking and the diversification of criminal methods.
Historically, China was severely impacted by opium consumption. By the 19th century, opium consumption had spread to nearly all social strata (Spence, 1975). Statistical records from 1837 indicate that approximately 3021,060 kg of opium entered China, valued at roughly 386,695,680 taels of silver.2 This suggests that over 10 million people may have been using opium at that time (Liu, 1985). Further research by Zheng (2005) reveals that, between 1929 and 1933, 74 % of poppy crops were sold, compared with only 15 % of rice harvests. This trend escalated until 1949, when more than 1 million hectares were cultivated in China, and about 300,000 people were involved in its production and trafficking. It is estimated that about 20 million people used opium (5 % of the country’s population at the time) (Office of National Narcotics Control Commission, 1999).
Following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the government implemented a stringent drug policy. Since that time, China’s drug control efforts can be divided into two major campaigns. The first campaign (1950–1952) focused on banning the cultivation of drug-producing plants, dismantling trafficking networks, and registering people who use drugs for rehabilitation. Chinese drug control authorities enforced strict penalties on major drug traffickers while simultaneously adopting more lenient policies toward people who use drugs. These lenient measures included exemption from penalties for people who use drugs participating in the registration program, and the provision of discounted or free rehabilitation services (Liu, 2014a; Qi & Hu, 2004). These measures mitigated potential conflicts between the government and people who use drugs while fostering their engagement in rehabilitation. The Chinese government has claimed that this campaign nearly eradicated the drug problem and maintained a “drug-free” status for nearly 30 years (State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, 2000). However, this assertion remains unsubstantiated due to the lack of robust epidemiological evidence (Tang et al., 2006).
After the reform and opening-up,3 China was unable to maintain its status as a “drug-free” country, and the domestic drug issue progressively intensified in both complexity and severity. This deterioration stemmed from a confluence of factors, including internal political upheavals, geographical proximity to major drug-producing regions, inadequacies in drug policies and enforcement capacity, and the broader impact of globalization (Swanström & Yin, 2006).
Prior to 1978, while the Chinese Communist Party focused on internal class antagonism, it simultaneously neglected efforts in drug control, including policies, legislation, and enforcement mechanisms. The reform era’s relaxation of border controls in China inadvertently created opportunities for the proliferation of drug trafficking (Qi & Hu, 2004).
Geographically, China’s southwestern and northwestern regions, situated in close proximity to major drug-production areas—the Golden Triangle (encompassing Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand) and the Golden Crescent (spanning Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran)—transformed China into a critical transit hub for drug trafficking and a significant consumer market (Swanström & Yin, 2006). The drug production in the Golden Triangle is considered to have accounted for a significant portion of global drug supply across the 1970s-1990s (International Crisis Group, 2022; Sen, 1991). During this period, traffickers established new smuggling routes through China’s southwestern borders. Data from 1999 show that Chinese authorities seized 3.5 tons of heroin in 60 cases, each involving over 10,000 g, all originating from the Golden Triangle (Qi & Hu, 2004). The Golden Crescent also became a significant source, producing 4600 tons of opium in 1999, accounting for 75 % of global production (Liu, 2014c). The impact of Afghanistan and its neighboring drug-producing regions on the supply of narcotics in China steadily increased (United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime, 2010). By the early 2000s, it was estimated that drugs originating from Afghanistan accounted for 20–35 % of the illicit drug volume in China (Swanström & Yin, 2006).
Meanwhile, China’s rising GDP has enhanced Chinese nationals’ purchasing power with respect to drugs.4 This is supported by a multiplier increase in the number of registered people who use drugs (see Table 1). In response to the intensifying drug problems and the concomitant public health issues, the second drug control campaign, which commenced in the 1980s, has remained ongoing to the present day.
In the second drug control campaign, China aligns its drug control framework with a “zero tolerance” drug policy, the latter deeply rooted in the principle of prohibition, prompting changes in the policy’s specific features accordingly. In order to more concretely characterize the evolution of China’s drug policy, this paper selects three of its main features, namely, respectively the evolution of China’s drug regulation, drug crime and punishment, and drug rehabilitation.
Section snippets
Drug regulation: shifts toward precision and responsiveness
Since 1978, China’s drug regulation system has undergone a profound evolution, transitioning from an initially fragmented legal framework and dispersed enforcement mechanisms to a more systematic and standardized regulatory model (Qi & Hu, 2020a). Throughout this transformation, four key dimensions—legislation, coverage, refinement, and timeliness—reflect the trajectory of drug regulation development. This trajectory has improved the effectiveness and operability of drug regulation, but, as we
Crimes and punishment: punitive measures as a deterrence
The Communist Party of China has maintained a stringent penal policy, albeit with adjustments in response to shifting social and political contexts (Wang, 2005). Early evidence of this approach can be observed during the first drug control campaign, during which national courts adjudicated 220,000 drug cases, resulting in over 80,000 convictions for narcotics production and trafficking, with approximately 800 offenders sentenced to death (Su & Zhao, 1998, p. 371). As the drug situation
Drug rehabilitation: from early system to four-modes system
In China, drug use is classified as an administrative offense rather than a criminal act, a principle rooted in the Criminal Law (1979) and the Regulation on Administrative Penalties for Public Security (1986). The former established the principle of the decriminalization of drug use, while the latter designated it as an administrative violation, incorporating detention and fines as administrative sanctions (Liu, 2014b).
Amid a surge in drug consumption, the Chinese government initiated
Limitation and discussion
This study has several limitations. First, due to the constraints imposed by epidemiological methodologies and the inherent challenges of accessing confidential data, the analysis predominantly relies on publicly available government reports. Notably, data prior to 1990 are often presented in a manner that reflects politically motivated narratives, such as the characterization of China as a “drug-free” nation, which necessitates a cautious and neutral interpretation. Second, due to space
Conclusion
China’s drug control efforts illustrate the broader challenges faced in global drug governance, where punitive enforcement has demonstrated short-term effectiveness but remains insufficient for long-term solutions (Guo, 2015; Mo & Ren, 2015). The reliance on strict legal measures has not only conflated drug control with broader mechanisms of social regulation, but has also constrained the adoption of public health-oriented approaches. As the global drug market continues to metastasize, Chinese
