Drug use disorders represent a pressing issue across the globe and have placed a particularly heavy burden on Sri Lanka’s public health and security systems, profoundly affecting its youth and broader communities. In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a worrying increase in drug-related problems, with a 13% rise in arrests for drug offences during the 2022 economic crisis, amounting to a total of 152,979 individuals. The infiltration of narcotic substances such as cannabis, heroin, cocaine, and certain prescription medications has deeply impacted adolescents and young adults, including school-aged children. Despite the alarming nature of these statistics, there remains a significant shortfall in effective prevention and treatment programmes, with many efforts failing to account for the chronic and relapsing nature of drug use disorders, resulting in high rates of recurrence. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), this remains a significant area of concern.
The 2024 Handbook of Drug Abuse Information in Sri Lanka, released by the National Dangerous Drugs Control Board (NDDCB), reports that 162,088 individuals were arrested for drug-related offences. Of this number, 46,939 were imprisoned while just 2,039 received rehabilitation treatment across various state and non-state institutions. These figures indicate that approximately 28.9% of those arrested were incarcerated, whereas a mere 1.25% received any form of rehabilitative care. This disparity raises concerns about the capacity and focus of the current legal and health systems to provide meaningful recovery pathways for individuals struggling with addiction.
A study conducted in 2021 by Nuwan Darshana, Champa Wijesinghe, and Vijitha De Silva from the Department of Community Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ruhuna, examined a randomly selected sample of 189 male heroin addicts undergoing treatment at five rehabilitation centres in Sri Lanka. The participants were followed up with interviews conducted three and six months after their discharge. The findings were sobering: the relapse rate stood at 48.7% after three months and increased to 59.6% after six months. A staggering 82.6% of those who relapsed cited the easy availability and accessibility of heroin in their communities as the primary reason for their return to drug use. Notably, 66.1% of those who relapsed did so within the first six weeks following discharge. The study called for urgent policy attention towards establishing structured follow-up programmes to support recovering addicts during this critical period immediately following rehabilitation.
It is perhaps unsurprising that many addicts relapse when they are returned to the very environments that contributed to their addiction in the first place, often with little or no opportunity to apply the skills acquired during rehabilitation. Moreover, these individuals are frequently stigmatised and shunned by their families and communities, which further isolates them and strips them of hope for the future. This social alienation can drive them back into the familiar, destructive solace of addiction. A more effective post-rehabilitation strategy could include monitoring and assisting former addicts to find employment or engage in meaningful activities using the skills they developed during treatment. Religious institutions and humanitarian organisations could play a vital role in helping to destigmatise addiction and reintegrate former addicts into society. This sentiment is echoed in a study titled Drug Control, Detention and Treatment of People Who Use Drugs in Sri Lanka by Ambika Satkunanathan, who highlights that post-release support and aftercare are severely lacking. The study draws from the experiences of individuals who have undergone multiple rehabilitation programmes, many of whom reported persistent stigma, barriers to social reintegration, limited employment opportunities, and police harassment. All interviewees underscored the critical need for community support, particularly in securing livelihoods, and noted that stigma and harassment were key factors leading to relapse.
While tackling the challenges associated with rehabilitation remains crucial, there must also be an urgent and equally determined effort to disrupt both the supply and demand components of the drug trade. On the supply side, it is widely believed that the masterminds behind the drug trade in Sri Lanka are not the low-level operatives who make headlines, but a handful of powerful individuals who represent the corrupt elite. These individuals are alleged to maintain control over the supply chain and are thought to include figures with deep ties to political parties, customs, law enforcement, the judiciary, the pharmaceutical sector, and even religious institutions. The illicit drug trade has become a lucrative multimillion-rupee industry, and the human toll it exacts—largely preventable—is incalculable. Yet this immense suffering appears to elicit no concern or remorse from those who profit most from it.
Many would argue that only the small fry—sprats—are apprehended and punished, while the real perpetrators—the sharks—continue their nefarious operations with impunity, often masquerading as philanthropists or benefactors to politicians, religious leaders, and social institutions. Allowing such individuals to operate unchecked constitutes a grave injustice to society. These criminals must be identified, prosecuted, and subjected to severe penalties, including the revocation of their civic rights, given the extent of the damage they have inflicted. However, punishing these central figures alone is not enough. All those who facilitate the supply chain—including corrupt officials in institutions such as customs, law enforcement, and the judiciary—must be held accountable. Their complicity ensures the ongoing functionality of the supply chain, and without their participation, the trade would collapse.
Any strategy aimed at eradicating drug trafficking and consumption must therefore be framed within the context of supply chain theory. The supply side is directly responsible for creating demand, as suppliers actively work to generate and expand markets. Numerous individuals and organisations are involved in this chain, all contributing to the profitability and growth of the industry. The creation and amplification of demand is crucial to these suppliers, and their primary victims are the nation’s schoolchildren and youth. In 2003, most drug users fell within the 20–35 age group, but current reports suggest that the user base now includes children aged 15 and over. The small-scale dealers operating near consumers are mere foot soldiers. Removing a few of them will not disrupt the system, as others are readily available to take their place.
While law enforcement, the judiciary, and government bodies must continue their efforts to arrest and prosecute traffickers, addressing the demand side of the drug crisis is equally vital. A lingering question in the minds of many—and one that prompts much public speculation—is what happens to the narcotic substances that are seized during high-profile busts. There is a dearth of public information on the subsequent handling and disposal of these substances, which has led to rumours that some of them may be re-entering the black market, aided by corrupt officials. Such speculation undermines public confidence in anti-drug efforts. It is understood that disposal of seized drugs is carried out under court supervision and that the substances are stored until they are eventually disposed of via deep-sea dumping. However, it would greatly benefit public trust if authorities issued regular updates on what has been confiscated and how much has been destroyed.
While rehabilitating addicts is a compassionate undertaking, preventing addiction in the first place is even more critical. Prevention is not only more effective but also more humane, and the government and broader society must shift their focus toward proactive measures such as education, skills training, and reframing schools as centres for both academic and life skills development. Although specific data is not readily available, it is widely believed that significantly more funding is allocated to rehabilitation than to prevention. Yet, as evidenced earlier, rehabilitation outcomes are far from optimal, largely due to structural challenges and social stigma. Recidivism rates remain high despite the commendable efforts of many involved in rehabilitation work.
To redirect the attention of policymakers towards prevention, it is imperative that the activities proposed and conducted—perhaps not to the extent desired by the NDDCB—receive robust support. The focus should be on two key areas: the elimination of the elite who control and profit from the illicit drug industry, along with their enablers; and the expansion of preventative initiatives aimed at reducing the demand for drugs. The NDDCB’s Prevention Education and Training (PET) Unit already plays a vital role in promoting drug prevention activities nationwide, using an evidence-based approach centred on social integration and sustainable livelihoods. This unit collaborates with national and international institutions and the scientific community to formulate and implement effective prevention strategies.
In addition to its PET Unit, the NDDCB operates an Outreach Unit responsible for extending its services—including prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation—to drug-dependent individuals, at-risk groups, and the general public. The unit organises community programmes, mobile outreach events, and fosters communication networks between divisional secretariats, community leaders, and civil society organisations. While the NDDCB’s initiatives must be commended, it is crucial that no agency presents a narrative that glosses over the harsh realities faced by the public. If such a disconnect is perceived, public trust will erode, jeopardising the success of ongoing and future initiatives.
To ensure that plans and actions are effectively aligned, it is recommended that the NDDCB conducts regular monitoring and evaluation of its programmes. Ideally, this function should be periodically delegated to independent bodies to ensure impartiality and identify gaps between intended outcomes and actual results. Furthermore, the NDDCB should develop a comprehensive five-year strategic plan that clearly articulates its objectives, strategies, and associated costs. Given that the Western Province—particularly the Colombo and Gampaha districts—accounts for approximately 70% of drug consumption and arrests, it is logical that these areas receive greater priority in terms of funding and programme implementation.
In planning and funding its activities, the NDDCB should prioritise prevention over rehabilitation and actively involve non-governmental organisations in the execution of such programmes. Preventive work should also leverage the reach and influence of institutions like schools and religious bodies. The NDDCB’s role should shift towards that of oversight, evaluating the outcomes of programmes carried out by these partner entities. This would allow the Board to focus on measuring results and holding stakeholders accountable, rather than becoming entangled in operational details.
Ultimately, the task of combating substance abuse—from supply control to treatment and prevention—is not the sole responsibility of any one institution. It is a collective duty shared by the entire society. Drug addiction is neither incurable nor hopeless. As Venerable Kuppiawatte Bodhananda Thero, founder of the Mithuru Mithuro movement, rightly observes: “Why do people turn to drugs? It is out of ignorance and craving. Many people tend to stigmatise and marginalise drug addicts and say that it is impossible to reform them. This is mere prejudice, because every individual has the potential to develop himself and achieve the highest of human values. Reformed addicts can lead successful and happy lives and contribute positively to society.”
