Vienna, 6 May 2026 — The Shattuck Center for Human Rights at Central European University convened the expert dialogue "The global synthetic drugs market and its implications: where to go from here?", bringing together specialists from international organizations, academia, law enforcement and practice to examine how synthetic drug markets are reshaping multilateral drug control and global governance. The panel was moderated by Rebeca Marques Rocha (Shattuck Center for Human Rights, CEU Department of Public Policy).
In his opening remarks, Dr. Khalid Tinasti (Geneva Graduate Institute; Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding) noted that while synthetic drugs are not a new phenomenon, their scale, speed and geographic diffusion have fundamentally transformed illicit markets. He linked these dynamics to the expansion of global trade, financial flows and digital technologies that challenge territorially based control and anti-money laundering frameworks, cautioning that mutual blame between states creates a "toxic ground" that erodes the trust multilateral cooperation depends upon. He highlighted the importance of spaces such as the one organized by the Shattuck Center as platforms for discussions where different actors can “agree and disagree”.
Professor Wei Hao, substance use disorder psychiatrist at Central South University and former member of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), argued that the three UN drug conventions retain their relevance as a legal framework, but that implementation mechanisms have not kept pace with synthetic markets. He called for a shift from "substance-by-substance control to system-level risk management", incorporating enhanced early warning systems, class-wide scheduling, and strengthened information-sharing, alongside sustained investment in treatment and harm reduction services.
INCB Acting Secretary Stefano Berterame underlined both the importance and the limitations of traditional scheduling in the context of precursor displacement and the proliferation of new psychoactive substances. Referring to recent CND decisions to place multiple precursors under international control, he highlighted the scope for “flexible” interpretation of the conventions, including closer cooperation with the chemical industry to prevent diversion. Nevertheless, he cautioned that regulatory choices have distributional consequences, pointing to INCB data showing that 82 percent of globally manufactured morphine is not used for pain relief and that access remains highly unequal across regions. This raises questions about whether tightening controls on synthetic substances risks further marginalizing the access obligations equally enshrined in the conventions.
Daniel Baldwin (JADE Program, PAX sapiens), drawing on three decades with the US Drug Enforcement Administration including as country attaché in Beijing, affirmed that bilateral political relations shape the conditions for operational cooperation on synthetic drug precursors. He cited episodes of US–China cooperation on fentanyl‑related controls as evidence that joint action can measurably affect trafficking patterns, while arguing for institutional arrangements that preserve law‑enforcement information‑sharing even during periods of diplomatic tension. He also noted that the recent 27 percent decline in US overdose deaths likely reflects a combination of expanded naloxone availability, treatment access and targeted supply-chain interventions, rather than any single measure.
Audience interventions, including from Colombia's ambassador to the UN in Vienna, pressed on a question that ran through the entire discussion: what objective drug policy is pursuing — reducing use, reducing drug-related morbidity and mortality, or disrupting the illicit financial flows that sustain criminal organizations. Participants called for greater analytical attention to financial-flows enforcement, which they noted receives considerably less scrutiny than physical seizures. Participants also argued that social science evidence — on human rights, harm reduction and the lived effects of different control models — remains insufficiently integrated into UN deliberations, drawing an explicit parallel to the transformative role such research played in reshaping the global HIV response.
Throughout the discussions, the role of research and academia emerged as a cross-cutting theme, highlighting the importance of creating spaces where practitioners and researchers can reflect together on ways that advance evidence-informed governance. This event forms part of an ongoing series organized by the Center’s Drug Policy Program, which aims to promote conversations that can support international cooperation for more coherent and human responses.