Is big money distorting the global drug policy conversation?

Abstract

The Open Society Foundation (OSF) appears to have a large and distorting influence upon the current global drug policy conversation.

The United Nations (UN) Conventions on Narcotic Drugs stand as a massive obstacle for those with drug legalization ambitions [1]. OSF is a wealthy opponent of the drug conventions, being led by the multi-billionaire, George Soros [2, 3]. The funding of this think-tank has been assessed as being ‘highly opaque’ [4]. OSF supports groups who put forward alternatives to prohibition and who support legalization [2], saying ‘the vast majority of our grants are awarded to organizations that we approach directly’ and it funds those ‘who share our values’ [5].

The annual meeting in Vienna of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) is a key event in the annual calendar for those interested in the drug conventions. The program involves plenaries and dozens of organised official side events [6]. OSF was among the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) at the meeting in 2024 and was formally involved in the running of 11 side events.

The funding relationship between OSF and the 49 other NGO contributors to these 11 OSF-involved side events was explored. It emerged that 38 (78%) had recent (2016–2023) OSF funding. OSF helpfully lists grantees on its own website [7]. This confirmed funding in 31 instances. Financial support for individual NGOs ranged from $25 000 to $18 million over the 8 years. These 31 entities shared over $82 million from OSF across this period. In the other seven cases, funding was confirmed by the NGO's own website or via media reports. There were at least another 10 OSF funded NGOs involved in supporting other side events at CND 2024 [6].

OSF has also recently funded both the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS and Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) who each supported seven of the OSF-involved side events. The OHCHR received an average of $100 000 annually from OSF across 2018 to 2022 [7]. This increased to $1.52 million in 2023. In 2023, OHCHR issued a report on drug policy urging countries to ‘consider developing a regulatory system for legal access to all controlled substances’ [8]. The UN High Commissioner recently called for ‘responsible regulation’ at a conference on the ‘sensible regulation of drugs’ [9]. This echoes the views of the OSF funder and conflicts with a current UN Convention.

A decade ago, Forbes magazine declared George Soros to be the biggest drug reformer in the United States [10]. This influence now appears truly global, OSF attending this CND meeting with an army of over 50 NGOs and UN offices who are financially beholding to his think-tank.

Some of the funded entities at the CND meeting are university based and contribute research on drug policy. OSF additionally funds other researchers involved in production of articles in high impact scientific journals. These have included the International Drug Policy Unit in the London School of Economics, the Centre for Public Health and Human Rights at Johns Hopkins, the University of Essex's International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Swansea University's Global Drug Policy Observatory and DrugScience. While OSF funding is generally acknowledged, the conflicts inherent in receipt of the funding are broadly overlooked.

As a high profile example, the Lancet Commission on Drug Policy and Health was established with the explicit goal of influencing the discussion on drug policy within the UN and was published in the Lancet [11]. OSF was the sole funder [12]. All five of the selected commission leads have had links with OSF, as employees, members of advisory boards or grant recipients. This commission recommended drug legalization. Given that research is supposed to clarify facts, there is a need for greater transparency when research funding is sourced from an entity with a strong agenda and recommendations are made consistent with that agenda.

It is odd that this overall influence on both civil society advocacy and academic output receives almost no attention in scientific and policy literature. At a minimum, it seems that those who receive OSF funds should declare it as a conflict of interest when discussing drug policy [13, 14]. Within academia and public health, there appears to be a need for acknowledgement, reflection and more open discussion regarding the influence of the aspirations of billionaires upon issues such as drug policy.

None.