PRISONER DRUG USE CAN PROVIDE A FIX

Even by civil service standards, Prison Service Order (PSO) 3601
is a lengthy document. Running to several hundred words it covers
every aspect of the mandatory drug testing system (MDT) now firmly
installed in every jail. First introduced in 1994, the system aims to
test between 10% and 15% of the prison population - on a mostly random
basis - each month.

The reasons for the testing are included in the mission statement of
the operation: "To increase significantly the detection of those
misusing drugs and to send a clear message to all prisoners that if
they misuse drugs they have a greater risk of being caught and punished."

And: "To provide, by means of random testing programme, more accurate
and objective information on the scale, trend and patterns of drug
misuse, allowing prisons to manage and target more effectively their
resources for tackling drug problems."

Few would argue that drugs, particularly class A drugs, create serious
problems in any society. It is expected, therefore, that the prison
service takes the issue seriously. But, in practice, the system fails
spectacularly in achieving its aims. It does not detect the full
extent of drug use and, far from providing accurate information, it in
fact masks, or distorts, the actual numbers of prisoners who choose to
do their time with a "little help from their friends".

First, the rules of the game. There are five areas in which MDTs can
be applied. The two main ones are random testing (where prisoners are
chosen by computer to give a urine sample) and reasonable suspicion
(where there is reason to believe that a prisoner has misused drugs).

The former is operated on a basis similar to that used to select
Premium Bonds winners. The prison numbers of all inmates are fed into
a computer which then spills out the required amount needed for
testing that month. The latter does - or is supposed to do - exactly
what it says on the tin.

Many prisoners are convinced that random testing is anything but. They
believe that inmates who are known not to take drugs are far more
likely to be asked to give a sample. This theory is almost impossible
to prove and PSO 3601 makes the point that "the system makes no
reference to previous runs of the programme and it is therefore
possible to generate the same prisoner on a number of subsequent
occasions." Whatever the truth, there is a mass of anecdotal evidence
from prisoners who abstain from taking drugs yet say they are tested
more often than the average inmate. Which would certainly be useful in
backing up any decline in prisoner drug use.

As for reasonable suspicion, put me - or any experienced ex-prisoner -
in a jail and I would soon be able identify every heroin user on the
wing: smackheads behave in a manner that makes them easy to spot. In a
2005 comprehensive survey on drug testing, the Home Office indicated
that during three months in 2001 an estimated 21% of the prison
population used opiates, yet just 2% were tested on suspicion.

Since 1997, the numbers of prisoners testing positive for drugs has
declined. At the same time, drug use in the general population has
remained constant, except the use of opiates, which has increased.
There is abundant evidence that drugs are easily available inside
jails, yet the prison service would like us to believe that they are
winning the fight against illegal substances.

It is true that prisoners are using less cannabis: they know it stays
in their system for 28 days and that traces of opiates are gone in
three days. According to the Home Office survey, a "considerable
number" of prisoners said they had started using opiates in prison.

There are enough smackheads in society without the prison system
producing more. In short, it is time to stop taking the piss.

Eric Allison writes on prisons and criminal justice.