TESTING TIME FOR CRIME

The New Drugs Testing Policy Is Based On A Misreading Of The Facts And Will
Do Little To Stem Crime Or Help Addicts Break Their Habits (Alan Travis)

The New Drugs Testing Policy Is Based On A Misreading Of The Facts And Will
Do Little To Stem Crime Or Help Addicts Break Their Habits (Alan Travis)

Tony Blair yesterday defended his plans to introduce new powers including
the mandatory drug testing of all those arrested by the police. He had
launched this plan under the impression that hard drug abusers -
particularly those on heroin and cocaine who steal to feed their habits -
are one of the engines driving the crime rate in Britain.

His claim rests on research which showed that 61% of those arrested in some
inner city areas had illegal drugs in their system. For the prime minister
the study provided further evidence for his long-held belief that
drug-related offences account for a major proportion of all crime committed
in Britain. This in turn justified introducing new police powers to allow
the testing of those arrested. In addition, bail will be denied to those
found to be heroin or cocaine abusers, whatever their original crime.

But if tackling drugs is to form the centrepiece of this autumn's Queen's
Speech, the government's well-intentioned long-term drugs strategy is
clearly in the doldrums. Despite the appointment of a drugs tsar and the
welcome change in emphasis from punishment to education, prevention and
treatment, the new strategy has not yet made much of an impact. A national
audit of policy earlier this year had to conclude that many of the
initiatives launched in the drive against drug abuse were overloaded,
ineffective or had never even been evaluated in the first place. There are
no signs that any headway has been made in stemming the availability of
drugs to young people.

A closer look at the research on which this new clampdown is based shows
that the prime minister is only giving half the picture.

The ground-breaking study was carried out by Trevor Bennett, deputy
director of Cambridge University's institute of criminology. Commissioned
by the home office it tried out for the first time in Britain a
well-established US research programme based on voluntary urine tests on
some of those arrested. It included people arrested over a two-year period
by officers based at police stations in Cambridge, Hammersmith, Nottingham,
Sunderland, and Trafford in Manchester.

The research did indeed find that 61% of those interviewed had taken at
least one illegal drug. But what Tony Blair did not mention was that
cannabis was the most common drug found in their blood with 46% testing
positive. And as the research report puts it : "Those who tested positive
for cannabis alone were not heavily involved in acquisitive crime."

The second major finding - also ignored by Blair - was that, at 25%,
alcohol was actually the next most common drug found. In fact heroin users,
at 18%, did account for a surprisingly large proportion of those arrested
but nowhere near the 50% plus implied by Blair. Cocaine users also
accounted for 10% but the study found a lot of overlap between class-A drug
users who had multiple drug habits.

The last group are undoubtedly responsible for a significant amount of
property crime in Britain. It is estimated that a heroin addict who also
uses crack raises about pounds 20,300 a year illegally with about a third
spent financing their habit. A heroin user alone raises about pounds 13,500
a year illegally to spend on smack. This compares with an estimated annual
illegal income of about pounds 4,000 a year for the others arrested in the
study. Those who tested positive for alcohol were much more likely to be
involved in crimes of disorder than property.

But the research suggested the group of class-A hard drug abusers were less
likely to be burglars (only one in 10 arrested burglars tested positive for
opiates) than shoplifters (of 90 shoplifters half tested positive for
opiates and 30% for cocaine). This raises the question of whether addicts
who have been arrested for shoplifting will be denied bail and kept on
remand for such a minor offence if their drug test proves positive. What
the research actually shows, then, is that although illegal hard drugs are
a significant factor in driving up crime they are nowhere near as big an
engine as Blair has implied.

The next question is: what will happen to those who test positive once the
new powers are introduced? Presumably most will be bailed for their
original offence - having traces of cannabis in your bloodstream is not a
criminal offence.

Research into the effectiveness of the mandatory drug testing programme in
Britain's prisons has yielded some interesting results. A study last year
by the national addiction centre and a home office study based on
interviews with staff and prisoners found that mandatory drug testing had
had a substantial impact on the prevalence of drug misuse. Some 27% of
those who had formerly misused drugs when in custody had claimed to have
stopped completely; a further 15% said they had reduced their consumption;
6% reported they were taking less cannabis but continuing to use heroin;
and 4% said they had experimented with heroin to avoid detection but had
not carried on.

The results show that if money is spent on providing treatment it can work.
The government already has drug treatment and testing orders which can
enforce attendance for those convicted of an offence. If the mandatory drug
testing of arrestees is to produce any good Blair should make sure that
there are sufficient drug treatment services to give those who test
positive a chance to kick the habit. Now that could cut crime.

Alan Travis is the Guardian's home affairs editor.