JUST SAY NO TO PRISON DRUG TESTING

A couple of weeks ago, front page headlines said, "President Clinton to
Reduce Drug Use in Prison." The president's policy calls for states to drug
test inmates and to report annually on drug use in prisons. This policy
might sound good, but it is misguided and it doesn't enhance public safety.
It may even hurt crime prevention by diverting funds from more effective
programs, such as drug treatment. Getting people to stop using drugs in
prison is not nearly as important as stopping them from using drugs outside
of prison.

The White House contends that "coerced abstinence" while in prison will
reduce the addicts's demand for drugs after release. Ridiculous! Does the
absence of heterosexual relationships in prison lessen a prisoner's
interest in sex after release from prison? I don't think so.

A recently released report from the National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse (the Califano Report) claims that 80 percent of the 1.7
million people incarcerated in our nation are there either as a result of
substance abuse- "either from violating drug or alcohol laws, or stealing
property to finance their habit."

If this is true, then the vast majority of the crimes committed in America
today are related in some way to substance abuse. Clearly, to reduce crime
and to reduce recidivism among those who have committed crimes, we must
address drug and alcohol abuse. But Clinton's drug testing and drug
reporting policy is not the way to do it.

Rather than wasting resources on drug-testing inmates, most of whom won't
be released for years, our national and local governments should focus
resources on effective in-custody and post-release programs.

The San Francisco Sheriff's Department sponsors in-custody treatment for
men and women and has similar programs for post-release, including
contracts for residential drug treatment. An outside study completed by
UCSF shows significant reduction in crime for offenders who have been
involves d in this progressive course of treatment. The Califano Report
agrees with this approach, stating: "Failure to use the criminal justice
system to get nonviolent drug and alcohol-abusing offenders into treatment
and training is irrational public policy and a profligate us of public
funds. Releasing drug and alcohol-abusing and addicted inmates without
treating them is tantamount to visiting criminals on society."

The National District Attorney's Association, commenting on the Califano
Report, stated: "Simply warehousing prisoners, without regard to addressing
and dealing with the underlying problem of substance abuse, produces
unbearable taxpayer costs."

Law-abiding citizens should be more concerned about making sure that
prisoners don't turn to drugs when they're out on parole or after they've
completed their sentences.

More important, taxpayers should be concerned about how law enforcement
officials are spending their tax dollars to break the cycle of crime and
substance abuse.

How are inmates to rid themselves of their addiction? Substance abuse is a
vicious addiction, notoriously difficult to shed. But treatment does work,
and it does reduce crime.

If we really care about reducing crime and drug use, let's not waste
resources performing costly drug tests -at $9 a pop-on 1.7 million
prisoners. That money would be far better spent on approaches proven to
reduce crime committed by addicts. In-custody and post-release drug
treatment work. It is here that the White House -and San Francisco-should
concentrate its resources.