DRUGS BEHIND BARS

Alberta has introduced a bill to allow its provincial prisons to perform
random drug tests on inmates. The tests, leading to punishment of
violators, are supposed to deter illicit drug use. But the random tests
would probably not be worth the $200,000-plus they would cost each year.

The province's desire to crack down on illicit drugs is understandable.
When prison inmates are stupefied on drugs, jail may not deter them from
repeating their criminal behaviour once they're released. After all, why
should they deal with whatever problems or choices prompted them to lose
their freedom when they're numb to reality?

Last November, Reginald McLeod, 39, was found dead in his cell at the
Calgary Remand Centre. A detective discovered an inch-long syringe in his
cell. Another inmate is believed to have smuggled the syringe and 10
morphine tablets into the prison in a plastic egg placed inside his rectum.

Although privacy is a core right, there are times when limiting this right
makes sense. Federal prisons conduct random drug tests. The sharing of
syringes in those prisons has been linked to the spread of HIV; in a 1995
survey, 40 per cent of 4,300 federal inmates reported having used drugs in
the prison they were in at the time.

So the problem is serious, and the benefits in the federal system, where
prisoners are sentenced to two years or more, probably outweigh the
drawbacks. In 1999-2000, 16 per cent of tests came back positive; by
2001-02, 13.4 per cent were positive. However, the random tests are just
one part of a broader strategy that includes scanning equipment, cell
searches and sniffer dogs.

Alberta has no figures on the extent of drug use in its jails, where the
average stay is just 36 days. Assume for the moment the problem is serious.
What punishment goes along with a positive drug test? The possibility that
offenders will lose their earned remission, in which they receive one day
off for "good behaviour" for every two days inside? Some punishment -- 12
days. Wouldn't inmates simply take their chances?

Ralph Klein's Conservative government did not lose votes when it took away
most televisions from inmates a few years ago, and it will not lose any now
by making them urinate into a bottle. But it would be far better to conduct
closer searches of cells and to spend the $200,000 on treatment and
prevention efforts in the community. It seems doubtful that random drug
testing would save the next Reginald McLeod.