|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: 'Drug testing is driving prisoners to heroin' Peter Harris The Guardian Friday 04 Oct 2002 (Peter Harris is in detention at Maidstone prison where he edits Insider magazine) No one in today's society would doubt the inextricable link between crime and drugs. As long as drugs are illegal, their control will always be in the hands of criminals. It comes, then, as little surprise that Britain's prisons are rife with a miscellany of mind-altering substances. Despite a panoply of security methods used by the prison service, little impact has been made in keeping drugs out of the hands of prisoners. How refreshing it would be if the prison service looked in depth at the reason prisoners used drugs, which is partly to counter the incessant boredom, brought about through a lack of purposeful activity. Many years ago, the drug of choice, both for effect and cost, was cannabis. The mere mention of heroin on a prison landing led to the user being labelled smackhead, and being ostracised by most of the population. Then along came mandatory drug testing (MDT), with random urine samples being sent for screening by a Home Office approved laboratory. The result of a positive test would mean that the prisoner would be placed on a governor's report, an adjudication board held and, if found guilty, he could be liable for a range of punishments, from enforced segregation to having days added. To an objective observer, the implementation of drug testing should act as a deterrent and slow down drug use. Were cannabis the only drug available, there would at least have been some merit the testing, as cannabis is detectable in the system for around 28 days, with the subsequent risk of detection being relatively high. Waiting in the wings, however, was a perceived solution to the problem of drug testing. It came in the form of heroin. Heroin produces a stupefying effect that gives users a warm, cosy feeling, as opposed to cannabis, which heightens the senses and increases perception. The selling point of heroin for prisoners, though, has nothing to do with the effect. Heroin only remains in the system for up to 72 hours. Consequently, cannabis is now only used by the brave or foolhardy. Heroin has taken over as the most widely used drug, not necessarily by choice, but by necessity, and is flooding Britain's prisons. The consequences of the move towards heroin in prisons has serious implications, none more obvious than the number of heroin users being released back on to the street, with a habit that only resorting to crime can fulfil. With rehabilitation being the key word in prisons in the 21st century, and the emphasis on courses designed to prevent discharged prisoners from reoffending, there seems to be a serious anomaly between the intention of the prison service, and reality. The reality is that men who were once content to smoke cannabis are being turned into heroin addicts. In a recent survey of 57 inmates at Glenochil prison in Scotland, the figures showed a complete reversal in the numbers using either cannabis or heroin. Before coming to prison, 43 had used cannabis, 21 had used heroin. Once in custody, the number of cannabis users dropped to 27, while the number of prisoners using heroin rose to 48. The national newspaper for prisoners, Inside Time, conducted a general survey in which one of the questions was whether mandatory drug testing had resulted in the increased use of hard drugs. 70% replied yes, showing that the Glenochil survey's result is very much on the conservative side. However, the director general of the prison service, Martin Narey, has insisted that there is no evidence to support a suggestion that drug testing has increased the use of hard drugs in prisons, a statement that seems to show a certain naivety, or a head buried in the sand, or simply a refusal to admit that the prison service could get it so wrong. The cold, hard facts of this insurgence of heroin use are far reaching. Is there any point in spending thousands of pounds of what, after all, is taxpayers' money, on offending-behaviour courses for prisoners, simply to rubber stamp a prisoner "rehabilitated" then send him back on the street with a habit that can cost hundreds of pounds a day to feed? The prison service, of course, has eased its conscience by showing the public that, by initiating a drug testing programme, it is addressing the problem of drugs in prison. There is another downside to increased heroin use in prison. Many inmates get into overwhelming debt. At £10 for a small wrap, meagre finances soon dwindle. Families outside are soon put under pressure to send in money they can ill afford, to cover their loved one's debts. Debts can, and do increase violence if payment is not forthcoming when collection time arrives. Many desperate prisoners are forced to go "on the rule" (segregation for their own safety) and the risk of suicide inevitably increases. There is no doubt whatsoever, despite Martin Narey's refusal to admit it, that the prison system of mandatory testing has failed miserably. With prison service rhetoric, and offending behaviour courses revolving around victims, the current system of propelling prisoners towards hard drugs can only result in more crime and more victims. A sensible approach or a complete waste of taxpayers' money?
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!