Page 5106 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have chosen urinalysis as a method for testing for several reasons. Whilst we are aware that no testing process is perfect, the urinalysis testing is in line with current testing procedures in place at the Alexander Maconochie Centre. The introduction of a mandatory random drug testing regime by urinalysis utilises the current tools available to corrections staff and therefore minimises the costs involved in implementing this policy.
The UK introduced mandatory random drug testing in 1996. The initial studies of prisoner opinion were, unsurprisingly, quite negative. They stated that they believed that it would have little impact on their drug use, that it would increase the level of violence between prisoners and corrections officers and that the prisoners would switch to harder drugs that were more difficult to detect.
But the hard data has proven them wrong. In 2005 the UK Home Office reported that since the introduction of mandatory drug testing, a decline in drug use in prison was found even though drug use in the wider UK community had increased over the same period. In 1997, 24 per cent of tests returned positive. By 2003, this had fallen to 12 per cent, a 50 per cent reduction in drug use by prisoners. In Canada the pilot program, in 1993, of mandatory drug testing found that the positive rates of testing fell 34 per cent. A subsequent reduction of 11 per cent in positive samples after nationwide implementation was recorded. Once again we are looking at an almost 50 per cent decrease in the level of drug use by prisoners.
New South Wales implemented a mandatory random drug testing regime in 2000. A survey of prisoners in that year found that of those who had tested positive for illicit drugs through urinalysis, 61 per cent had decreased their drug use, 17 per cent had requested to see an alcohol and drugs worker and a further 17 per cent had elected to attend an education or counselling program.
The UK Home Office in 2005 investigated the deterrent effect of the random mandatory drug tests. A study of prisoners who were drug users in the year prior to imprisonment found that knowledge of the penalties associated with positive drug testing significantly reduced the likelihood of a prisoner using drugs whilst in prison. A survey of Canadian prisoners found that, as a result of mandatory random drug testing, 27 per cent of prisoners stopped using illegal drugs and 15 per cent reduced their level of consumption.
The UK Home Office 2005 report also investigated whether there was any value in the argument that mandatory random drug testing encouraged prisoners to move to harder drugs such as heroin in an attempt to avoid detection. The report identified that six per cent of prisoners who had previously not used heroin had begun doing so in jail. However, the majority of this small group of prisoners had previously been using other drugs—most commonly stimulants and opiates—in the year prior to coming into jail. The main reason for giving up heroin in jail was the availability of the drug, not avoidance of the urinalysis scheme. Only one per cent of the prison population as a whole stated that they had moved from using cannabis to using heroin—for a range of reasons, including but not exclusively, detection by mandatory drug testing. A survey of prisoners in Canada found that only four per cent had changed their drug use.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video