PRISON SYSTEM ADDICTION TO DRUG PROFITS
Under the federal Violent Offenders Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Program, states are required to implement inmate drug testing programs or lose federal prison construction funds. Given the opportunity to garner more bucks for a financially strapped, politically manipulated, and overcrowded prison system, the California Department of Corrections (CDC) implemented the Drug Reduction Strategy (DRS). Unfortunately, this opportunity to effectively treat substance abuse was compromised by an integrated, comprehensive, standardized drug interdiction program at the California State Prisons of Solano, Ironwood, Pleasant Valley, and Mule Creek.
Amendments to existing regulations now mandate that if an inmate refuses DRS urinalysis testing, 90 more days are added to his incarceration. For those that test positive for illegal prescription drugs (not prescribed by a CDC Physician) or narcotics, 121-150 days are added. In addition, the inmate loses family visitation for one year. DRS testing will continue at these men's facilities through January 2001.
The CDC insisted that these amendments are necessary to identify inmates with confirmed instances of controlled substance abuse. However, according to an article in the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, the University of Texas conducted a series of tests with some randomly chosen over-the-counter drugs available in any drug store. These tests were conducted after several of the University's professors tested positive as recreational drug users of marijuana, amphetamines, and barbiturates. It was discovered that 11-66% of urinalysis drug tests as now performed are inaccurate. "The chances of winning at Russian Roulette are far greater than passing a routine urinalysis test for recreational drugs," one doctor was quoted as saying.
The Department of Correction's physicians often prescribe Motrin for pain. Broncaid and Tedral are prescribed for those suffering from asthma. Actifed, Ortain and Sudafed are available remedies for flu, colds and hay fever. Alka-Seltzer is one of the most popular products for colds and gastric disturbances and is sold over-the-counter at the inmate's canteen.
IBUPROFIN(active ingredients--Advil, Motrin, Rufin) tested positive for Marijuana.
FENOPROFIN (active ingredient--Nalfon) tested positive for Marijuana, Amphetamines, Barbiturates, and Methaqual one.
NAPROXIN (active ingredients--Anaprox, Apo-Naproxen, Naprosyn, and Novonaprox) tested positive for Marijuana.
EPHEDRINE (active ingredients--Acet-AM, Amesec, Broncaid, Broncotabs, Ectasul Minus, Ephedral,Marax, Ny-Quil, Quadrinal, Quelidrine,Quibron Plus, Tedral) tested positive for Amphetamines.
PHENYLPROPAN-OLAMINE (active ingredients--Actifed, Alka-Seltzer, Alka-Selzer Plus, Allerest, Caldecon, Contac, Dietac, Dimetapp, 4-Way Nasal Spray, Ortain, Sinarest, Triaminicin) tested positive for Amphetamines
How do drugs get into the hands of prisoners? In April 1998, the Senate Subcommittee on Prison Construction and Operations, chaired by Senator Richard Polanco, authored Senate Bill (SB) 2016, "The History of Prison Searches." On the table was the issue of whether the CDC Director should adopt language that would require every person, including inmates, custodial staff, noncustodial staff, visitors, vendors, state officials and all other persons who come into contact with inmates in correctional facilities, to be subjected to random searches for weapons and contraband. Senator Polanco's support of SB-2016 was prompted by his concern about the rampant availability of drugs in prisons. He wrote:
"Drugs can only get into the hands of inmates if another person brings them onto prison grounds. Current CDC policy assumes that it is only inmate's visitors who are responsible for passing drugs to inmates. I'm not convinced that this is true. Inmates' visitors are not only subjected to more extensive searches than other visitors, but are subjected to arbitrary rules for visiting, which vary from facility to facility, and from day to day. I think all persons who enter prison grounds and who come into contact with inmates, should be searched in a uniform manner, as a matter of constitutional equal protection .... Innocent citizens should not be subjected to harassment--simply for wanting to visit a loved one in prison. Nor should they lose their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches ...."
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice opposed SB 2016 and lobbied to kill the bill, which currently sits in limbo since its inception at the Senate Committee Hearing.
According to the Little Hoover Commission's Report of 1998, correctional experts across the country say drugs enter prison in two ways: from outsiders who smuggle drugs to prisoners and from prison guards who deal drugs to inmates. Several states conduct regular drug testing of both guards and inmates and impose sanctions on those who test positive. Alabama tests 10% of the prison population and randomly tests prison staff--including wardens. Inmates who test positive are sent to substance abuse programs or to a higher level of custody; staff who test positive are automatically dismissed. Ohio, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and North Carolina also have "no tolerance" drug testing policies in place.
Should the suspicion of drugs erode the Constitutional protection of American citizens? The Fourth Amendment recognizes the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination. Upon entering a correctional institution, prisoners surrender most of their rights under the Fourth Amendment. Thus regulations "reasonable" in light of the institution's need for security and order may be justified.
What is "reasonable" is left to the administrative discretion of prison staff in determining disciplinary procedures-usually exercised behind prison walls without challenge. The prisoner is physically confined, lacks communication with the outside world, and is legally in the hands of the state. In most cases, formal codes stating the rules of prison conduct do not exist, are made up as they are applied, or are vague and poorly written. Normally, disciplinary action is taken on the word of the correctional officer, and the inmate has little opportunity to challenge the charges. Kangaroo courts are common in the adjudication of disciplinary hearings by staff against inmates. Prison officials prey on inmates' stereotypically maligned reputation to justify brutal beatings, shootings, and other unlawful practices. On the basis of a single unreviewed report of a guard, prisoners often have their earned privileges revoked, are denied right of access to counsel, sit in solitary or maximum security, or lose accrued "good time." When the courts defer to administrative discretion, it is this guard to whom they delegate the final word on "reasonable" prison practices.
This is the central evil in prisons--not homosexuality, nor inadequate salaries, nor drugs, nor the physical brutality of some of the guards. The central evil is the unreviewed administrative discretion granted to poorly trained personnel who deal directly with prisoners. This phenomenon leads to denial of communication, of the right to counsel, and of access to courts. Prisons in California have covertly become closed societies in which the cruelest inhumanities exist unexposed.
Almost two thirds of the people sent to prison in California last year were parole violators. Of the roughly 80,000 parole violators returned to prison, about 60,000 had committed a technical violation, such as failing a drug test; about 15,000 had committed a property or a drug crime; and about 3,000 had committed a violent crime--frequently a robbery to buy drugs. The CDC holds more inmates in its jails and prisons than do France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Singapore, and the Netherlands combined. The system has essentially become a revolving door for poor, highly dysfunctional, and often illiterate drug abusers. They go in, they get out, they're violated and sent back, and every year there are more. According to an article in the Atlantic Monthly, December 1998, by Eric Schlosser, about half the California prisoners released on parole are illiterate. About 85% are substance abusers. Less than 3,000 are receiving treatment behind bars.
Rehabilitation should be the most appealing justification for criminal sanctions imposed on those failing the DRS urinalysis test. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has estimated that modest expansion of drug treatment programs could save the state millions of dollars a year. The LAO calculated in May of 1997 that extending substance abuse treatment to an additional 5,000 inmates could save $40 million a year in prison operating costs and $110 million in onetime capital outlay expenses by reducing the need for prison beds. Extending treatment to serve an additional 10,000 inmates over those served today would increase the savings to $80 million in annual operating costs and $120 million in onetime capital outlay.
Punishment is not treatment, and keeping a prisoner incarcerated longer only further burdens taxpayers. The motive for this massive forced drug-testing policy is clearly to gain federal funding for an enormously overcrowded prison system. Drug abuse is an addiction, not a crime, and should be treated by psychologists and physicians with empirical methods to resocialize the patient back into society. Medieval methods of dungeons, chains, whips, and torture in the name of preventing psychological addictions to drugs is not an intelligent remedy.