Mary Dejevsky: We could keep drugs out of prison if we wanted to
Thursday, 31 July 2008
There are three phenomena of the British world c.2008 that I find unfathomable to the point of disbelieving fury. The first is the fatalism with which my fellow countrymen have resigned themselves to their losses from the economic downturn. Why are prudent savers not laying siege to the speculators' palaces and smashing the graven images of capitalism?
The second is the persistence of mixed wards even in some of our newest, glitziest hospitals. It is 12 years since Tony Blair – then Leader of the Opposition – expressed amazement that such indignity was still possible. Was it, he asked, beyond the wit of the Government and the health administrators to deal with the problem? Oh yes, to their eternal shame, it was.
And the third, right up there with the other two, is the lily-livered acceptance by almost every authority in the land that drugs in prison are an immutable fact of life. It may indeed be, as yesterday's report by a think-tank called the UK Drug Policy Commission concluded bleakly, that the drug trade has remained "extremely resilient" to everything the Government has thrown at it in recent years. But you – sorry, I – would have thought that prison is the one point at which the whole sad chain of exploitation and misery could be broken. Is there not here a captive constituency for treatment?
Of course, such a sentiment is itself defeatist. It would be consoling to believe that the country's borders could be hermetically sealed against illegal drugs – as against illegal bush-meat, black-market firearms and everything else that threatens the public good. But we know that is not possible. Ditto the level of policing that would convince everyone, from kingpins to petty street traders, that they should pack up and leave.
But even if improvements could be made in both these areas – and I'm sure they could – there would still be the deserted coves and private airfields; concealed cannabis factories in private houses, and would-be drug mules ready to risk their lives in quest of a pathetically small fortune. And when you consider the figures assembled by the UK Drug Policy Commission, you almost wonder whether it might not be better simply to abandon the field to the traffickers. The value of their illegal trade in Britain is estimated at £5.3bn. The Government currently spends a total of £1.5bn trying to combat it, plus the diverse costs of drug-related crime, for which the most recent estimates – surely underestimates – come in at £4bn. The taxpayer thus seems to be spending as much to fight the traffickers as the traffickers are earning. Clearly there is much that cannot be done.
Keeping drugs out of prison, though, is surely something that could be done. At least half of all inmates – some suggest the proportion is much higher – are in prison as a direct result of drugs, either because they have been caught trafficking or, more likely, because they have turned to crime to feed their habit. Quite rightly, the Government sees treatment as a key to reducing both crime and the prison population. But if treatment is to work, it must be properly funded, and the prisons must be part of the solution – which at present, patently, they are not.
Some 55 per cent of prisoners in England are dependent on drugs, and a greater proportion in Scottish jails. Ex-prisoners suggest it is far more. Yet, with or without treatment programmes, a lively drugs trade flourishes inside, facilitated by mobile phones, crooked warders, misguided visitors and such imaginative solutions as stuffed tennis balls lobbed over walls to order. Nor has deregulation supplied an answer. Why did the contracts not stipulate that new, private, prisons should be drug-free? For the same reason, I assume, that brand-new hospitals could operate mixed wards.
Alas, too many people have an interest in keeping the prison trade going: rank-and-file prisoners, hungry for anything to break the boredom in the absence of more productive diversion; those inmates who earn money or favours while inside; warders and managers who fear mayhem from overcrowding and like their charges compliant.
Earlier this month, the Government announced plans to spend £80m on technology to block mobile phones in prisons and "search" visitors electronically. Which may be a welcome sign that the problem is finally being addressed. I fear, though, that without the political and managerial will – the "wit" Tony Blair mentioned in relation to hospitals – the prison drug market will be as lively in a year's time as it is now. I just hope that by then the public indignation might also be greater.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




Comments
30 Comments
My point about Skunk was trying to show that it's possible to legalise cannabis and, for want of a better phrase, pander to the hysteria surrounding skunk and teenagers. The law is capable of fine definition and it's depressing to be told by politicians who can get their rich friends off on vague technicalities and the finer points of law that suddenly it's a blunt club capable only of beating people senseless when it comes to drugs. Mostly this is a class thing. They can smoke in the bars at the Houses of Parliament because they're immune from the smoking ban. Their friends can party till the world ends but we cannot.
Skunk is a hybrid that is grown in artificial conditions - therefore it is not natural. It's also unnaturally strong. Whatever else you may say about it these things are true.
Want a killer blow to sort out several ills?
Allow people with jobs to smoke dope but not the unemployed.
;-)
Posted by blithe spirit | 01.08.08, 08:49 GMT
Come on - "At least half of all inmates some suggest the proportion is much higher are in prison as a direct result of drugs, either because they have been caught trafficking or, more likely, because they have turned to crime to feed their habit. " - that's just nonsense. Less than 1% of all prisoners are/were involved in drug trafficing. And, use your loaf Mary, any one doing a mugging, a burglary or a spot of dealing is bound to say 'I did it to support my habit', it ensures a softer sentence / better treatment. We're forever being told 'drugs are cheaper than ever', so are folks committing less crime to pay for them? Doh! 'Course not. Millions of folks use drugs daily, 95% of them are otherwise perfectly law-abiding. You may as well say '55% of people in jails are dependent on footwear'. Yes, they use footwear, but that's not why they're in jail. They do drugs to relieve the tedium, same as they wear shoes to protect their feet. Your 'cause and effect' claims don't make sense.
Posted by Phil | 31.07.08, 23:54 GMT
As long as there are prison officers, drugs will enter prisons. It may be a minority who abuse their positions, but how many does it take ?
Posted by Garonne | 31.07.08, 22:26 GMT
In my youth I abused whatever substances were to hand with enthusiasm and relish. I was well on my way to addiction.
What caused me to change direction was meeting someone who showed me what being a better human being was about.
He did this with compassion, and by personal example.
Being squawked at by self righteous uptight middle class harpies and prigs just doesn't work.
Posted by Gonzologist | 31.07.08, 19:17 GMT
Stacy - it seems to me that people dont want to admit to a problem because they dont want to have to stop not because they are in any way threatened by the stigma of illegality. I just dont see how making the govt and the state any more of an enabler than it already is is going to help things.
The problem is there are alot of people who simply dont WANT to use drugs monderately or responsibly but the opposite. They may account for a minority of the population but the MAJORITY of those who end up in prison for drug related offences.
Posted by katy | 31.07.08, 17:00 GMT
Katy - I am aware that many people are blinkered as to their level of addition and to the effect their actions have on others.
The fact is that drugs being illegal drives use and abuse underground. This is turn makes it easier for people to get out of their depth without anyone realising, or being able to intervene. Once addiction has taken hold, the illegality factor makes people a lot more unable or unwilling to admit to a problem - as I'm sure you'll agree this is the first step to recovery.
Of course it's the addictiveness/personality factors that are the reason for addiction; my point is that the social consequences of illegality faciliate this addiction.
I apologise if the word 'suffer' offends you, but surely an addict is always an addict, regardless of their state of recovery?
Legal drug abuse is also out of hand, yes; despite their legality we have a painfully nannyish attitude to all drugs. This is where irresponsibility in using them stems from.
Posted by Stacy | 31.07.08, 16:39 GMT
And Stacy, have you any idea how many people are addicted to LEGAL prescription drugs? And alcohol addiction is hardly curtailed but its legality.
Posted by katy | 31.07.08, 15:33 GMT
Stacy - regarding doing what you want to with your body, sometimes people can be blind to how their actions affect other people. Some people simply dont know when they are out of control is what I meant so its a rocky principle on which to argue for legal drug use.
I do not SUFFER from drug addiction because I do not use drugs. The illegality of drugs does not make users more prone to addiction, it's the addictiveness of drugs coupled with an addictive personality which does it.
And you may not be bothered about your insurance status but there are lots of people who would be and therefore rightly or wrongly there would still be a huge black market for drug taking.
Posted by Katy | 31.07.08, 15:19 GMT
Junk-male,
Since you are over 60 I apologise for calling you smug and boring. Perhaps it WAS rude and aggressive. As for your 3 degrees did I actually say that tokers were stupid?
I have no truck with people who use drugs and dont harm anyone else but the issue here is not your nice lifestyle that incorporates some casual drug use but the kind of drug use that gets people banged up.
Call me uninformed and uneducated but can tokers ever be guilty of solipsism?
Posted by Katy | 31.07.08, 14:59 GMT
Katy - of course drugs being illegal is prohibitive, regardless of how easy it is to buy them. I have a caution for possession on my record for life. It doesn't matter that I'm a moderate, occasional user - I am technically a criminal.
The reasons I gave for legalisation have nothing to do with making drugs more easy to get hold of and are not selfish reasons. I've no wish to hide my usage to benefit myself or my insurance status.
My reasons represent my belief that drugs being illegal make society more difficult to manage, users more prone to addiction, addicts less likely to recover and give criminals an easy street to make money hand over fist on.
With respect for the illnesses you are recovering from, I don't think that has anyting to do with my wish to use my body as I will.
In fact, isn't your suffering from drug addiction despite the laws against drugs a strong proof that the current system is blind, naive and ultimately a failure?
Posted by Stacy | 31.07.08, 14:58 GMT
30 Comments