Source: San Francisco Chronicle Contact: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 Author: Michael Hennessey Note: Michael Hennessey is the sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco. His pioneering efforts to rehabilitate prisoners include education and substance abuse recovery programs. JUST SAY NO TO PRISON DRUG TESTING A couple of weeks ago, front page headlines said, "President Clinton to Reduce Drug Use in Prison." The president's policy calls for states to drug test inmates and to report annually on drug use in prisons. This policy might sound good, but it is misguided and it doesn't enhance public safety. It may even hurt crime prevention by diverting funds from more effective programs, such as drug treatment. Getting people to stop using drugs in prison is not nearly as important as stopping them from using drugs outside of prison. The White House contends that "coerced abstinence" while in prison will reduce the addicts's demand for drugs after release. Ridiculous! Does the absence of heterosexual relationships in prison lessen a prisoner's interest in sex after release from prison? I don't think so. A recently released report from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (the Califano Report) claims that 80 percent of the 1.7 million people incarcerated in our nation are there either as a result of substance abuse- "either from violating drug or alcohol laws, or stealing property to finance their habit." If this is true, then the vast majority of the crimes committed in America today are related in some way to substance abuse. Clearly, to reduce crime and to reduce recidivism among those who have committed crimes, we must address drug and alcohol abuse. But Clinton's drug testing and drug reporting policy is not the way to do it. Rather than wasting resources on drug-testing inmates, most of whom won't be released for years, our national and local governments should focus resources on effective in-custody and post-release programs. The San Francisco Sheriff's Department sponsors in-custody treatment for men and women and has similar programs for post-release, including contracts for residential drug treatment. An outside study completed by UCSF shows significant reduction in crime for offenders who have been involves d in this progressive course of treatment. The Califano Report agrees with this approach, stating: "Failure to use the criminal justice system to get nonviolent drug and alcohol-abusing offenders into treatment and training is irrational public policy and a profligate us of public funds. Releasing drug and alcohol-abusing and addicted inmates without treating them is tantamount to visiting criminals on society." The National District Attorney's Association, commenting on the Califano Report, stated: "Simply warehousing prisoners, without regard to addressing and dealing with the underlying problem of substance abuse, produces unbearable taxpayer costs." Law-abiding citizens should be more concerned about making sure that prisoners don't turn to drugs when they're out on parole or after they've completed their sentences. More important, taxpayers should be concerned about how law enforcement officials are spending their tax dollars to break the cycle of crime and substance abuse. How are inmates to rid themselves of their addiction? Substance abuse is a vicious addiction, notoriously difficult to shed. But treatment does work, and it does reduce crime. If we really care about reducing crime and drug use, let's not waste resources performing costly drug tests -at $9 a pop-on 1.7 million prisoners. That money would be far better spent on approaches proven to reduce crime committed by addicts. In-custody and post-release drug treatment work. It is here that the White House -and San Francisco-should concentrate its resources.