Irish prison policy and drug users

Irish prison policy and drug users

The Irish Prison Service in its document Keeping Drugs out of

prison - Drug policy and Strategy (available to download from the IPS

website) emphasises three main principles in relation to the

issue of drugs in prison:

1) The presence of drugs in prison will not be tolerated.

2) Prisoners will be encouraged and supported to develop responsible attitude

to drugs, both while in prison and following release, through a range of

measures including education and counselling.

3) Prisoners who are addicted to drugs or have other medical problems

caused by the misuse of drugs will be offered reasonable care and assistance.

(Keeping drugs out of prisons, p.3)

These principles translate on the policy level into a twin

track approach - supply elimination and demand reduction

(Keeping drugs out of prisons, p. 4). This approach seems to

reflect the general aims of the National Drug Strategy which

are: Supply Reduction, Prevention, Treatment & Rehabilitation

and Research (National Drug Strategy, 2009, p.6) and its main

goal as the policy document emphasises (...) to provide safe, secure and

© Artur Pytlarz 2014

humane custody for people who are sent to prison (Keeping drugs out of

prisons, p.1).

Yet at the same time critics of this document could point

out that because it lacks a date of publication, it is hard to

determine how recent and up-to-date it is. Paul O'Mahony

points out more serious problems including: how the record of

the Irish prison system on the drug problem is extremely poor,

how attractive drugs are in the specific realities of prison

life, and the tendency to prioritise medical and individual-

level responses over psychosocial and institutional-level

responses (O'Mahony, 2008 A). To summarise, drugs in prison

are a big problem but at the same time they are big part of

prisoners' lives and can affect them even if they are not drug

users. Crewe pointed out the important role drugs play in a

prison’s social life, they "were repeatedly spotlighted as the engine of

social dynamics throughout the prison system" (Crewe, 2009, p. 370). Thus

drugs policy in prison plays a significant role and its

importance cannot be underestimated. It affects prisoners who

use drugs but also prisoners who don't. It affects prison

guards and the general condition of their work place. It

affects families and visitors who, despite the fact they are


not convicted, after crossing prison gates are subject to the

restrictions and regime of the drug policy. This shows how

important it is to have a balanced, well prepared, and

research based policy which, it can be argued, the Irish

Prison System does not have.

It is worth mentioning that the Irish Prison Service does

not provide in its Annual Report 2013 (as in previous years)

information on how many prisoners are active drug users, how

many of them continue to use drugs, how many started to use

drugs in prison and how many are involved in supplying drugs

to other prisoners. (See IPS Annual Report 2013 and others).

As O'Mahony points out in his paper analysing drug policy in

Irish prisons, there is barely any record of a drug problem in

Irish prisons (O'Mahony, 2008 A, p. 6). However, only recently

(April 2014) there was a study published by UCD and NACDA on

drug use among the Irish prisoner population, which

highlighted that drug related issues in Irish prisons were

consistent with findings in other European countries (Drummond

et al, 2014).

The Irish Prison Service's drug policy is two-fold in its

approach to the issue of drugs in prison: firstly, supply


elimination which can be achieved by range of approaches and

secondly, demand reduction which can be achieved by the range

of services made available to prisoners in each institution

(Keeping drugs out of prisons, p.4).

The main philosophy behind supply elimination is that

"there is no acceptable level of drug abuse and the Irish Prison Service is committed

to preventing drugs entering prisons" and all the activity of prison

service "will focus, in particular, on the smuggling of drugs from the outside of

prisons" (Keeping drugs out of prisons, p.5). Potential routes of

supply are clear: external contactors, food supply, other

deliverers, families and friends visiting the incarcerated,

and prisoners on committal and returning from Temporary

Release. As explained in the policy document everyone entering

a prison, including members of staff and visitors, may be

asked to be searched (Keeping drugs from prisons, p.8). It is

clear that the most important tool in tackling the drug

supply problem is control, which expands from prisoners to

prison guards to families of the incarcerated. Thus it would

be important to look on how this policy affects all three

groups, how it changes their quality of life and how big a

role it plays in their everyday existence.


However before that, it would be wise to have a look at

the IPS explanation of its approach which is supported by two

arguments: general law regulation i.e. drugs are illegal in

Ireland and the Irish Prison System is obligated as an agent

of the criminal justice system to prevent prisoners from using

them. The second argument is related to the safety and

protection of all prisoners and all prison staff who are in

close confinement 24 hours a day , 365 days a year (Keeping

drugs out of prisons, p. 2). That second argument is

especially important in the context of the prison reality, as

those observations were noted: "(...) the situation in Mountjoy

Prison(...) remains unsafe for prisoners and prison staff alike. (...) Stabbings,

slashings and assaults with various objects are an almost daily occurrence"

(Council of Europe, 2011, p.21). Yet at the same time O'Mahony

argues that supply reduction can have the opposite effect from

planned because supply reduction and hence limited supply of

anything, increases its price but also adds to the perceived

value and desirability of it (O'Mahony, 2008 B, p. 8).

Supply elimination has a big effect on prisoners who use

drugs but also on those who are not drug users at all.

Implemented security measures like Mandatory Drug Tests,


regular searches of prisoners' cells, screened visits, these

affect all inmates with no regard for their attitude towards

drugs. This may lead to frustration among "non users" as they

may feel that they are being punished for nothing. The

official position of the IPS says: "Random searches of prisoners after

visits should not be confined to known drug users but should also include prisoners

who could be put under pressure to bring in drugs for others" (Keeping drugs

out of prisons, 2006, p.7). This shows that non-using

prisoners very often have to shift between two opposite

forces: official policy and violent prisoners. Drug users

themselves can be affected by Mandatory Drugs Tests. Those

tests can often lead drug using prisoners to switch from long

detection time drugs (cannabis) to short detection time drugs

(heroin). Although as Dolan pointed out in her paper in an

English survey on prisoners that number was small (Dolan et

al., 2007, p. 3). Interestingly, Singelton in her paper argues

that in general, the deterrent effect of MDT is limited and

other factors like habit, addiction and availability play a

bigger role in drug related activity (Singleton et al., 2005,

p. 83). Recent example from Ireland turn the focus on another

aspect of supply elimination. The annual report of the


Mountjoy Prison visiting committee emphasises their concern

regarding increased tablet availability and current

difficulties in detection as they cannot be detected by dogs

(Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee, 2012, p.18). Hence it can

be seen that the introduction of a safety measure (sniffer

dogs) led to a change in usage patterns to a drug (tablets)

which are harder to detect.

Similarly to O'Mahony, Ben Crewe stresses that

prohibition makes drugs high-demand goods. In his book "The

Prison Society" he described how in HMP Wellingborough the

whole economy was based on the trade of drugs. It was labelled

"double-bubble" due to 100% profit and it was "rather like a pyramid

scheme, with high-level dealers the main beneficiaries, and lower-level lenders

deriving less sizeable profit" (Crewe, 2009, p. 381). According to his

field notes up to 70% of prisoners could be involved in that

heroin economy and one can imagine that in every prison where

drugs are available some type of similar scheme must exist to

control the market. Crewe emphasises the fact that there was

pressure on prisoners to get involved in the drugs economy

especially the ones with a job in the "public" areas (Crewe,

2009, p. 380) .


Nevertheless, for some prisoners prohibition is a chance

to break with their addiction. Strict policy, difficulty with

obtaining drugs, their price, and treatment can lead prisoners

to change their attitude towards drug use. Paradoxically,

some of them saw prison as liberating, as "the only way to get off

drugs" (Crewe, 2009, p. 388) though there is no research to

confirm that pattern of behaviour in Irish Prisons today.

Another group which has to be considered in the context

of Supply Elimination are prisoners' families and friends. It

is estimated that 200,000 family member visits and 80,000

child visits occur per annum in the context of the Irish

Prison System (Martym, 2012, p. 9). All those visiting, though

they are not prisoners themselves, are subject to official

drug policy. Firstly the IPS treats visits as "a key area in relation

to the supply of drugs" and practical implication of that are:

"facilities for screened visits should be installed in all closed prisons and physical

contact between a prisoner and his visitors should not be permitted unless the

Governor (decided) there is no likelihood of a transfer of drugs" (Keeping drugs

out of prisons, p.7). Another measure implemented is rigorous

search procedures and sniffer dogs. As emphasised in the IPRT

report "Picking up the Pieces" all these security measures


affect family members coming to prison in many ways, from a

feeling of being criminalised or labelled to a feeling of

being discouraged to visit prison at all (Martym, 2012, p.31).

It has been pointed out that searches and especially sniffer

dogs are particularly frightening for children who often don't

understand the gravity of the situation and are already

stressed by the prison itself. Another aspect of the use of

sniffer dogs mentioned by the family members in the report is

a concern that dogs are making mistakes due to the simple fact

that they are unable to recognise somebody who has been in

contact with drugs through someone closeby having drugs on

them. As one of the prisoners stated "if someone enters the Visitors'

Centre and sits beside someone that has drugs on them suddenly their visit gone"

(Martym, 2012, p.32). In situation like this, family are

refused an open visit and are offered a screened visit instead

which usually makes family members confused and angry.

Screened visits on their own have a profound effect on both

prisoners and family members especially on children who are

denied physical contact from a parent who is already missing

from their everyday life. At the same time it has to be

pointed out that family member smuggling drugs into prison are


a fact of prison life and it is a common way to supply. As

Crewe reported in his book it is the third most popular way of

acquiring drugs and any member of visiting family can be

carrying drugs, babies included (Crewe, 2009, p.371). Of

course it would be interesting to research the motivations for

this behaviour more deeply. Is it commitment to the

incarcerated person, desire for money or fear for their own or

relatives safety?

Prison guards are affected by the drug policy as well.

This area, especially in an Irish context, lacks research but

it is important to acknowledge that there are at least three

areas which would benefit from more investigation. First, the

attitude of prison guards towards drugs in general. Although

official policy emphasises the safety angle of prohibition,

there are indication that some guards "turn the blind eye" on

drug users. As Crewe pointed "Drugs were accepted by staff (...) as a banal,

unremarkable feature of everyday life" (Crewe, 2009, p. 370). Simple

explanation for that approach comes from Denmark, in Kolind's

study conducted on Danish prisons guards 78% of them would

rather rely on their personal judgement than on official

policy when making decision about inmates smoking weed. As one


of the guards stated "There's more peace and calm when the inmates are

allowed to smoke" (Ringgaard, 2012).

Another aspect worth looking at is the attitude of guards

towards learning new skills and knowledge regarding the fast

changing world of drugs in prison. IPS policy states: "Staff are

trained in the identification of drugs and the procedures required to search for

drugs effectively" (Keeping drugs out of prisons, 2006, p. 8). At

the same time officers may feel already overloaded with

everyday duties and acquiring new knowledge might be simply

too much for them. It would be safe to assume that many of

the guards conduct their duty to the best of their abilities

but at the same time there will be some with the attitude "This

job is all about getting through the day, getting home safe, and keeping place

locked up" (Jewkes et al., 2006, p. 205). To put this in the

context of drug policy, implementation can be only as good as

the people implementing.

The final aspect of drug policy affecting prison staff is

the fact that policy "turns the spot light" on guards

themselves. Even though it is primarily designed to deal with

prisoners misusing drugs, it is clearly stated: "all persons,

including staff (...) may be requested to agree to be searched" (Keeping drugs


out of prisons, 2006, p.8). There is no relevant study which

would explain how this part of policy affects the everyday

work of prison staff, how they feel being constantly under

suspicion and if that helps or not in executing anti-drug

measures. Yet it has to be noted at the same time that prison

staff can play a pivotal role in supplying drugs. As Crewe

observed in his forth book the most fruitful way to get drugs

into prison involves the corruption or simply blackmail of

staff (Crewe, 2009, p.371). Guards, through their position in

social structure of prison, can either be paid or forced to

supply almost unlimited amount of drugs.

The second aim of the Irish Prison Service's anti drug

policy is demand reduction which should be achieved by

providing a "range of services that should be available to prisoners in each

institution" (Keeping drugs out of prisons, 2006, p.4). In

principle, the IPS strategy seems to be complex and

multidirectional, three main core tasks are to identify drug

users, provide them with treatment options and ensure thorough

care. Additionally, education and information campaigns should

be run to ensure that all prisoners are informed about

treatment options available to them and all healthcare staff


should promote healthy choice options at every available

opportunity (Keeping drugs out of prisons, 2006, p.11). It

seems to be a good, in-depth strategy, which addresses every

aspect of drug misuse in prison. But on closer inspection, its

implementation reveals that all of the above simply translates

into the use of a methadone as a main tool in tackling the

drug problem. O'Mahony noticed that methadone has become "the

most important drugs treatment in the Irish prison system" (O'Mahony, 2008 A,

p. 11). His words find confirmation in numbers provided by the

IPS. In the year 2000 the number of prisoners on methadone

treatment was 65 but in 2010 that figure reached 2,424 (Irish

Prison Service, 2010, p.29). It is a significant rise.

O'Mahony points out as well that IPS official policy is to

make prisons a drug free environment while at the same time

there are a large number of prisoners who can still use a

synthetic, legal opioid (O'Mahony, 2008 A, p.11). It raises

the question if those prisoners are using methadone to beat

their habit or if they are using methadone as a safe way to

get through a prison sentence with a constant supply of drugs.

If one looks at the figures for drug tests in Irish prisons

for 2009, one would find out that for example in Mountjoy


prison out of 6102 tests 84% came back positive for

methadone. Interestingly at the same time 58% came back

positive for opiates and 44% for cannabis (Drugnet, 2010,

p.24). Methadone use in a prison context is not so simple and

as emphasised in the Council of Europe report "methadone(...)

should only be prescribed as part of a comprehensive drug treatment programme

that includes engagement with addiction nurses and as required an addiction

psychiatrist" (Drugnet, 2011 p.27). Another concern in relation to

methadone use is that the use of it led to a tendency to

prioritise medical response to drug misuse (O'Mahony, 2008 A,

p.11) and that leads to the situation where other

approaches ,for example harm reduction, are omitted. Hughes

argues, based on the example of English prison policy, that

drugs policies should be supported by harm reduction as it can

be more effective in reducing drug-related harm, better than

the punitive, prohibitionist policies currently in use

(Hughes, 2003, p.51). Subsequent consequence of the medical

approach is that the IPS sees drug users as people who need

treatment. One could argue that it is a very narrow and

simplified way to look at drug users in prison. A recent study

of drug use patterns in the Finglas-Cabra area shows that


young people are very rational in their decision to use

illicit substances. That study used Zinberg's theory of drug,

set and setting. In his framework, drug is seen by his

pharmacological action, set as a mindset and attitude of

person at the time of use, setting as a social setting in

which use occurs and drug use is not a simple matter of

chemical dependency but a rational choice depending on

sociological position and environment. Applying this approach

to the Dublin study led researchers to the conclusion: "...Drug

users groups were seen to make functional choices based on the outcome (...),

effectiveness (...), quality of the drug and whether the users were hanging out at

home, on the street or partying" (O'Gorman et al., 2013, p. 52). What

does it mean for the prison reality? O'Mahony argues that

drugs are even more attractive for users when they are

incarcerated (O'Mahony, 2008 A, p. 7). Ben Crewe points out

that many prisoners state they only use heroine while in

prison (Jewkes et al., 2006, p. 241). Furthermore he argues

that for many prisoners drugs provide a means to deal with

insomnia and frustration, but above all the greatest

attraction of drugs lay in its capacity to "kill time" (Crewe,

2009, p.376). James Erwin, who is an ex-offender himself and


writes for the Guardian said "aggravation, boredom and little access to

meaningful activities are realities of prison life" (IPTR website). All the

above means that, in Zinberg's framework, prison is a perfect

setting for drugs and prisoners are in perfect set for using.

And perhaps a better solution to the drug problem in prison is

not necessarily medical treatment but simply offering

prisoners something meaningful to do. It has to be noted that

the IPS provides a number of programmes and courses at present

and the information on their website looks impressive. At the

same time it is important to remember that these services are

available to prisoners only on weekdays and on a 1-2 hours a

day basis with no classes on weekends. Alternative program

which could be worth looking at are a dog training program

which is running in American prisons in more than 20 states.

What is important about the programme is the fact that

involvement in it requires a prisoner to look after a puppy

for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is full engagement, it

does not leave time for anything else, and at the same time it

has a therapeutic effect on them. Dana Britton in her paper

noted "Participants believed that dogs help them to deal with anger, teach them

patience" (Britton et al, 2006, p. 15). Another program worth


mentioning is Run For Freedom which is a marathon running

program originally started in Rawicz prison in Poland and is

now conducted in around 20 other penal institution across the

country. It again requires full time commitment from

prisoners, constant training and a change in their life

habits. As one of the program coordinators mentioned "They

abandon their old addictions and lead a hygienic life" (Wlekly, 2012). These

programs are only some examples of meaningful activity in

prison but have one thing in common, they keep prisoners

occupied and lead to changes in their behaviour. Participants

of both programmes emphasised that for the first time in

prison they had hope, a goal, something to be proud of (see

Britton and Wlekly). Those programs certainly work in terms of

reoffending as Erwin emphasises in relation to UK academic

programs, reconviction rate for participants in the academies

was 18% compared to a prison average of 48% (James, 2012) but

to give an answer on how effective they could be in tackling

the drug problem extensive research would be needed.

In conclusion, drug policy plays an important role in an

Irish prison’s everyday life. It affects prisoners, their


families, and staff working within the prison. It affects both

users and prisoners who don't touch drugs alike. However what

has to be emphasised is the fact that it fails to achieve the

most important task, i.e. keeping drugs out of prison. To be fair to

the Irish Prison Service it must be said that in almost every

country prison staff have the same difficulties. In Denmark

the problem remains despite their best efforts: "Urine samples,

drug-sniffing dogs, higher fences, roofed prison yards and body searches are

effective ways of keeping drug out of prisons. Yet cannabis continues to flow in"

(Ringgaard, 2012). Strict policy has a very damaging influence

on family relations and tends to criminalise those who come to

prison just to visit relatives. Often regulations run contrary

to European Prisons Rules which say: "Communication and visits may

be subject to restrictions (...) shall nevertheless allow an acceptable minimum level of

contact" (Martym, 2012, p.33 -34). But above the all, IPS drug

policy focuses on prohibition and unrealistic targets which

leads to neglecting research. Deep study, perhaps in an

anthropological framework could shed some light on how, when

and why people use drugs in prison. Because the simple answer

they are addicted is probably not enough.


Bibliography:

Britton, D., Button, A. (2006). Prison Pups: Assessing

the Effects of Dog Training Programs in Correctional

Facilities. In Journal of Family Social Work 9(4): 79-95.

Council of Europe (2011). Report to the government of Ireland on

the visit to Ireland carried out by the European Committee for the prevention

of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CPT).

Strasbourg: Council of Europe. [URL]

http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/irl/2011-03-inf-eng.pdf

Crewe, B. (2009). The Prisoner Society. Power, Adaptation, and Social

Life in an English Prison. Oxford University Press.

Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs

(2009). National Drugs Strategy (interim) 2009-2016.

Dolan, K., Khoei, E., Brentari, C., Stevens, A. (2007).

Prisons and Drugs: A global review of incarceration, drug use and drug

serivces. The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme.

Report Twelve.

Drugnet Ireland (2010). Drug tests in Irish prisons. In

Drugnet Ireland Alcohol and Drug Research Newsletter. Issue 35 Autumn

2010.


Drummond, A., Codd, M., Donnelly, N., McCausland, D.,

Mehegan, J., Daly, L. and Kelleher, C. (2014). Study on the

prevalence of drug use, including intravenous drug use, and blood-borne

viruses among the Irish prisoner population. Dublin: National

Advisory Committee on Drugs and Alcohol.

Gorman, A., Moore, K., Piggott, K., Napier, K., Driscoll,

A., Emerson, D., Mooney, R., Fennelly, C., Gately, P.,

Foley, M. (2013). An analysis of current licit and illicit drug use

patterns in the Finglas-Cabra local drugs task force area. Dublin:

University College Dublin.

Hughes, R. (2003). Drugs, Prisons and Harm Reduction. In

Journal of Health & Social Policy. The Haworth Press, Inc. Vol.

18(2) .

Irish Prison Service (2010). Annual Report 2010.

Irish Prison Service (2013). Annual Report 2013.

Irish Prison Service (2006). Keeping drugs out of prisons. Drugs

policy and strategy.

James, E. (2012). Keeping ex-offenders lawful needs a

creative touch. In The Guardian 17 January 2012. [URL]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jan/17/stop-

reoffending-sport-creative.


Jewkes, Y., Johnstone, H. (Eds.) (2006). Prison Readings. A

critical introduction to prison and imprisonment. Willan Publishing.

Martym, M. (2012). Picking up the Pieces: The Rights and Needs of

Children and Families Affected by Imprisonment. Dublin: Irish Penal

Reform Trust.

Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee (2012). Mountjoy Prison

annual report 2011. Dublin: Department of Justice and

Equality.

O'Mahony, P. (2008 A). Key issues for drugs policy in Irish prisons.

Dublin: Drug Policy Action Group

O'Mahony, P. (2008 B). The Irish war on drugs. The seductive folly of

prohibition. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Ringgaard, A. (2012). Cannabis makes inmates behave. Science

Nordic. 23 November 2012. [URL]

http://sciencenordic.com/cannabis-makes-inmates-behave

Singleton, N., Pendry, E., Simpson, T., Goddard, E.,

Farrell, M., Marsden, J., Taylor, C. (2005). The impact of

mandatory drug testing in prisons. Home Office Online Report

03/05.

Wlekly, M. (2012). Skazani biegna do nieba. In Gazeta

Wyborcza 17 July 2012 (translated by author). [URL]


http://wyborcza.pl/duzyformat/1,127380,12143030,Skazani_b

iegna_do_nieba.html.


Irish prison policy and drug users

Documents

Transcript of Irish prison policy and drug users