Michael, Clinton's rhetoric on fighting drug use is just that...rhetoric. Before election time, candidates need something positive to rally behind, so the subject usually always turns to fighting drugs, crime, welfare reform, taxes, etc. They need to say something that gets to the heart of all of us, and fighting drug use, whether it's in our prisons, schools, or work, is a subject he can't go wrong on.
We all know that drug use in our prison system today runs rampant. What good would drug testing really do? And, after you've found that a prisoner has been under the influence, what do you do? Do you send him for counseling, which will cost an untold amount and only add to the cost of imprisonment, or do nothing, which doesn't cost you any more?
Our prison system is already overloaded today because we can't afford to build enough to house all of the misfits of society. Drug testing will only add more costs to a system that is already underfunded. Even if our prison system were to undergo widespread drug testing of inmates, my opinion is that Psychemedics' hair testing would not be used because it costs up to 10 times as much as a urine test (if my memory serves me right).
I believe that for Psychemedics to become successful, they will need to convince the public, such as worried moms, that their test is practical. Business would also be a potentially large market because of the need to hire competent, drug free employees. I don't think prisons will adopt this hair test because of the enormous costs of implementing such a system.
A hair test is beneficial where the subject knows he is going to be tested and, therefore, tries to skew the results by abstenance or other means. The hair will contain traces of the drugs for months on hand. An inmate could probably care less if he is found using drugs. What's the worse that could happen, that he get more jail time? If we were to begin drug testing of our prisons, I think that a simple, inexpensive urine test would suffice.
I could be wrong though. |
