A Positive Check on Crime : Urinalysis Could Get Users Off Streets Before They Hit Again

By now it should be obvious that our efforts to control illegal drugs are not working sufficiently. Our attempts to prevent supplies of drugs from reaching the user, though for the most part not ill-advised, are simply not enough to keep the social problem within any reasonable compass.

Gangs attempting to monopolize the extremely profitable trade in heroin and cocaine have destroyed the social life of whole neighborhoods, causing untold misery to their law-abiding and decent neighbors. Many of the drug users, forced by the demands of drug habits that raise the price of their addiction, are committing crimes. Because of drug effects that lower impulse control, many have committed violent acts.

For years a debate has raged concerning whether drug use causes people to become criminal or whether the use of drugs merely happens to be one of the things that criminals do along with committing crimes. This answer is still not clear, but it is probably more accurate to say that many criminals use drugs rather than to say that drug use causes them to become criminals.

However, if the question is whether criminals become more socially destructive when they take drugs, the answer is a resounding yes. For years we have known that the number of crimes committed by a heroin addict is about seven times greater while he is using the drug every day--in other words, dependent on it--compared to when he is using it occasionally or not at all.

Now, recent studies of drug use among those arrested have shown an even higher concordance between criminality and drug use than we had thought. Urinalysis of those arrested for crimes has revealed that a staggering percentage of those arrested had recently used cocaine, PCP or heroin.

Los Angeles is not at the top of the list. Although 47% of its felony arrestees tested positive for cocaine, the percentage was even higher in New York City, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, while in San Diego and New York an even higher percentage than Los Angeles’ 16% tested positive for opiates (mostly heroin) on arrest. When we factor in the contributions to the arrest rate by those using amphetamines and PCP, it turns out that for all these cities about 70% of those arrested for robbery, weapons offenses and larceny test positive for at least one illegal drug other than marijuana.

What we must do is fairly clear. We must institutionalize routine urinalysis of those who are arrested for any of the typical crimes arising out of drug use, and then we must act on the information. Urinalysis is an accurate, although not foolproof, method that costs only $5 per person. It should be a requirement of all who are released on bail or, after conviction, placed on probation or released on parole. A positive urine sample must mean a return to jail for a relatively short period so that the effects of the drug dependence can, for the most part, wear off.

It is far more important that the enforcement of these rules be consistent than that the jail terms be long. First of all, we simply do not have the jail space to provide long terms for this type of offense, and, if we try, we will just deprive the system of the consistency necessary to get the message through to the drug users. Moreover, under these circumstances a more lasting cure for drug dependency is possible.

This kind of regimen is not without its disadvantages. First, it will require the police to go looking for those who miss urinalysis appointments, and, hence, it will put an increased burden on them; that burden initially may be only partly compensated for by the lowered criminality of those now compelled to be drug-free.

Second, the less-than-complete accuracy of the inexpensive urine test must be handled by institutionalizing a system in which someone could protest the results by filing an affidavit to be tested by a more expensive (about $70) foolproof method. Obviously some sanction would have to be applied for abusing the affidavit.

Finally, there are privacy concerns. It should be noted, however, that urinalysis of people who are arrested involves far fewer restraints on the citizen’s right to privacy than does the usual blunderbuss attempt to require urinalysis of government employees or other large groups who, as individuals, give us no reason to suspect their drug use. (Nor is it as expensive.) Statistics on the drug use of those arrested single them out. And there are no real constitutional doubts. If there is a good reason, those arrested--say, for drunken driving--may constitutionally be subjected to blood, urine or breath analysis, and those who are released on bail or, after conviction, on probation or parole forfeit even more of their privacy. They are subject not only to intrusive searches but to various restrictions on their autonomy as well.

Few of the restrictions on the privacy and autonomy of defendants in the criminal system make as much sense practically as requiring urinalysis to monitor their use of drugs.

There is one more issue that in the long run may be even more important than the reduction in criminality that is promised by mandatory urinalysis of those who are arrested for drug-related kinds of crime. For years the drug-producing nations have argued that if they cannot control their production of illegal drugs, neither can we control our consumption. Now we may be able to do better at this. It appears that those who are both criminals and drug consumers are not merely a random selection of drug users. They tend to be the heaviest users, consuming a high percentage of the illegal drug supply that is available. If we can bring their use under control, we may be able finally to deal a major blow to the illegal distribution networks that are plaguing us.

The irony is clear. For decades we have attempted to get at the sellers as a way of preventing the use of drugs; now we may well have the means to get at the users as a means of restraining the sellers.