• 12 percent reported IV drug use only in prison,
• 20 percent had used IV drugs only on the street,
• 68 percent reported using IV drugs both inside the institution and on the street,
• 89 percent reported sharing a needle at least once,
• 19 percent reported sharing a needle only on the street,
• 23 percent reported sharing a needle only in prison,
• 47 percent reported sharing a needle both inside the institution and outside (Jürgens 1996:20-21).

Prisoners admit that the sharing of injection equipment inside institutions is prevalent and “…that sometimes 15 to 20 people will use one needle without cleaning it” (Jürgens 1996:2). Moreover, only 57% of prisoners who admitted to using IV drugs in prison reported they were sure their equipment was sterilized. Obviously, when the possession of injection equipment is a punishable offense, the numbers of available injection equipment will be low, and inmates will share. Based on these alarming findings, Jürgens postulates that “the idea of a drug free prison does not seem to be any more realistic than the idea of a drug free society and institutional stability may actually be [increased] by moving beyond this concept” (Jürgens 1998:10).²

There are a number of reasons why it is difficult to gain an accurate picture of drug use behind prison walls. As previously discussed, the right of prisoners to refuse to submit urine samples for testing in Canadian prisons significantly decreases the ability of CSC’s random urinalysis program to accurately assess institutional drug use trends. Secondly, the rapid turn over of prison populations creates an interesting challenge for researchers attempting to develop accurate assessments of drug use in prisons. In particular, “snapshot” studies done at one institution may not provide accurate assessments of drug use throughout a given correctional system. Thirdly, a review of urinalysis testing procedures reveals that there may be predicable “windows of opportunity” that allows inmates to use drugs without being detected. In particular, testing data revealed a majority of urinalysis tests happen on weekdays, specifically in the second and third weeks of the month. In fact, 10% of tests occur on the weekend, although in true random testing one would expect 28% of tests to occur on weekends (MacPherson 2001). Given the short detection time for drugs like heroin (2-3 days), it is possible that some amount of drug use in Canadian prisons is not being detected by CSC’s “not quite random” urinalysis testing.³ Consequently, CSC’s use of data generated from random urinalysis programs may not be providing an accurate account of drug use in its prisons. The negative impact of the sanctions imposed upon prisoners who have tested positive for cannabis use will be discussed further in the next section.

² The recognition of these types of problems has prompted CSC to provide bleach kits to sterilize injection equipment apparently with the tacit understanding that residents of their institutions will share needles if new ones are not available. Through “harm reduction” measures such as these, CSC hopes to reduce the risk of spreading blood-borne diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C. The harm reduction approach allows a drug user to participate in drug use without judgment while providing counseling and support to address the issues in their lives that led to drug use in the first place. This is in direct contradiction to the traditional abstinence model of drug rehabilitation which implies that a drug user must first stop using drugs, and then get their life in order.
³ It has been this writers experience while working in a halfway house in Vancouver B.C. that some prisoners reach the community and are caught for heroin or cocaine use on urinalysis without any indication of heroin/cocaine use while they were incarcerated. Thus, some individuals that this writer has worked with have apparently been able to continue their drug use for several years without detection while incarcerated.