Journal of Law, Information and Science
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Journal of Law, Information and Science |
|
Developing a Method for Site-Specific Wastewater Analysis: Implications for Prisons and Other Agencies with an Interest in Illicit Drug Use
JEREMY PRICHARD[*], CHRISTOPH ORT[Y], RAIMONDO BRUNO[*], CORAL GARTNER[Y], PAUL KIRKBRIDE[Ω], WAYNE HALL[Y], FOON YIN LAI[Y], STEVE CARTER[ƒ], PHONG THAI[Y], JOCHEN MUELLER[Y] AND ANNA SALINAS[◊]
In recent years techniques developed by environmental scientists to measure pharmacological pollutants in waterways have been adapted to analyse traces of illicit drugs. In Europe and North America samples from public sewerage systems have been studied and a wide variety of illicit drugs have been identified. The findings have been used to estimate the prevalence of illicit drug use in the general community. This article discusses the potential for site-specific wastewater analysis (SSWA), which concerns the study of samples from specific locations, such as prisons. It explains how this might be done and the potential benefits SSWA could provide for prison systems. The article also explores contributions that SSWA could make in the sectors of health, criminal justice and law enforcement and opens up discussion of the ethical and legal implications of this developing area of science.
The criminal justice system is generally understood to consist of several interlocking parts that include corrective services and prisons. Prisons vary in size, scope, functioning and purpose internationally. An estimated 9.8 million people were incarcerated in prisons around the world in 2008, with 27,615 of those imprisoned in Australia.[1] One commonly accepted objective of the prison system is the rehabilitation or reintegration of offenders into society. A major obstacle to this objective is drug use by prisoners, a fact that is recognised by Australia’s National Corrections Drug Strategy.[2]
Section one of this précis article discusses the effects of drug use in the prison context and its potential ramifications for society. It then explains the difficulties associated with preventing illicit drug markets from operating within prison. One fundamental problem faced by prison authorities to date has been the absence of an objective method of measuring the prevalence of drug use among prisoners. Without such a method, it has been very difficult to evaluate the impact — intended or otherwise — of drug intervention strategies.
Section two describes a promising new strategy for addressing this problem, namely the estimation of drug consumption through the analysis of prison wastewater using mass spectrometry. Postigo, Lopez de Alda and Barcelo[3] are the first team to have published results of prison wastewater analysis. However, this précis article suggests how the method employed by Postigo, Lopez de Alda and Barcelo can be refined to measure the impact of strategies to reduce drug use in prisons.
In the final section, this précis article discusses future applications of what it calls ‘site-specific wastewater analysis’ (SSWA), which means the analysis of wastewater from specific locations, including buildings. The article predicts that SSWA may eventually be employed in a variety of contexts, including law enforcement operations (targeting, for instance, private residences), agency integrity, and corporate compliance with environmental legislation. The article concludes by highlighting the potential ethical and legal issues that this raises, including its impacts on human rights, criminal procedure and rules of evidence.
Despite their high level of security, it is frequently difficult to prevent illicit drugs entering prisons.[4] Drug use can have serious deleterious effects on prisoners, far beyond the physical effects of the substances themselves. Prison drug markets are interrelated with violence,[5] unsafe sex practices,[6] drug-related deaths,[7] and transmission of blood borne viruses (BBVs), such as HIV and hepatitis C, through shared injection equipment.[8] Prison populations have a high frequency of mental disorders,[9] which may be exacerbated by drug use.
Continued drug use post-release is common. A study of ex-prisoners in Queensland found that by one month post-release more than half had returned to illicit drug use, with 29 per cent injecting drugs.[10] Drug use represents a major barrier to the reintegration of inmates into the community; it is strongly associated with criminal behaviour, unemployment, relationship instability, and prostitution.[11] Prisons with strong drug markets enable inmates to maintain or develop drug dependence. Finally, prison drug use directly affects the community through, among other things, contributing to crime and BBV transmission. Indeed, prison drug use is a major rate-limiting factor in efforts to curb escalating rates of BBV infections in the community.[12]
Accurately measuring the prevalence of prison drug use is very difficult. Self-report studies have proved to be quite reliable among cohorts of arrestees[13] and non-criminal populations where confidentiality is assured by researchers.[14] But their efficacy is questionable in scenarios where participants may fear negative consequences for giving truthful answers,[15] which clearly applies to prisoners during their incarceration. Inmates may also be motivated to underreport drug use to discourage disruption of drug markets by prison authorities. Such factors may partially explain variance in the findings of Australian self-report studies. For example, in the NSW setting, Kevin found that 63% (N=265) of male inmates reported using illicit drugs in prison,[16] whereas the rate found by Richters et al was 32.7% (N=1,118).[17] In recent interviews with self-identified injecting drug users (N=881), 457 reported that they had served prison sentences. Of these, 42.2% stated that they had injected drugs during their sentence.[18]
Biological measures of drug use in prisons may have advantages over self-report. Urine testing in prisons in Victoria (N=30,718) and NSW (N=11,130) found drug traces in 3% and 14% of cases respectively, with cannabis the most commonly detected drug.[19] However, there are a variety of problems with urinalyses. Many drug classes are only detectable for a brief time following use, and there is anecdotal evidence that urinalyses may encourage inmates to ‘switch from “soft” drugs (such as cannabis) to less long-term detectable “hard” drugs’, such as heroin.[20] Tests are also costly,[21] and hence are often only deployed on the basis of suspicion of use rather than randomly, obscuring the true prevalence of drug use. Random urinalysis schemes can also be susceptible to corruption if inmates are ‘tipped off’ in advance of sampling.
Other biological methods include saliva tests, which lack usefulness because they only detect very recent drug use (up to 24 hours).[22] Hair analysis (immunoassay) appears to underestimate the sporadic heroin use that occurs among prisoners, although it may be useful when combined with self-report studies.[23]
A wide variety of strategies are used to respond to prison drug use. Some strategies aim to reduce drug-related harms without reducing use, such as needle exchange programs. Other strategies aim to reduce the supply of drugs in prison and inmates’ demand for drugs by, for example: drug detection and deterrence (urinalysis, sniffer dogs, and cell searches); provision of drug treatment (methadone maintenance, counselling); or creating drug free units (reward for abstinence).[24]
In Australia, data on the use of these strategies has been described as ‘poor’.[25] Still, available data suggest that the cost of supply and demand reduction strategies in prisons is not insignificant. For example, between 1999 and 2000 the total cost of detoxification and associated services in NSW was $4.3 million; in 2002-03, Queensland and Victoria spent $50,000 and $337,000 respectively on sniffer dogs; in 2003 South Australia spent $72,000 on 2000 urine tests.[26]
However, there is limited understanding of the effectiveness of these supply and demand reduction strategies. Black, Dolan and Wodak[27] reviewed prison drug strategies with the cooperation of all Australian jurisdictions. They concluded that ‘rigorous and comprehensive evaluation of supply, demand and harm reduction strategies is required’ regarding their ‘effectiveness, unintended consequences and cost-effectiveness’.[28] Regarding supply reduction strategies, inmates have reported that the high-cost interventions such as random urinalyses and sniffer dogs are greater deterrents than body pat downs and cell searches.[29] Yet, in interviews conducted with 74 Victorian prisoners in 1999, 64% felt that urinalyses had not altered prison drug use.[30]
Environmental chemists have been measuring pollutants, including traces of pharmaceuticals, in rivers, waterways and wastewater for decades.[31] Zuccato et al were the first to publish estimates of illicit drug use from wastewater analysis using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.[32] Similar studies have since been conducted in Europe and North America.[33] It appears that the most ambitious application of this approach was applied in 2009 in Oregon, USA, where wastewater samples from 93 sites across the state were collected and analysed.[34]
To date, the focus of these studies has been on a relatively limited number of illicit drugs including cocaine, amphetamine-related drugs (which includes amphetamine, methamphetamine and ‘ecstasy’), cannabis and heroin. Depending on the specific drug and its metabolites, the methods provide information that can be used to estimate the amount of drugs used. The technique measures the concentration of excreted primary stable metabolites of illicit drugs in wastewater. Despite the tiny concentrations of drugs measured, the technical difficulty with the process lies not with the detection and measurement of the drugs and their metabolites, but with the compensation for a number of physical influences. The concentration of excreted drug residues (DRs) must be corrected for variables such as the flow of wastewater, excretion fraction and population size served by the sewage treatment plant to finally yield a ‘back calculation’ of per capita consumption of a given illicit drug.[35]
The first report of SSWA originated from Spain. Postigo, Lopez de Alda and Barcelo measured the wastewater from one prison.[36] The bulk of sampling occurred on a daily basis for three blocks of 10–11 days in the months of July, September and December. The results of the study indicated that some drug types were used consistently, such as cannabis and cocaine, while use of other drugs, including heroin and amphetamines was more sporadic. Based on their findings the authors estimated that the level of drug use in the prison was ‘moderate’ and actually lower than estimated for a nearby city.[37]
The study highlights the potential application of SSWA in the corrective setting. The authors noted that the method provides reliable, objective, economical and near-real time data. Interestingly — and this is a point discussed further in Section 2.2, below — the authors also claimed that the privacy of individual inmates was safeguarded by the SSWA method.
Postigo, Lopez de Alda and Barcelo acknowledged that their SSWA method needs to be ‘investigated and refined’.[38] This précis article hopes to contribute to that process drawing on the experience of a multidisciplinary research team in Australia who are the authors of this article. The team is made up of chemists, sewer engineers, epidemiologists, drug researchers and legal academics. It has secured funding[39] to conduct analyses of public wastewater as well as to develop SSWA for the corrective services setting. Analyses of public wastewater samples began in November 2009 and the first wave of results are currently being analysed for submission to a peer reviewed science journal. At the time of writing, corrective services in two Australian jurisdictions had agreed to participate in a SSWA study of prisons. Sampling is anticipated to begin before the close of the 2010/11 financial year. A university human research ethics committee has approved the project.
There are two important and original aspects of the method designed for the upcoming prison SSWA study. These are (a) the method of sampling and (b) the application of the science longitudinally to sensitively measure the effectiveness of supply and demand reduction strategies within prisons.
Regarding sampling method, the current project will employ world’s best practice as described by Ort et al.[40] This system will maximise sensitivity and accuracy, which is particularly important for the intervention study that is explained further below. To be able to determine whether changes in drug consumption are due to a new intervention, a measure of the degree of uncertainty in the estimation is needed. Hence the need for an uncertainty analysis that encompasses among other things: the functioning of the sewerage system; sampling setup; variance in water flow and concentrations; and chemical analysis.
It is unclear from previous studies to what extent the research teams accounted for such uncertainties. Prison effluent is expected to be subject to high variation in short-term flow and concentration, due to a number of potential factors including the lack of long sewers and the lack of retention tanks in gravity sewers. Therefore any study not assessing these variations produces data of an unknown quality. By using an appropriate sampling mode and frequency, our prison research design will reduce total uncertainty significantly.
By providing a sensitive and accurate method of measuring illicit drugs in wastewater from specific buildings, the project will provide participating prisons with one-off objective biological data on the prevalence of drug-types within them. It is not intended that SSWA will replace other methods of measuring prison drug use. Indeed, it is also as important to stress that the proposed SSWA cannot be used to gather data on the drug use of individual prisoners. This means that SSWA cannot determine whether a prison contains 20 high users or 100 light users. Neither could SSWA provide information concerning routes of administration (nasal, intravenous, oral and so on) or the prevalence of poly-drug use. SSWA is also subject to different uncertainties and uncontrolled variables relating to sewerage engineering.
Nonetheless, it is expected that SSWA will prove more timely and cost-effective than existing methods of measuring prison drug use. It will also have a number of additional advantages. First, the research involves minimal impost on prison management. For instance, whereas inmate surveys typically require security provisions for interviewers, sampling for SSWA may occur several hundred metres outside the prison walls (depending on the sewerage system) and therefore not require significant involvement of prison staff. Second, the method does not rely on self-report being honest and accurate. Third, although there is variation in prison sewerage systems, SSWA can probably be more easily conducted covertly than urinalysis, reducing the problem of inmates reducing their drug consumption before testing or adulterating urine samples. Fourth, because SSWA does not identify an individual’s drug use, inmates cannot be penalised for having consumed drugs. This may mean that SSWA is less likely to encourage the use of ‘harder’ drugs in the way that urine testing is claimed to do.[41]
Additionally, as noted by Postigo, Lopez de Alda and Barcelo,[42] the anonymity of inmates is preserved by SSWA. This important issue arguably deserves further legal analysis in the common law setting, particularly in terms of assessing the legitimacy of prison urine testing programs. It should be noted that inmates can face disciplinary procedures for refusing to supply a urine sample (see for example, Corrective Services Regulation 2006 (Qld) s 6(t)). Indeed, of itself a refusal to supply a urine sample can be ‘taken’ to mean that the inmate provided ‘a positive sample test’ (Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) s 43(4)(a)). Positive urine tests can result in an inmate being dealt with for the commission of an offence or for a breach of prison discipline regulations (Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) s 43(2)). On this basis it could be asserted that urine tests encroach upon the common law right of an individual not to actively assist in their prosecution. This right, once described as a ‘human right’,[43] has been ‘jealously guarded’ by the courts.[44]
However, arguably the greatest potential of SSWA in the prison context is its use longitudinally to measure the effectiveness of supply and demand reduction strategies, thereby addressing a key need identified by Black, Dolan and Wodak’s[45] national review of corrective services. The intended design of this aspect of the research essentially involves an intervention study. Intervention studies test a hypothesized cause-effect relationship by implementing some process, and assessing the effect of this change. In this context, the ‘intervention’ introduced into the prison environment would be an individual supply or demand reduction strategy, which would be determined by liaison with the participating prisons taking into account their operational requirements.
To assess the effect of an intervention strategy, experimental methods developed from behavioural psychology can be applied. For example, using terminology from the field of single-case research designs, an A-B-A-B design could be applied to assess the effect of an intervention on the extent of drug use. In this design, ‘A’ refers to a baseline (no intervention condition) and B relates to an intervention (such as a particular supply reduction process, for example, random body pat-downs). In this design, drug use during a period prior to intervention (A) can be compared to drug use during a period during intervention (B). This intervention may be withdrawn (second A) and behaviour assessed: if the extent of drug use returns to that of the initial baseline, then this provides some support for a causative effect of the intervention (rather than some external cause of the change such as a restriction of drug markets outside of the prison), the case for which is strengthened if drug use is reduced again during a second intervention period (B). This design has its own control (the removal of the intervention), which improves the generalisability of the results across prisons, which may themselves have different drug-market dynamics.
In simple terms the design of the research could operate in the following way: A prison collaborating in the research may want to evaluate the effectiveness of urinalysis. Once the sampling equipment is in place, the prison could agree not to employ any particular strategies for a one-month period. So while the normal daily security systems and procedures took place, effectively over the month the sampling would record baseline drug prevalence. Then urine testing would be conducted in the prison population. At this point SSWA could measure the effect that urinalysis appeared to have, indicating for example, whether the urinalysis had any effect at all, whether effects differed between drug-types, and approximately how long the effect lasted. As noted above, this process of baseline measurement and intervention measurement would be repeated to improve generalisability of the results.
One of the appealing aspects of this design is that it has the potential to be applied to non-resource intensive strategies that corrective services may want to employ. For example, prison authorities may decide to change the way that deliveries are made on the suspicion that drugs are smuggled into a facility this way. SSWA could measure the impact that new procedures and practices concerning deliveries had upon drug consumption in the prison. This type of information may assist prisons to decide how best to direct their funds and resources.
A number of limitations exist with SSWA in an intervention study design. The method may be difficult to use to assess demand reduction strategies that are employed over a period of weeks or months. Secondly, the design is dependent on strong collaboration with prison authorities. This is not only relevant to, for example, the timing of interventions and in ensuring that inmates remain unaware of the study. If inmates learned of the study, there is a risk that prisoners would change their urinating habits — perhaps by urinating in exercise yards. Thirdly, the layout of prison sewerage systems will be critical to: whether representative sampling is possible; and whether the sewer pipes leading from the inmates quarters can be accessed independently of amenities servicing staff and visitors. Finally, intervention studies may be vulnerable to significant events in prison. For example, an attack on prison officers, or a riot may results in an increase in security, which might alter drug consumption and mask the effects of any intervention.
If the current research project supports the concept of SSWA, the method may be applied in a number of other epidemiological and criminological research settings. Large scale music festivals and dance raves are often associated with illicit drug use, especially ‘designer’ or ‘party’ drugs as they are popular among the peak age group for illicit drug use (teenagers and young adults). These are social occasions when drugs are likely to be consumed to enhance the experience.[46] Annual cross-sectional surveys of illicit drug use among attendees of the Big Day Out music festivals in Australia are already performed[47] and are seen as a useful method of monitoring drug use trends among young people. These ticketed events consequently present a potentially suitable setting for SSWA. Accurate estimates of the population size can be derived from ticket sales and being a relatively closed population representative sampling from the site could be possible. However, sampling may be constrained by the method of wastewater disposal employed (such as sewered disposal or mobile chemical toilet) and the number of suitable sampling sites.
Nightclub patrons have been identified as a population with a high prevalence of illicit drug use. For example, in one survey in Melbourne nightclubs, 20.6% of participants admitted to use (or intended use) of a party drug on that night.[48] Targeting wastewater from regions with nightclubs might be a particularly useful method of detecting new designer drugs as they enter the market. Sampling from a point in the sewerage system that collected wastewater from a number of these venues would be both more practical and ensure greater anonymity to patrons. Identification of such an ideal sampling location will depend on the characteristics of the sewerage system and requirements of the sampling equipment (such as the access to a power supply).
However, agencies other than drug researchers may develop an interest in SSWA with a view to gathering intelligence in discreet covert operations, some of which may culminate in criminal prosecutions. The SSWA method could be employed in cases not only involving drug consumption, but also drug manufacturing (by detecting drug-precursors in wastewater) or terrorist activities (by detecting materials used in, among other things, bomb making). In the law enforcement setting, SSWA could be used to target particular buildings — such as those belonging to suspected organised crime groups — or private residences. Equally, environmental regulatory agencies may seek to apply SSWA to detect whether particular industrial companies are breaching laws pertaining to pollution.
There is a clear need to consider the ethical and legal issues that may be raised by potential applications of SSWA. So far as research is concerned, arguably the SSWA studies proposed would satisfy criteria of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) (‘National Statement’) providing that the sample sizes were large enough to preclude the identification of individual participants. SSWA in the prison context will sample wastewater from several hundred people; the figures for nightclubs and music festivals are likely to be in the 1000s.
The fact that the studies produce anonymous, non-identifiable data is essential for a number of reasons, including that the studies concern illegal activities, namely drug possession and trafficking (see 4.6.1 of the National Statement). For prison studies it is important that publications do not name the facilities at which the research was conducted. Aside from alleviating concerns corrective services may hold about negative media exposure, it is important to protect the anonymity of participating prisons to avoid stigmatisation of inmates, their families and prison staff.
Subject to 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of the National Statement, SSWA could be seen as involving the concealed collection of human tissue (urine, blood particles and stool particles). However, human research ethics committees (HRECs) may be prepared to waive consent provisions when: the data produced are not individually identifiable; disclosing the study to the population group may alter toilet use and skew results; the results may benefit the health and welfare of the participants (in the prison context) and the wider community; and the findings will assist public agencies, particularly corrective services, to discharge their responsibilities to protect the health and safety of inmates and prison employees. Given these issues, it is the view of this paper that future studies of SSWA in the prison context should apply for ethics approval.
The circumstances are very different if SSWA is used by law enforcement agencies. Future cross-jurisdictional legal research on this topic will need to encompass criminal procedure, rules of evidence, tort law, property law and human rights. The primary purpose of using SSWA to monitor wastewater from a single building or a private residence will be to gather information on individuals. It is unclear whether law enforcement agencies will be required to obtain a warrant before taking such steps. Relevant legislation varies between Australian jurisdictions. Depending on the boundaries of a property and the point of access to sewers, SSWA may not technically involve an entry to premises in the usual sense.[49] Conversely, if SSWA can be conducted without a warrant, there does not appear to be any prima facie barrier to using the findings to apply for a warrant on the basis of reasonable grounds for suspicion.[50] Determining the admissibility of evidence obtained through SSWA is likely to be complex and depend on multiple issues that cannot be canvassed in this paper.[51] A human rights compliant approach would arguably preclude unlawful or arbitrary use of SSWA, and restrict its employment to scenarios that are (a) justifiable in democratic societies and (b), among other things, proportional to the aims of criminal investigations.[52]
SSWA is a nascent science. The chemistry involved in analysing wastewater samples is well established and robust but its use to study illicit drugs in wastewater from specific sites will require (a) careful attention to uncertainty analysis and (b) world’s best standards in wastewater sampling techniques. Arguably prisons are an ideal place to assess SSWA. The research planned by an Australian research team will potentially provide valuable information on drug use for participating prisons. As well as generating objective, biological data on the prevalence of drug use by inmates, intervention studies have the capacity to evaluate the effectiveness or otherwise of supply and demand reduction strategies. If the efficacy of this method is demonstrated, the results will be of international interest. There is also the potential to use SSWA in other defined areas or sites, such as nightclubs or music festivals. The use of SSWA for law enforcement purposes will raise novel ethical and legal issues that will also need to be addressed.
[*] University of Tasmania.
[Y] University of Queensland.
[Ω] Australian Federal Police, Data and Forensic Services.
[ƒ] Queensland Health.
[◊] Bond University.
[1] R Walmsley, ‘World Prison Population List’ (King’s College London, International Centre for Prison Studies, 8th ed, 2008).
[2] National Drug Strategy, National Corrections Drug Strategy 2006-2009 (2008).
[3] C Postigo, M Lopez de Alda and D Barcelo, ‘Evaluation of drugs of abuse use and trends in a prison through wastewater analysis’ (2010) 10.1016 Environment International, 1-7.
[4] R Woodham, NSW Department of Corrective Services, Briefing paper on drug trafficking into NSW correctional centres (1995).
[5] B Steels and D Goulding, ‘Predator or prey? An exploration of the impact and incidence of sexual assault in West Australian Prisons’ (Centre for Social and Community Research, Murdoch University, 2009).
[6] S-Y Kang et al, ‘HIV Transmission Behaviors in Jail/Prison Among Puerto Rican Drug Injectors in New York and Puerto Rico’ (2005) 9 AIDS and Behavior 377.
[7] C Albizu-Garcia et al, ‘Characteristics of inmates witnessing overdose events in prison: implications for prevention in the correctional setting’ (2009) 6 Harm Reduction Journal 1.
[8] E Wood, J Montaner and T Kerr, ‘HIV risks in incarcerated injection-drug users’ (2005) 366 Lancet, 1834-5; D Seal ‘HIV-related issues and concerns for imprisoned persons throughout the world’, 18 Current Opinion in Psychiatry 530.
[9] S A Kinner, The Post-Release Experience of Prisoners in Queensland (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2006).
[10] Ibid.
[11] T Makkai and J Payne, Drugs and crime: a study of incarcerated male offenders, Research and public policy series no 52 (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2003); H Johnson, Drugs and crime: a study of incarcerated female offenders, Research and public policy series no 63 (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2004).
[12] M Levy et al, ‘Prisons, hepatitis C and harm minimisation’ (2007) 186 Medical Journal of Australia 647.
[13] K McGregor and T Makkai, ‘Self-reported drug use: how prevalent is underreporting?’ (2003) 260 Trends and Issues in Criminal Justice 1.
[14] S Darke, ‘Self-report among injecting drug users: a review’ (1998) 51 Drug and Alcohol Dependence 253.
[15] L Harrison, ‘The validity of self-reported drug use in survey research: An overview and critique of research methods’ in L Harrison and A Hughes (eds) The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy of Survey Estimates (US Department of Health and Human Services, NIDA Research Monograph 167, 1997) 17; Ibid.
[16] M Kevin, Addressing prisoner drug use: prevalence, nature and context (NSW Department of Corrective Services, 2005).
[17] J Richters et al, Sexual health and behaviour of New South Wales prisoners (School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of NSW, 2008). In a large sample of the general Australian population aged 14 years and older, 38.1% of participants reported using illicit drugs some time in their lives. 13.4% reported using drugs in the previous 12 months: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey: first results, Drug Statistics Series number 20.Cat. no. PHE 98 (2008).
[18] J Stafford and L Burns, Australian Drug Trends 2009, Findings from the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS), Australian Drug Trend Series No 37 (National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 2010).
[19] E Black, K Dolan and A Wodak, Supply, demand and harm reduction strategies in Australian prisons: Implementation, cost and evaluation (National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales and St Vincent's Hospital, 2004).
[20] J Dean, ‘The future of mandatory drug testing in Scottish prisons: A review of policy’ (2005) 1 International Journal of Prisoner Health 163, 164; P Kendall and M Pearce, ‘Drug testing in Canadian jails: to what end?’ (2000) 91 Canadian Journal of Public Health 26.
[21] S Gore and A Bird, ‘Cost implications of random mandatory drugs tests in prisons’ (1996) 348 Lancet 1124-7; Dean, above n 20.
[22] Harrison, above n 15.
[23] J Shearer et al, ‘Hair analysis underestimates heroin use in prisoners’ (2006) 25(5) Drug and Alcohol Review 425.
[24] W Loxley, et al, The Prevention of Substance Use, Risk and Harm in Australia: A Review of the Literature (National Drug Research Institute and the Centre for Adolescent Health, 2004).
[25] Black, Dolan and Wodak, above n 19, xxiv.
[26] Black, Dolan and Wodak, above n 19.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid, xxiv.
[29] Kevin, above n 16.
[30] Black, Dolan and Wodak, above n 19.
[31] T Ternes, ‘Occurrence of drugs in German sewage treatment plants and rivers’ (1998) 32 Water Research 3245.
[32] E Zuccato et al, ‘Cocaine in surface waters: a new evidence-based tool to monitor community drug abuse’ (2005) 4 Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 14.
[33] M Huerta-Fontela et al, ‘Occurrence of psychoactive stimulatory drugs in wastewaters in north-eastern Spain’ (2008) 397 Science of the Total Environment, 31; Ternes, above n 31; A L N van Nuijs et al, ‘Spatial and temporal variations in the occurrence of cocaine and benzoylecgonine in waste and surface water from Belgium and removal during wastewater treatment’ (2009) 43 Water Research, 1341; E Zuccato et al, ‘Estimating Community Drug Abuse by Wastewater Analysis’ (2008) 116(8) Environmental Health Perspectives 1027; C J Banta-Green et al, ‘The spatial epidemiology of cocaine, methamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) use: A demonstration using a population measure of community drug load derived from municipal wastewater’ (2009) 104 Addiction, 1874.
[34] Banta-Green et al, above n 33.
[35] Some drugs, such as cocaine, yield more than one DR. Hence, one can estimate consumption from both these DRs to provide additional certainty in the estimation if there is a good match of the two estimates. For other drugs, the estimation method may require consideration of the contribution from the use of prescription drugs. For instance, the estimation of heroin consumption should take into account the amount of therapeutic excreted morphine from both morphine and codeine consumptions according to reliable audit data. Then, the net illegal morphine (that is, DR of heroin) can be estimated by subtracting the legal excreted morphine determined from prescription data from the total morphine measured in wastewater.
[36] Postigo, Lopez de Alda and Barcelo, above n 3.
[37] Ibid, 6.
[38] Ibid, 1.
[39] Financial assistance had been provided from: the Australian Future Forensics Innovation Network (AFFIN) as supported by the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, through the National and International Research Alliance Program; Queensland Health Forensic Services; and the Australian Federal Police.
[40] C Ort et al, ‘Sampling for PPCPs in Wastewater Systems: Comparison of Different Sampling Modes and Optimization Strategies’ (2010) 44(16) Environmental Science and Technology 6289; C Ort et al, ‘Sampling for Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) and Illicit Drugs in Wastewater Systems: Are your Conclusions Valid? A Critical Review’ (2010) 44(16) Environmental Science and Technology 6024.
[41] Dean, above n 20.
[42] Postigo, Lopez de Alda and Barcelo, above n 3.
[43] R v Demicoli [1971] Qd R 358, 372 (Stable J).
[44] Douglas Brown, Traffic Offences and Accidents (Butterworths, 4th ed, 2006) 211.
[45] Black, Dolan and Wodak, above n 19.
[46] C Duff, ‘The Pleasure in Context’ (2008) 19(5) International Journal of Drug Policy, Special Issue: Drugs and Pleasure 384.
[47] J Bryant et al, Drug use, hepatitis C and exposure to injecting among young people in Queensland: The Big Day Out Survey 2009 (National Centre in HIV Social Research, The University of New South Wales, 2009); J Bryant et al, Drug use, hepatitis C and exposure to injecting among young people in New South Wales: The Big Day Out Survey 2006–2009 (National Centre in HIV Social Research, The University of New South Wales, 2010); M S C Lim et al, ‘Surveillance of drug use among young people attending a music festival in Australia, 2005–2008’ (2010) 29(2) Drug and Alcohol Review 150.
[48] C Duff, ‘Party drugs and party people: Examining the “normalization” of recreational drug use in Melbourne, Australia’ (2005) 16(3) International Journal of Drug Policy 161.
[49] See K Warner, ‘The Right to Privacy’ in J Gans, J Hunter, K Warner and T Henning (eds), From Investigation to Trial: A Human Rights Perspective, (Federation Press, forthcoming).
[50] Ibid.
[51] Issues may include for example: whether the wastewater sample was obtained through an impropriety or illegality; the probative value of the evidence; the gravity of the charges against the accused; and inconsistencies with the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. See J Anderson, N Williams and L Clegg, The New Law of Evidence: Annotation and Commentary on the Uniform Evidence Acts (LexisNexis Butterworths Australia, 2nd ed, 2009), 662; J Gans and A Palmer, Uniform Evidence (Oxford University Press, 2010).
[52] Warner, above n 49.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2010/11.html