Prisoners' rights group fumes over smoke-free jails plan:

[Praxius]

Prisoners' rights group fumes over smoke-free jails plan

A prisoners' rights group is fuming over Quebec plans to ban smoking by jail inmates either in their cells or outside, starting next February. Public Security Ministry officials announced the new rules on Tuesday. It's the no-smoking-outside rule that angers prisoners' rights advocates. "We do not understand why, because everyone in Quebec can smoke outside, and we don't know why the prisoners can't do that," said the president of Quebec's Prisoners' Rights Committee, Jean-Claude Bernheim. Jail guards and other personnel are permitted to smoke outside, while prisoners won't be allowed to, and that sets a double standard, Bernheim said. He said it will create undue tension between guards and inmates, and it will spark more illegal trafficking in jails. Bernheim said prisoners could be enticed to quit smoking while behind bars, but that would mean providing drugs and counselling. "We need to make a lot of resources, and they need money for that, and the government doesn't want to put money in prisons." Bernheim said in general there are too few programs for inmates, and smoking is a way for them to kill time. Even if prisoners are forced to butt out in February, Bernheim said, it won't have the effect of curing their smoking habit. Prisoners in the province's jails are generally in for an average of just three months. The Correctional Service of Canada banned smoking in federal prisons in January 2005.

This is in relation to the other smoking threads. What do you think about this?

Overkill if you ask me. They permit the jail gaurds and everyone else to smoke, but none of the prisoners....

You sure as heck can't tell me this is for their health....

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius Prisoners' rights group fumes over smoke-free jails plan This is in relation to the other smoking threads. What do you think about this? Overkill if you ask me. They permit the jail gaurds and everyone else to smoke, but none of the prisoners.... You sure as heck can't tell me this is for their health....

Prisoners are in prison to be punished: why do you presume that they're entitled to engage in behaviors that people who are not prisoners get to engage in?

[5010]

For the prisoners who committed serious crimes, I don't care about their smoking rights. For the prisoners who are caged for nonviolent stuff, letting them smoke isn't fair enough. Let them go.

[Osborn F Enready]

Violent, non-violent, part-time or life sentence makes no damn difference.

These people have a right to smoke if they smoked the day they walked through the door, it was allowed before, and they are paying for the smokes themselves.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Violent, non-violent, part-time or life sentence makes no damn difference. These people have a right to smoke if they smoked the day they walked through the door, it was allowed before, and they are paying for the smokes themselves.

They're prisoners in the custody of the state in facilities funded by the taxpayers: why should they be allowed to engage in behaviors that non-prisoners are allowed to engage in? Prisons are supposed to be punitive (we all know that there is no rehabilitation going on in those places). Since when do prisoners have the right to be treated like the prison staff?

I wonder if the province of Quebec has a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars or other indoor public places (like New York State has). If citizens who have not committed crimes are prohibited from smoking in such places, why should prisoners be allowed to smoke in facilities paid for by the taxpayers?

[Osborn F Enready]

Chancellor said: They're prisoners in the custody of the state in facilities funded by the taxpayers: why should they be allowed to engage in behaviors that non-prisoners are allowed to engage in?

Firstly, tobacco has been used by every society that has known about its existence.
Secondly, smoking is not the evil it is being portrayed as, and it is an individual choice. (if the prisoner can get the smokes, who is to say they can't smoke them?!?)
Thirdly, they aren't being imprisoned to keep them away from cigarettes, they are being imprisoned to pay the price for their wrongs committed against other individuals, or groups of individuals. (why is smoking an issue at all, in relation to prisoners?)

Chancellor said: Prisons are supposed to be punitive (we all know that there is no rehabilitation going on in those places). Since when do prisoners have the right to be treated like the prison staff?

They don't, but they also don't deserve to by cruelly or unusually punished. Being allowed to smoke isn't the same as being allowed to walk the yard without shackles or oversight, as a guard would be, and its not really any type of comparison.

Chancellor said: I wonder if the province of Quebec has a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars or other indoor public places (like New York State has).

Since they are socialized healthcare, it wouldn't suprise me.

Chancellor said: If citizens who have not committed crimes are prohibited from smoking in such places, why should prisoners be allowed to smoke in facilities paid for by the taxpayers?

Because smoking is an individual choice, and just because their authoritarian government votes to restrict those rights, doesn't mean I have to condone it, or stand by silently and watch.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Firstly, tobacco has been used by every society that has known about its existence. Secondly, smoking is not the evil it is being portrayed as, and it is an individual choice.

Agreed. The issue for me isn't the use of tobacco.

(if the prisoner can get the smokes, who is to say they can't smoke them?!?)

Because they're prisoners. They're being punished for crimes (whether what they're being punished for should be considered a crime is a separate issue). The time they're serving is supposed to be inconvenient for them. It's not meant to be comfortable for them.

Thirdly, they aren't being imprisoned to keep them away from cigarettes, they are being imprisoned to pay the price for their wrongs committed against other individuals, or groups of individuals. (why is smoking an issue at all, in relation to prisoners?)

It isn't about keeping them away from cigarettes, it's about the fact that they're prisoners.

They don't, but they also don't deserve to by cruelly or unusually punished. Being allowed to smoke isn't the same as being allowed to walk the yard without shackles or oversight, as a guard would be, and its not really any type of comparison.

What is cruel and unusual? One might argue that imprisonment for possession of marijuana is cruel and unusual (one might even argue that having laws against ingesting that plant are unconstitutional). However, being in prison, a facility paid for by the taxpayers, is not the same as being out in the community. Maybe if we stopped coddling prisoners while we're punishing law-abiding citizens the threat of prison might be more of a deterrent to crime.

Since they are socialized healthcare, it wouldn't suprise me.

Me either.

Because smoking is an individual choice, and just because their authoritarian government votes to restrict those rights, doesn't mean I have to condone it, or stand by silently and watch.

They're prisoners: why are they even entitled to choices? They're being punished for crimes.

[Osborn F Enready]

Not all choices are removed when you become a prisoner.

Not all "habits" or "enjoyments" are suspended while being a prisoner.

Smoking would fall under the same "enjoyments" or "habits" as reading, writing, washing, brushing teeth for some (should we ban books in prison to?)

Why should a prisoner be forced to serve two seperate sentences? (one to quit smoking against their will, and one to serve the term for the crime they committed)

[Netopalis]

I found the line about setting a double standard between guards and inmates laughable - there already is a double standard there - one group is behind bars, the other is free. This is, after all, the point of a prison.

Osborn: Not all habits or enjoyments should be allowed either - I certainly don't believe that shooting sports should be allowed in prisons, and to many it would fall under the same category. How about boxing? Should we build boxing rings in prisons? The list goes on...

[Osborn F Enready]

Netopalis said: Osborn: Not all habits or enjoyments should be allowed either - I certainly don't believe that shooting sports should be allowed in prisons, and to many it would fall under the same category. How about boxing? Should we build boxing rings in prisons? The list goes on...

Well, I don't think it is equal to shooting sports or boxing by any means, but, smoking HAS been allowed for as long as there have been prisons and cigarettes. Why the new concerns with smoking, if not for the latest trend of health scares regarding "2nd hand smoke"?

I am not saying prisoners should not be punished, but I also think forcing people to quit smoking will only lead to more violence, more smuggling, and more problems in prisons.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason they want to ban it is to pre-emptively avoid lawsuits by prisoners who were non-smokers claiming lung damage by fellow prisoners and guards who were smokers. I personally don't think any of this has any real validity.

If they are concerned with second hand smoke, there are ways around that that won't increase violence and the prisons black market.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Chancellor Prisoners are in prison to be punished: why do you presume that they're entitled to engage in behaviors that people who are not prisoners get to engage in?

lol.... I was waiting for this comment.... and is why I mentioned a relation to the other threads in regards to this.

Since when has smoking become a privilage as this portrays when many considder it a health hazzard? We have so many threads here on how we should increase taxes, drop ads, restrict the sales, etc..... but when it comes to prisoners.... it's now a privilage that they are now restricted from? What kind of logic is this? The Prison gaurds are allowed to smoke, anybody else who works there can smoke, but the prisoners can not?

What I don't understand is there seems to be a lot of distain for criminals for the sake that they are criminals in jail, and some think they shouldn't be allowed to smoke or do anything for that matter. Priosoners still have some limited rights as humans, and I don't see this as a practical punnishment method for prisoners..... and it's clearly not in view of their health, or this would show they don't care about the health of their gaurds, since they are allowed to smoke still.

The thing is, smoking is still a leagal practice and these prisoners are not breaking any laws by smoking.... except now.... and most agreed on the law for not smoking inside..... they're complaining about not being able to smoke outside or anywhere for that matter......

Physical Addictions are not the best thing to cut off cold turkey sometimes.... and if you got a prison full of smokers who all of a sudden can no longer smoke..... I think that might cause them to be a little more.... um..... short tempered, edgy, etc.

If prisoners shouldn't have anything to do recreationally because they are prisoners as some here commented.... and therefore shouldn't be allowed to do things non-ciminals do.... then why not remove the TV's in the lounges, why not just get back to just feeding them bread and water, why even supply them an exercise court or basketball hoops? Why not just keep them in their jail cells until they served their entire sentance?

Plus, this jail in paticular claims that the most of their prisoners are there for minor things and only stay for about three months on average.... so this isn't mostly serious offenders we're talking about.

[5010]

For violent offenders, bread, water, shelter, and security is generous enough. If they can afford cigarettes, they can buy them when they are done serving time.

[ruksak]

I smoke. If I was in jail, I would want to smoke. If I was in jail, I wouldn't want to be in jail. Point being, you don't get want you want in jail, only what you need. Your basic human necessities are guaranteed by law (food, water, shelter, health-care etc.). Last I checked smoking cigarettes does not apply as a necessity.

Here in Indy, not only can you not smoke in jail, you can't smoke in Wal-Mart. Or any other publicly accessible building. Or state/city owned building. This includes several feet from the entrance to any building open to the public. Smoking break-rooms inside our place of employment are now a thing of the past. To ALLOW prisoners to smoke would qualify as a "double-standard".

[Praxius]

Quote by: ruksak I smoke. If I was in jail, I would want to smoke. If I was in jail, I wouldn't want to be in jail. Point being, you don't get want you want in jail, only what you need. Your basic human necessities are guaranteed by law (food, water, shelter, health-care etc.). Last I checked smoking cigarettes does not apply as a necessity. Here in Indy, not only can you not smoke in jail, you can't smoke in Wal-Mart. Or any other publicly accessible building. Or state/city owned building. This includes several feet from the entrance to any building open to the public. Smoking break-rooms inside our place of employment are now a thing of the past. To ALLOW prisoners to smoke would qualify as a "double-standard".

Same laws apply pretty much all over Canada, when it comes to smoking inside or near entrances.... hell, stores that sell tobacco can not have an ajoining entrance to a pharmacy.... we got some interesting laws for smoking.... including the abolishment of smoking rooms.

As you said, basic necessities... but if you're gonna pull something physically addictive away from a prisoner, as it goes for human rights and such, don't you think there should be proper programs in the jails for helping them kick the habbit to reduce suffering from withdraw? They have already said they have no plans on doing this, so they're leaving them high and dry.

The double-standard begins back in the new article:

Jail guards and other personnel are permitted to smoke outside, while prisoners won't be allowed to, and that sets a double standard, Bernheim said.

I agree about what you said:

Here in Indy, not only can you not smoke in jail, you can't smoke in Wal-Mart.

Nobody is disputing smoking inside, not even the prisoners.... it's the outside that is beyond reason at this point. You're gonna have hundreds of smoking prisoners not being able to smoke, walking around outside surrounded by gaurds who are smoking, and trying to kick a habbit in probably one of the not so great enviroments to be kicking a habbit, having those watching over you shoving their smoking in your face everyday isn't going to improve anything.

If you remove the smoking, why not remove everything else they are permitted to do, like exercise or play ball with one another? They're prisoners afterall.... why should they have anything?

[grandpa]

Laws against smoking might not qualify as "basic human necessities," either.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius lol.... I was waiting for this comment.... and is why I mentioned a relation to the other threads in regards to this. Since when has smoking become a privilage as this portrays when many considder it a health hazzard?

When the prisoners became the custody of the state.

We have so many threads here on how we should increase taxes, drop ads, restrict the sales, etc..... but when it comes to prisoners.... it's now a privilage that they are now restricted from?

I don't want increased taxes, dropped advertising, restricted sales, etc.

What kind of logic is this? The Prison gaurds are allowed to smoke, anybody else who works there can smoke, but the prisoners can not?

The logic is that prisoners are prisoners - they're being punished for committing crimes.

What I don't understand is there seems to be a lot of distain for criminals for the sake that they are criminals in jail, and some think they shouldn't be allowed to smoke or do anything for that matter.

I have disdain for criminals regardless of whether they're in jail. And, no, I don't think they should be allowed to have anything beyond their basic needs for food, clothing and shelter.

Priosoners still have some limited rights as humans, and I don't see this as a practical punnishment method for prisoners..... and it's clearly not in view of their health, or this would show they don't care about the health of their gaurds, since they are allowed to smoke still.

Their rights do not extend to being allowed to feed their addictions. Based on your argument, they should also be allowed to have alcohol, cocaine, PCP, etc. in prison. It's bad enough they're allowed to feed their caffeine addiction.

The thing is, smoking is still a leagal practice and these prisoners are not breaking any laws by smoking.... except now.... and most agreed on the law for not smoking inside..... they're complaining about not being able to smoke outside or anywhere for that matter......

Drinking alcohol is also legal, why not let them have alcohol in prison? They're prisoners: being in prison isn't supposed to be comfortable. Goodness, even on Navy ships there are times when smoking is not allowed: why should prisoners be allowed something some of our sailors in uniform aren't?

Physical Addictions are not the best thing to cut off cold turkey sometimes.... and if you got a prison full of smokers who all of a sudden can no longer smoke..... I think that might cause them to be a little more.... um..... short tempered, edgy, etc.

I really don't give a rat's behind about their addictions (by the way, your argument could also be applied to caffeine).

If prisoners shouldn't have anything to do recreationally because they are prisoners as some here commented.... and therefore shouldn't be allowed to do things non-ciminals do.... then why not remove the TV's in the lounges, why not just get back to just feeding them bread and water, why even supply them an exercise court or basketball hoops? Why not just keep them in their jail cells until they served their entire sentance?

Yes, let's remove the televisions, get rid of the lounges, and put them to work.

Plus, this jail in paticular claims that the most of their prisoners are there for minor things and only stay for about three months on average.... so this isn't mostly serious offenders we're talking about.

All the more reason to make it difficult for them: the deterrent factor. Then again, I think that instead of throwing people in prison for relatively minor things, we should employ the Singaporean practice of caning.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Praxius but if you're gonna pull something physically addictive away from a prisoner, as it goes for human rights and such, don't you think there should be proper programs in the jails for helping them kick the habit to reduce suffering from withdraw?

Recent studies have shown a far higher success rate for smokers who quit impulsively, rather than through programs that encourage the addicts "helplessness" and lack of self-sufficiency. I know first hand that the ill-effects of nicotine withdrawal are short lived and dissipate quickly. To dump money into prisoner addiction treatment will both waste taxpayer money even further on societies degenerates, as well as encourage their habit by injecting this "addiction disease" theory into their psyche.
The way you stop doing something is to STOP DOING IT! Not to continue to do it while learning how not to do it.

Quote by: Praxius it's the outside that is beyond reason at this point. You're gonna have hundreds of smoking prisoners not being able to smoke, walking around outside surrounded by gaurds who are smoking, and trying to kick a habit in probably one of the not so great environments to be kicking a habit, having those watching over you shoving their smoking in your face everyday isn't going to improve anything.

By this logic, watching the guards grab their lunch pail and head home for the day is somehow unfair as well. They have a far worse habit to tackle, the habit for a propensity to commit crime. Thats what they are in jail to address.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Chancellor When the prisoners became the custody of the state. I don't want increased taxes, dropped advertising, restricted sales, etc. The logic is that prisoners are prisoners - they're being punished for committing crimes. I have disdain for criminals regardless of whether they're in jail. And, no, I don't think they should be allowed to have anything beyond their basic needs for food, clothing and shelter. Their rights do not extend to being allowed to feed their addictions. Based on your argument, they should also be allowed to have alcohol, cocaine, PCP, etc. in prison. It's bad enough they're allowed to feed their caffeine addiction. Drinking alcohol is also legal, why not let them have alcohol in prison? They're prisoners: being in prison isn't supposed to be comfortable. Goodness, even on Navy ships there are times when smoking is not allowed: why should prisoners be allowed something some of our sailors in uniform aren't? I really don't give a rat's behind about their addictions (by the way, your argument could also be applied to caffeine). Yes, let's remove the televisions, get rid of the lounges, and put them to work. All the more reason to make it difficult for them: the deterrent factor. Then again, I think that instead of throwing people in prison for relatively minor things, we should employ the Singaporean practice of caning.

In response to all that, Fair enough.... you seem to have consistant priorities.... where you say they shouldn't have any of the above because they are prisoners and should be put to work..... it would be an additional deterrent for some to commit crimes..... however I would also like to point out something which I will also address with the above comment above yours:

Laws against smoking might not qualify as "basic human necessities," either.

True, smoking isn't really a right.... but if you're gonna haul away something someone has been smoking since perhaps their teens, don't you feel there is an obligation to have some kind of system in place to help reduce their addicted tendancies while they can not smoke?

Quote from the Original Article:

Bernheim said prisoners could be enticed to quit smoking while behind bars, but that would mean providing drugs and counselling. "We need to make a lot of resources, and they need money for that, and the government doesn't want to put money in prisons."

There are already programs and such in the jails for kicking heavy drug use that could have attributed to the crime they are in prison for.... but since there are not many serious crimes relating to smoking, it's kinda a loophole for assistance if you ask me.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius In response to all that, Fair enough.... you seem to have consistant priorities.... where you say they shouldn't have any of the above because they are prisoners and should be put to work..... it would be an additional deterrent for some to commit crimes.....

Yes.

however I would also like to point out something which I will also address with the above comment above yours: True, smoking isn't really a right.... but if you're gonna haul away something someone has been smoking since perhaps their teens, don't you feel there is an obligation to have some kind of system in place to help reduce their addicted tendancies while they can not smoke?

There is no obligation to have some kind of system in place to help people reduce the effects of withdrawal while they are not feeding their addiction. People choose to smoke and the consequences of that choice are theirs alone to bear (in the interest of disclosure, I smoke pipes and cigars).

Quote from the Original Article: There are already programs and such in the jails for kicking heavy drug use that could have attributed to the crime they are in prison for.... but since there are not many serious crimes relating to smoking, it's kinda a loophole for assistance if you ask me.

I think these programs should go away because I don't think the taxpayers should have to bear the cost of helping people alleviate the addiction resulting from chosen behaviors.

[ruksak]

Look at it this way. If you desire to smoke so badly, use it as encouragement not to steal DVDs from your local electronics retailer.