Cruel and unusual punishment?

[Nicko]

From July, inmates in all New Zealand prisons will be denied any kind of smoking. I'm no expert, but I can forsee a big rise in violence and behavioural problems in prisons with nicotine off the menu. On the other hand it might prove to be a big extra deterrant to crime. Imagine, you not only lose your freedom, but must immediately quit smoking too!

 

[jtpjc]

I remember a topic some time ago here on ECF about a study in a psychiatric hospital, I believe in Sweden, where smoking was prohibited. They discovered that, when administering nicotine to patients that were not any more allowed to smoke, the bills for new furniture dropped considerably.

 

[JustJulie]

Sadly, this isn't exactly something that's new. As of March 2010, half of the states in the U.S. banned smoking on prison grounds:

Half of states ban tobacco use in prisons - USATODAY.com

 

[Nicko]

Thanks for the replies. I didn't know that about U.S prisons. Nicotine withdrawal is a hideous thing for many smokers. Almost intolerable for so many peolple. That's why I describe it as cruel and unusual punishment. It's like denying food or subjecting prisoners to torture. Would any civilized society do that? Isn't it punishment enough for prisoners to lose their freedom? I thought tobacco use was perfectly legal. Apparently not in prisons.

 

[Liv2Ski]

As an ex smoker I can understand that not being able to smoke/vape will not be any fun for a prisoner but ---------- remember that smoking is not a right. Most inmates are in prison for a reason and maybe when they get out they will think about what a terrible place it is and become constructive members of society. Also note that as tax payers we are footing the bill for their stay. Now we know that smoking has considerable health issues and if someone with a 20 year term needs treatment for a smoking related sickness guess who has to pay for that.

 

[kristin]

If they don't provide some sort of nicotine, they will likely see a rise in behavioral problems. It's not a "right" but it's a form of self-medication for a lot of people and criminals obviously are at higher risk. I don't see this ban lasting unless they are going to start sedating the prisoners!

 

[BCB]

I had the same expectation when California's prisons banned smoking. My sister, who is a prison guard, said the only thing that changed was a new black market within the prison. If I remember correctly, one cigarette sold for $10. Reminds me of alcohol prohibition which created a whole new class of black marketeers. My sister, who is a smoker, says there's a lot of smoking still going on.

 

[Vocalek]

As an ex smoker I can understand that not being able to smoke/vape will not be any fun for a prisoner but ---------- remember that smoking is not a right. Most inmates are in prison for a reason and maybe when they get out they will think about what a terrible place it is and become constructive members of society. Also note that as tax payers we are footing the bill for their stay. Now we know that smoking has considerable health issues and if someone with a 20 year term needs treatment for a smoking related sickness guess who has to pay for that.

If they ever stopped ignoring the fact that a sizable minority (perhaps 20%?) of smokers become dysfunctional without nicotine, we would be looking at violations of human rights as the argument. People do have a human right to not be made ill. What if prisons decided to serve nothing but corn-meal mush for food and supplied no vitamin supplements? You would quickly see a prison population with a high rate of Scurvy, due to absence of Vitamin C, plus a boatload of other vitamin-deficiency diseases. (Sadly, with the way food prices are going, I could see some bean-counter thinking this would be a brillient money-saving strategy. After all, these prisoners are there for a reason. Eating a balanced diet is not a right.)

Perhaps prisoners should be allowed access to reduced-harm alternative sources of nicotine such as snus, NRT, and e-cigarettes. This would be the truly humane solution. No smoke, no protracted nicotine abstinence syndrome.

Sadly, the direct approach is often overlooked. Medical staff have noticed that smokers who are hospitalized in intensive care units often become agitated to the point of ripping out tubes and cathethers. Rather than treating the symptoms generated by nicotine abstinence by providing nicotine, they administer sedatives, painkillers, and antipsychotic medication. That's because they are afraid that giving ICU patients nicotine might endanger their health. Apparently they never read the list of side effects of the medications they are prescribing instread of nicotine.

Nicotine withdrawal symptoms agitate ICU patients--study | TheMedGuru

 

[Liv2Ski]

Fully understand about nic withdrawl. My point is that these are PRISONERS and are being punished for a crime that is bad enough to be incarcerated for. Now I would agree that if they are addicted to nic or any other substance then yes they should have treatment to break the addiction. I do however disagree that we as taxpayers should foot any bill to maintain the use past management of withdrawl. As for the food prisoners are given 3 meals a day and while not gourmet it is well balanced. I am not advocating withholding basic sustanance but only stating that they are there to do time for the conviction of a major crime and that luxuries at tax payer expense is not an option. Hell I can not smoke at work, in a bar, goverment building etc. why should they???? Additionally PV's would never be allowed since they would be used in various other ways.

 

[kristin]

Liv2ski - nicotine isn't just a "luxury" for a lot of people. And nicotine is a lot cheaper for taxpayers than the anti-depressents and other medications those prisoners will need to offset the need for nicotine/MAOIs/smoking. Not to mention the possible need for more staff due to cranky prisoners and fighting/killing over black market cigarette turf. AND the probable increase in illict drug use and subsequent medical care for overdoses.

This "fix" could end up causing a lot more problems for staff and higher costs for taxpayers in the long run.

 

[CJsKee]

I am sick to death of hearing that smoking is not a "right"! Audrey Silk, Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.), says it much better than I could:

"And I must respond to this straw man argument -- "no constitutional right to smoke" -- that anti-smokers have turned into a mantra drilled into the public's head. While it's true courts have passed down that ruling it's misleading out of context. This judicial opinion has only been attached to challenges over smoking bans, whereas in that case there's "no right to smoke" where the government has banned it. There has never been a case on the general question of "right to smoke" although that too would be misleading. Rather, the complaint would be the right TO BE LEFT alone to smoke (a legal product). But even all this is somewhat beside the point because anti-smokers would have you believe that if a "right" is not enumerated then it's open to infringement. Except anyone familiar with the concept knows that our founding fathers -- leery of people with ideas like the anti-smokers -- abandoned any idea to enumerate rights as it applied to the people and instead applied it to the federal government to have no other powers than those listed. Otherwise, to fool people with "no right to smoke" because it's not enumerated would mean you have to accept that because it's not stated otherwise we have no right to chew gum, no right to rollerskate, no right to sleep as late as we want, and on and on and on. This approach actually backfires on the anti-smokers. According to the Public Health Institute Technical Assistance Legal Center: " Note, too, that nonsmokers also are not recognized as a protected class, so equal protection claims brought by nonsmokers exposed to smoke in a place where smoking is permitted by law are unlikely to succeed." In other words, there is "no right to non-smoking." But it sure suits anti-smokers to conjure up "rights" when it suits THEM. Such as "children have the fundamental right to a safe and healthy environment..." What a landmine of open interpretation for intrusive legislating that usurps parental autonomy. The sun is carcinogenic. Fine parents for not putting sunscreen on their kids? Irresponsible (the definition open to debate) or not, government has no business interfering in cases such as this. Dr. Michael Siegel, a tobacco control researcher for over 20 years and supporter of workplace smoking bans, was once invited by a councilman’s office to attend a press conference as a supporter of such a proposed ban. This is why he declined: “The arguments being used to support car smoking bans to protect children’s health are faulty. It is a lot of rhetoric but very little substance. It does not trump all other arguments. Most children who ride in a car in which a parent is smoking for a short period of time will not develop any illnesses. Once we as a society decide that we are willing to invade the privacy of personal space (cars and homes) and interfere with parental autonomy in decision-making merely in order to address behaviors equal to feeding your child french fries we have removed the last barrier from the complete intrusion of the government into all aspects of our personal lives. The anti-smoking movement has transformed into a fanatical crusade in which the science doesn’t matter and in which the truth is being distorted. Bans on smoking in cars with children are not justified. This is a dangerous concept. We don’t want to go there.”

 

[skydragon]

Thanks for the replies. I didn't know that about U.S prisons. Nicotine withdrawal is a hideous thing for many smokers. Almost intolerable for so many peolple. That's why I describe it as cruel and unusual punishment. It's like denying food or subjecting prisoners to torture. Would any civilized society do that? Isn't it punishment enough for prisoners to lose their freedom? I thought tobacco use was perfectly legal. Apparently not in prisons.

NO..................

 

[AlmightyGod]

I think that people who show little, or no, sympathy for prisoners, have never had a relative or close friend make a mistake & have to serve time for their punishment. In the US, your are guilty until proven innocent & then stripped of all humanity. Tobacco isn't even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problems with our justice system. We take nicotine away from the prisoners & shelter the "haves" from ever seeing the inside of a cell. It's as bad as us all being children or grandchildren or etc of immigrants & thinking we should stop others from immigrating. There are two sides to every coin. A lot of people only see the heads or the tails....not bothering to see the opposing side.

 

[skydragon]

I think that people who show little, or no, sympathy for prisoners, have never had a relative or close friend make a mistake & have to serve time for their punishment. In the US, your are guilty until proven innocent & then stripped of all humanity. Tobacco isn't even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problems with our justice system. We take nicotine away from the prisoners & shelter the "haves" from ever seeing the inside of a cell. It's as bad as us all being children or grandchildren or etc of immigrants & thinking we should stop others from immigrating. There are two sides to every coin. A lot of people only see the heads or the tails....not bothering to see the opposing side.

Not true in my case AG.

There are of course different levels of crime in my opinion and yes there are many, many, problems with our judicial system. Including the fact that prisoners seem to have many more "rights" than we outside do.

As far as immigrants...........the immigrants of old made an attempt to live life here as an American. Now we are supposed to change America to fit the immigrants. According to them.......it is their right. I disagree.

 

[Vocalek]

Fully understand about nic withdrawl. My point is that these are PRISONERS and are being punished for a crime that is bad enough to be incarcerated for. Now I would agree that if they are addicted to nic or any other substance then yes they should have treatment to break the addiction. I do however disagree that we as taxpayers should foot any bill to maintain the use past management of withdrawl. As for the food prisoners are given 3 meals a day and while not gourmet it is well balanced. I am not advocating withholding basic sustanance but only stating that they are there to do time for the conviction of a major crime and that luxuries at tax payer expense is not an option. Hell I can not smoke at work, in a bar, goverment building etc. why should they???? Additionally PV's would never be allowed since they would be used in various other ways.

Who said the taxpayers should foot the bill? Who said prisoners must be allowed to smoke? All I am advocating is that the prisons don't go overboard and come up with rules that prevent the use of any form of nicotine. There really aren't any good excuses for prohibiting the use of something like snus, or (if it works for them) long-term use of NRTs, which could easily be paid for out of the prisoner's pockets. If they can afford smokes, they can afford smoke-free alternatives.

When you talk about "past management of withdrawal" it leads me to believe that you are among the lucky 80% who do not suffer from attention deficit disorder, memory problems, attention problems, and mood impairment when you are nicoitne-abstinent. For you folks, withdrawal really does only last a couple of days, or weeks at most.

For us "crazy folks" withdrawal is a never-ending imposition of dysfunction. The six months that I waited around for my so-called temporary withdrawal symptoms to go away were torture. Part of the torture was knowing that there were things I should have been accomplishing, but was not able to because my skills and abilities were impaired.

Some of that torture spills over. My husband was stuck carrying my share of the load while I was disabled. I have heard of cases where family members asked people to start smoking again because their impaired mood and unsociable behavior were unbearable for their family. Many people in prison have anger management issues, and taking away nicotine doesn't help. So let's think beyond the concept of "we shouldn't be too nice to those bad guys behind bars." It isn't that cut and dried.

I used the example of the corn-meal mush to drive home the idea that we would not permit prisons to limit food to bread and water. We understand that such a limited diet is not balanced and could make people sick. But we would not assume that if 80% of the people did NOT get sick on that diet it would be OK to ignore the distress of the 20% who did get sick.

Personally I would be much more comfortable with a prison system aimed at corrections rather than punishment. I cringe when I hear that people deserve to be punished for their crimes. Problems with eyewitness identification, false confessions extracted under duress, incompetent representation, snitches who lie, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, all work together to ensure that many innocents are punished along with the guilty.

Do I believe every prisoner is innocent? Of course not. But I do believe that prisoners should be protected from unprovoked violence by other prisoners (and prison staff) and treated as if they are humans rather than treated like animals. People in general have a tendency to live down to your expectations of them.

 

[Kempton]

up in Canada too, plus side is that tobacco is now being suitcased in the keester to get in and fewer drugs are getting in.

 

[Tiari]

You know, false righteousness runs rampant. If a Prisoner is incarcerated was a heroine addict, they would, of course, treat them and supply support, counseling and alternate drugs for withdrawal symptoms. Thats okay, but to not get help or nicotine replacement for smoking, when denied it, thats somehow a priveledge they should be denied? I'm sorry... I'm insulted by some of the responses here.

No matter what a prisoner has done, they are punished for it by Prison itself. We did away with barbaric treatment eons ago, and making someone suffer from an untreated withdrawal is inhumane, by ANY standard. Having a bed isn't a right. Having a toilet isn't a right, should we deny them that too?

 

[jlarsen]

I do show sympathy for prisoners. But let's face it, when you end up in prison, you lose a lot of rights. Is smoking a right? If you aren't in prison, yes. I have the right to go to Walmart at 1:50 a.m. and buy a six pack of beer, in prison I wouldn't. Does a prisoner have a right to smoke? Apparently not in half of U.S. state prisons, or federal prisons. If I were confined to a 96 square foot cell, and denied all the other creature comforts we all take for granted... I think smoking would be the least of my worries.

 

[Vocalek]

I do show sympathy for prisoners. But let's face it, when you end up in prison, you lose a lot of rights. Is smoking a right? If you aren't in prison, yes. I have the right to go to Walmart at 1:50 a.m. and buy a six pack of beer, in prison I wouldn't. Does a prisoner have a right to smoke? Apparently not in half of U.S. state prisons, or federal prisons. If I were confined to a 96 square foot cell, and denied all the other creature comforts we all take for granted... I think smoking would be the least of my worries.

For you, that might be true. I don't think you are quite grasping the level of distress that those of us who are not like you go through when our neurochemical balance is disrupted.

When you are curled up in a ball, you don't begin to use up all of those 96 square feet. When you are crying your eyes out, and trying to think of the least painful way of committing suicide, you aren't concerned about creature comforts. You don't even want to get up from the bed, much less drive to Walmart to buy a six-pack.

 

[rothenbj]

Liv2ski, you have a lot more faith than I in our justice system.

Do a google on "dna frees convicted criminals". Most of the stories are on murder/rape type cases. I have personal knowledge of a case that I sat through where my gf's son was a witness and participant in a fight between three friends (outside a bar of course). One owned a firearm and he was convicted of hitting one of his buddies with it. I only met the guy once and I knew the other two pretty well but listening to the testimony I would have found the kid innocent of the gun charge. The court appointed defense attorney was incompetent. I left in the early afternoon of the second day, but about four hours later he was sentenced to two years in jail.

*added* Well stated Elaine, as I just now read your response. Especially the "corrections rather than punishment" point.