Selective Reasoning !

From the start of July a total ban on smoking descended on Victorian prisons and a similar imposition will commence in New South Wales in August.  Prisoners in the Metropolitan Remand Centre in Melbourne rioted in protest and the television news showed ugly scenes of windows being smashed and public property burned.  Relatives of those held in this prison may have found it ironic to see prison warders and response group police mustered outside the prison, waiting for the command to breakup that riot - puffing away on cigarettes.

It does raise a point !   Smoking tobacco is still a perfectly legal activity and nicotine products are openly sold in shops.  Every year, new restrictions on smoking come into force.  We may not smoke in enclosed offices, wherever food is served, on trains and public transport - or even in our own cars if we have children present - but there is no restriction on smoking in our own homes or in the outdoors of our place of residence.

It could be argued that a person incarcerated in a prison is - unwillingly - forced to accept that as his or her home for the length of the term to be served.  It seems that this smoking ban is intended to guard the health of non-smoking other prisoners and the prison staff employed to be their guardians.  It would be perfectly reasonable to ban smoking in the cell blocks and the dining hall, but surely this is breaking new ground when it applies to the open exercise yard and other outdoor areas.

It is common to see people congregate outside office blocks and hospitals to have a " quick puff ", and yet this option is being denied prisoners. It certainly raises some interesting arguments from both sides of the anti smoking debate.

It can be argued that alcohol is also a perfectly legal product and yet it is forbidden to those in prison.The effect of alcohol on the human bodily function is to remove normal control on both mind and body and act as a stimulant.  Just as narcotics are banned for similar reasons, this is a preventive control measure, but there are no known mind altering changes arising from the use of nicotine.

Health professionals are adamant that smoking can cause cancer and shortens the life span of users in many other ways.  It can be argued that imposing a smoking ban is a health measure while the prisoner is in government care to allow that person to withdraw from a known health hazard, and upon release have the opportunity to continue this life saving measure.   Of course, this is a form of compulsion that the government would not dare impose across the broad spectrum of the population.

At best, this will be a brave decision with worthy intentions that simply designates tobacco as a new item of prison currency.   We have had no success with keeping drugs out of prison circulation and there is no prospect that control of tobacco will be any different.  In fact, those engaged in the supply of illicit drugs will probably welcome tobacco as a new item of contraband because the penalty for getting caught will be much less than for narcotics - and yet the profit margins will be unchanged.

The staff who man prisons will be those most affected - and many will dread it's coming into effect.  The ratio of smokers in the prison population is much higher than in mainstream Australia and many who now reside behind bars are there because we lack the facilities to treat psychiatric illnesses, other than to use the prison system to keep them out of circulation.   Withdrawal from tobacco is likely to lead to frenetic episodes of tension between prisoners, with consequent overlap between prisoners and staff.  There is the likelihood that prisons will become more dangerous places - for all concerned.

The question many will ask is - "What has this achieved ?  "- and there is no clear answer.  Any reduction in the smoking rate will please the health industry but if it comes at the cost of stoking withdrawal sourced prison upheaval and soured relations between prisoner and guards it will come with a Pyrrhic price.