Some Prison News

An assortment of readings. Smoke gets in your eyes:

Getting over the fact that there’s even a group of MPs committed to eradicating the pastime of others, as you can be sure none of these joyless bores actually smoke, one cannot help but laugh at the audacity of such claims.

Firstly, smokers don’t necessarily die early. I remember my Granda enjoying a crafty fag well into his 80s when many of his non-smoking friends had already kicked the bucket. To make such a sweeping generalisation is to ignore the fact that many smokers live long and healthy lives, and that we have all met ones that do.

Secondly, smokers don’t actually cost the NHS anything. They pay for themselves, many times over. Ignoring the fact that the smokers getting lung cancer sits at just 16%, so the vast majority will not cost the NHS anything, in 2012 the cost of treating smoking related illnesses to the NHS was £6 billion. In that year alone the state raised £9.5 billion in tobacco duties. And £2.6 billion in VAT from the sale of cigarettes. So, in reality, smokers actually subsidise the treatment of non-smoking related diseases. I could die of lung cancer twice and still not have cost the NHS anything over what I’ve paid for in tobacco duties.

But the biggest fallacy being trotted out here is the logic behind it. For about 50 years the health puritans have been telling us that no-one will smoke in 20 years or so if they just kept on hectoring us through the tax system. Yet there have never been more smokers on this planet.

Ex-prisoner writes about prison smoking bans:

Unlike tobacco in the wider society, tobacco in prison plays a huge role in prisoners’ lives. Tobacco isn’t merely a diversion. It is the default prisoner currency, the standard unit of trade that all other commodities are valued against. As such, banning it would have the same social effects as if Government suddenly banned the cash in your wallet or purse. Sans tobacco, some other substance will become the default currency and the only candidate is heroin…

Banning tobacco, then, will have the key consequences of instantly dismantling economic structures which have stood for decades; will destabilise the social structure; reduce intelligence; tempt staff to smuggle; and throw social power into the corrosive and unstable hands of heroin dealers.

I can’t think of a more damaging policy.

And when released they start smoking again:

THE vast majority of prisoners banned from smoking in jail light up within days or weeks of being released, a new study shows.

Three months after smoking was outlawed in Victorian jails — sparking a riot at the Metropolitan Remand Centre — a report has found up to 63 per cent of prisoners ­resumed smoking on their first day of freedom.

And six months after ­release, 97 per cent of ex-­inmates had relapsed.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Some Prison News

  1. jaxthefirst says:

    Of course pretty much all prisoners light up the second they are released from a “smoke-free” jail. For a smoker found guilty of transgressing the law, being forced to give up smoking when he/she doesn’t want to is as bad a punishment as being locked up in the first place. So, the idea that a smoker, forced against his will to go “smoke free” – whether for six months, a year or ten years – wouldn’t start again the moment he was released is as ridiculous as the idea that a prisoner, once his sentence was served, would request an extension to it in order to remain “inside.” Who in their right mind would actively want their punishment to continue a moment longer than it had to?

    And forcing people to give up smoking is a punishment – make no bones about it. It’s one of the reasons why anti-smokers despise e-cigarettes so much (don’t be fooled by the ones who say they don’t hate them – they’d move onto e-cigarettes in a heartbeat with the same vindictiveness as they have on real smoking if e-cigarette use started to eclipse real cigarettes in a major way) – because e-cigarettes are, for many people, a way of giving up smoking without the suffering that comes with giving up any other way. And the suffering associated with giving up smoking is, for the anti-smokers, part of the “punishment” of having dared to defy them by becoming a smoker in the first place.

  2. Smoking Lamp says:

    The Antis are pushing for bans everywhere they cam. They are emphasizing these prison bans because there is loyal political support for prisoners. Step by step they are pushing for a smoke-free end state. Other examples are outdoor bans that target the homeless.

    Every means of resisting and overturning these bans must be explored.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The courts just wouldn’t be bothered by this man anymore,they already had him marked to lose any right to fight back from long before……..

      Hoddle St killer Julian Knight loses bid to overturn prison smoking ban

      HODDLE St killer Julian Knight has lost a bid to overturn Victoria’s jail smoking ban.

      Knight took action in the Supreme Court, arguing Correction Victoria boss Jan ­Shuard ignored the threat of riots in the light of the ban.

      He also sought an order overturning a prison policy to not approve the sale and use of e-cigarettes by inmates.

      But the court refused to grant Knight leave to start proceedings because it was similar to previous failed actions.

      Knight, who has launched dozens of court cases from jail, was declared a vexatious litigant in 2004 and must seek court permission to bring in new proceedings.

      Inmates at the Metropolitan Remand Centre launched the worst riots in Victorian ­history over the smoking ban. They smashed doors, windows and fences, started fires and damaged staff areas.

      After the June 30 riots, Knight was moved to solitary confinement over suspicions he was trying to incite a similar uprising at Port Phillip Prison.

      The Supreme Court also dismissed a bid to try to force Ms Shuard to return Knight to his mainstream unit.

      They wont publish any comments at all

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        When theres no justice in the courts or the law making bodies theres only one recourse.

        Ignoe their laws in mass everywhere……………live as we always did regardless of what they do to you. That is what finally gets action hundreds and even thousands being jailed and fined for smoking when and where they want……….

  3. slugbop007 says:
    A 2010 article on the UK government axing 192 quangos. The axe wasn’t sharp enough.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    World Atlas: More People Smoking Cigarettes than Ever

    There are more people smoking now than ever before, despite health warnings and the rising price of cigarettes. In 1980, 4,453 billion cigarettes went up in smoke, which increased to 6,319 billion in 2010. By 2020, you can expect to find nearly seven billion cigarette ends littering the world.

    Top of the charts in terms of nicotine addiction are Asia and Australia, which is where 57 percent of cigarettes are smoked today.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Tobacco control versus democracy

    Posted on October 12, 2015

    A recent policy brief by the Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) at Bath University, cheerfully regurgitated by the Guardian at the weekend, claims that ‘transnational tobacco companies’ promoted and exploited the EU’s Better Regulation rules to delay public health measures.

    The authors used the consultation over plain packs for cigarettes as a case study, a consultation that went very badly for tobacco control in the UK with overwhelming numbers of respondents opposed to the new measures. Professor Anna Gilmore of the TCRG claims: ‘Big tobacco played a key role in implementing Better Regulation and have exploited it to prevent life-saving regulations.’

    It’s actually the TCRG document that should be used as a case study. First, cobble together some evidence of the effectiveness of a measure. Second, and without any sense of academic impartiality or scepticism, claim the evidence is so strong that action must follow. Third, suggest that any delay in implementing such a policy is the result of behind-the-scenes shenanigans by powerful and malevolent ‘transnationals’.

    In truth, tobacco companies had every right to be outraged by the demands of plain pack regulations which strip away the ability to make one product distinct from another. It’s difficult to sell a product as ‘premium’ if it can only be sold in a boring green box covered with horrific pictures. Nor was there any ‘strong’ evidence of the effectiveness of plain packs. On the contrary, evidence from Australia would suggest there has been no impact on smoking rates, but plenty of opportunities for counterfeiting.

    What activists, and activist researchers like those at the TCRG, really want is a short circuit from a misguided tobacco control policy popping into their heads to the passing of legislation. In their megalomanic minds the fact that the public and businesses must be consulted before potentially damaging legislation is passed can only be the result of a conspiracy.

    But the truth is that if there were a proper public debate about tobacco control measures, and the e-cig controls in the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive, they would either be watered down considerably (most people favoured exemptions to the smoking ban, for example) or ditched altogether.

    There’s another word for asking people about laws before you pass them: democracy. And tobacco control campaigners seem none too keen on it.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    October 13: Ban on smoking around children in cars is common sense

    Read more:

    jack listerio

    9:03 PM on 12/10/2015

    This comment has been removed from our system.

    This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore jack listerio. Show Details

    This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details

    Blocking comments that destroy youre conceived notions of doom and gloom……what abut public debate on the subject or is free speech what the Yorkshire post fears most. I attacked no person called no one names just simple facts that dispel the junk science claims of prohibitionists.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Edward Grainger, Botany Way, Nunthorpe, North Yorkshire.

      SMOKING kills, this we know. Every Monday the delightful Jayne Dowle, usually in the interests of common sense, decency and in her latest for the sake of health and well being of children, has once again ruffled a few feathers (The Yorkshire Post, October 5).

      How anyone cannot see the merits of a fine on those who smoke in a confined space, such as a motor car, as a means of improving the health of babies, children and young people is totally beyond me.

      The ban on smoking in public places that has preceded the ban on smoking in vehicles when the young and vulnerable are close, was one of the best things to have happened in Britain, that from both a health and safety aspect didn’t come a moment too soon.

      Did we really, for instance, allow smokers to exercise their filthy habit in places like hospitals and the London Underground? Not to mention the workplace.

      I wish that smoking had been banned earlier in town halls, both offices and committee rooms, where from the office junior through to chief officers and elected members, for some 30 years of my 57 year career, mostly as a committee officer through to chief administrative officer, with a staff of 50, it was impossible not to arrive home at the end of the day smelling like an ash tray.

      On many occasions, I had to suffer the smoking habits of those around me, mostly on office open plan and in committee rooms, where meetings often lasted five or six hours at a time and smoking was widespread, and considered the norm.

      Jayne does not mention the savings that must have accrued to the National Health Service by this ban on smoking, but as we know now, though we were encouraged by the cigarette manufacturers to go into denial, smoking kills, or at least leads to bad health.

      When, as Jayne relates, smoking in all places and at all times becomes unacceptable, the next attack on unacceptable behaviour must surely be on 
the excessive consumption of alcohol by people of all age groups.

      Now that is a challenge for us all and the Government, who know that like cigarette smoking, drinking to excess can also kill, 
in more ways than one, none more so when in charge of a motor car and under the influence.

      Yet it goes on every hour of every day, mostly undetected 
and is Britain’s worsening addiction.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Here you go Yorkshire post some free investigative journalism you don’t even have to work for it!

        Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

        It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

        (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
        Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
        2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
        ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
        long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
        said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
        cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
        (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
        arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
        to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
        therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
        lung cancer.

        [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
        Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
        use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
        causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
        cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
        it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
        individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
        (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
        [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
        point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
        case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
        consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
        knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
        individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
        intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
        life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to

        Read more:

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Do you fear the TRUTH the facts or just print what Big Pharma and non-for-profit groups tell you to print……..

          A small amount of investigative journalism will show just how much junk science is out there with absolutely no proof to back it up, NOT EVEN DIRECT SMOKIMG CLAIMS HAVE ANY PROOF.

          7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
          November 2004.

          “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

          In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

          The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

          Read more:

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Here Yorkshire Post their own people admitting they invented all the junk science on smoking.

          Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

          ”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

          Read under the title :
          Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created


          Read more:

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          anyway I posted a few of my posts they had removed just for posterities sake as a record of what these Nazi news outlets will do to us when we dare question their bullshit as we all know so well.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      No doubt the next time I refresh that page it will all be banned again! Perhaps a few of youd like to go rodeo with the infidel anti-smokers on the comments board there.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Now lets look back at ww1 or ww2 and everybody smoked Sir Winston smoked on average 27 cigars a day the rest smoked in the subways of London during the blitz. Fighting men from all allied nations smoked fighting for everyones freedom including their own right to smoke and that included defeating hitlers own standing laws against smoking. Even Hitlers own top ranking party members smoked yet even he couldn’t defeat smoking.

    Are bayonets fixed for the next move against parents and their children in cars for smoking. Is a fat person going to be drug from a restaurant just for eating. Will children be removed and raised in a Government morally approved barracks with other kids to end lifestyles certain people cant stand and demand criminal laws for against all that freedom stands for. Is this what we have come to under EU and UN domination! Its time people stood up and shook their fists and lived as they always did free and told government Nannies and sock puppets like Deb Arnot to head back to their own lives and leave freedom loving people alone before riots finally take place in the streets and possibly even parliament itself.

  8. beobrigitte says:

    Firstly, smokers don’t necessarily die early. I remember my Granda enjoying a crafty fag well into his 80s when many of his non-smoking friends had already kicked the bucket. To make such a sweeping generalisation is to ignore the fact that many smokers live long and healthy lives, and that we have all met ones that do.
    Of course we all have met old smokers! I can only guess that is why Tobacco Control is insisting on old peoples’ illnesses being “smoking related”.

    Unlike tobacco in the wider society, tobacco in prison plays a huge role in prisoners’ lives. Tobacco isn’t merely a diversion. It is the default prisoner currency, the standard unit of trade that all other commodities are valued against.
    I did not know that tobacco is very much the default currency in prison but it makes sense. It will be interesting to watch tobacco being replaced with heroin and the side effects may well create a few headlines in the years to come.
    ….. tempt staff to smuggle; and throw social power into the corrosive and unstable hands of heroin dealers.

    In the meantime the rest of the society, by now segregated into groups on the outside will be far too busy with the nanny-state incited finger pointing at each other, so we are all easy prey to all fanatics.
    Incidentally, IS now is telling new recruits to stay put – and start knife and bomb attacks on the deliberately fragmented population who is being brainwashed into believing that they will live longer…
    Be careful what you wish for – it might come true! And Europe has a lot of football pitches….

    WHEN is ANY political party going to wake up and kicks the policies (including the fanatics who dreamt them up!) that are so much dividing OUR communities, out? But then, it might well be too late for that…
    Women’s lib, speak up for us older (widowed/single) women then!! Oh, you are too scared to end up on a penalty spot during half-time???
    Healthists, speak up for your HEALTHY skin-tight lycra (which at times does reveal more than I’d like to see on my way to work) live style. Oh, you are too scared to end up on a penalty spot during half-time???

    In a fragmented society there won’t be anybody speaking up for anyone when it is being overrun.

    Food for thought dear dimwitted politicians.

  9. beobrigitte says:

    Off topic:
    She was first treated there last December having contracted the Ebola virus while working in Sierra Leone, Africa.

    She has been re-admitted with a complication of the infection.
    A complication of an infection from last December????

    The BBC is a little more detailed:
    Subsequent tests showed that the Ebola virus was still present in her body.

    The Ebola virus doing latency? That is definitely a new one!! No other Ebola virus prior to this one has done that.

    And we all are still wasting money on idiocy like smoking bans….

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.