" I can understand how it may be hard for prison employees but the law is the law. They should not be any more exempt from the smoking ban then anyone else is. And as to the prisoners.. I for one am sick and tired of hearing them whine about their so called rights. They are in there because they did something wrong, they shouldn't have as many privalges as they do, the only rights they should have is to be free from bodily harm and treated humanely that is it. They are not in prison for a vacation at club med, they are there because they broke the law. No I don't want any officers or anyone else to be hurt but they are going to have to figure out ways around that, people in rehab don't get given their drug of choice to ease tensions and keep everyone safe. Prisons are going to have to figure out a solution. "

" Confinement is supposed to be the punishment in prison. Loss of freedom. However, a prison is also a residence. Banning a legal product, even in prison, is unusual and cruel treatment. Tobacco remains a mandatory provision under the Geneva Convention. It seems POW's are still given more consideration, under required humane treatment, than inmates confined in many US prisons.

I quote from: http://tinyurl.com/yr9n9o
"This provision is based on Article 11, paragraph 3 ...Tobacco, which is, listed among the articles which must be stocked in canteens.... tobacco...plays a very important part in the life of men in confinement. It calms the nerves of the smokers and helps them to bear their suffering, while it provides non-smokers with a valuable form of currency which enables them to procure other advantages in exchange. Tobacco is not harmful in the way that alcohol is, and the Convention, in placing it among the things like water which are essential for the internees, recognizes the important part played by this harmless narcotic in soothing men's minds and nerves."
"

" I know a sheriff down in Southern Illinois who thinks this is ridiculous. He already segregates inmates according to smoking/non-smoking criteria initially, but doesn't allow any of them to smoke the first 24 hours. If the smokers have complied with the jail rules for the first 24 hours, he offers them a choice of TV or tobacco as a reward for good behavior. This silly ban has now robbed him of an effective 'tool' to obtain compliance from incarcerated people. Good goin', tobacco Nazis! *rolls eyes* "

" Interested Observer: While I am concerned about violence escalating in the prisons and jails because smoking inmates won't be able to light up, it's impossible for that sheriff or anyone else to segregate smokers from non-smokers if the 2 areas share a common ventilation system. Ventilation removes offensive odors but NOT the carcinogens. So if I'm a non-smoker serving a few years for a crime in a building with smokers, thanks to second-hand smoke I could be getting the death penalty in the form of lung cancer or heart disease as a result. I'd say let the smokers smoke if there were 2 separate buildings to house the smokers and non-smokers, if all the workers, cooks, guards, etc., in the smoking building were also smokers, and if people were frequently reassessed and moved if they expressed a desire to quit smoking. But since that is unlikely to be the case, I guess the ban is necessary to protect inmates and workers from something that can and does kill them. I also agree with earlier posters who note that prison isn't supposed to be pleasant. We don't provide beer to incarcerated alcoholics, even though alcohol is legal for those over age 21. We don't provide Diet Coke to those inmates with caffeine addiction. What makes cigarettes so special that we provide them. And at $3 or $4 a pack, or whatever they're up to these days, who pays for those smokes that the sheriff doles out for good behavior? "