Smoking ban upheld in Rampton

that link to evidence doesn't suggest that at all.

it actually says the short term effects of smoking can help but are then detrimental overall.
they say that maybe 5-10years of research might develop a treatment that can work

jeeeeezzzzzzz..... if you are going to make siomething up, dont post the link

The link says that the smoking has a positive effect on scizophrenia however that positive effect is reduced as the brain builds a tolerance requiring ever increasing doses. Just like pretty much every other scizophrenia treatment then.

I can understand how you would get confused though because the article is written from a dogmatically anti-smoking perspective just like much of the rest of the drivel that gets passed off as intelligent thought in the world of psychology.

If you are going to try to turn indymedia into a discussion forum please try and read something more infromative then your average NHS leaflet.

 http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=3205

 http://news.scotsman.com/tobacco/Smoking-tobacco-may-ease-some.2607019.jp

 http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a769158557~db=all

 http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v26/n1/abs/1395739a.html

Those of us who have spent time as patients will confirm that cigarettes ease the symptoms of the umbrella condition 'schizophrenia'.

The ruling IMHO is based on sheer vindictiveness and wilful cruelty.

Some of the most viciously cruel and judgemental people I've ever met in my life have worked in the 'caring professions' - particularly social work and psychiatry.

There is an argument that smoking is so damaging that simply because there is a correlation, perhaps causation, between smoking and schizophrenia is no reason not to try to help schizophrenics quit smoking. A smoking cessation program though is not the same as a ban especially when there is some evidence that this is self-medication.

It is a fact though that schizophrenics smoke more and find it harder to quit than others. The smoking ban has exceptions, such as for ordinary prisoners and submariners who can't just 'go outside for a smoke'.

Therefore this decision is abhorrent, a cruel and unusual punishment for the weakest in society and so 'Mad Pride' should be commended for mentioning it here as it should be opposed by all decent people, and 'hen' should be ashamed for their misplaced pedantry.

I'm absolutely speechless to read that people are encouraging smoking on IndyMedia. Britist American Tobacco and other similar companies have a track record on preying on the vulnerable throughout the world, and here we discussing how providing cigarettes to patients is a good thing!

If I was a patient or worker there I wouldn't want to breathe in other people's smoke.

If they want to smoke outside, then fine, as long as they don't blow it in other people's faces.

Indoors they should respect other people's right to breathe in clean air.

This is nothing to do with their mental state, it is just basic politeness and human decency.

But I assume they aren't allowed alcohol, so why is nicotine different, I wonder? Maybe they should be allowed alcohol. I guess because it makes some people violent and aggressive.

Although i venemonently disagreed with Danny's comments, it saddens me that he has been censored. We can disagree and thats fine as I'm sure he will agree, but it is intolerant of Indymedia to become a nanny state and censor people's comments.

I'm sorry Danny that you are not allowed to get your points across.

To address the poster before you, the fact is the patients were asking for smoking rooms, not to inflict their smoke on others. Even if you believe in secondary smoking risks, and I don't, that isn't the issue here. A properly ventilated smoking room is of no risk to anyone except the smokers themselves. Everyone should have the right to smoke, even if it is damaging to their own health, as long as they are not damaging someone elses health. These aren't people who can just step outside, and if exceptions are made for prisoners and submariners, neither of whom feel as strong a need to smoke, then it is more important to exempt Rampton prisoners who have evidence that they are more strongly addicted if not actually self-medicating.

These are double-standards and for the Judge to compare this to allowing alcohol inside is idiotic of him.

This idiot judge seriously used that argument in his judgement, that because alcohol is banned at Rampton then cigarettes should also be banned. As both a smoker and a drinker, after 30 units of alcohol, my behaviour does sometimes become more irresponsible or difficult to manage, whereas after 30 cigarettes I simply beome wheezy. Not the same thing.

There is evidence that smoking helps these patients. That could be used to argue that they should be provided free, prescription cigarettes, or contrarily it could be used as an argument that they deserve extra help in smoking-cessation programs. It is certainly not rational or reasonable or humane to simply ban them from smoking.

No matter how much of a rabid anti-smoker you are, this is a civil liberties and a medicinal issue and this judge has displayed a deep ignorance of these issues.

The reason the judge feels able to ban smoking at Rampton while any other prisoner can smoke is simply a matter of control - the patients at Rampton are effectively powerless whereas a similar ban for all prisoners would result in uncontrollable nationwide prison riots within a day or two.

Therefore it is important that people on the outside like us speak up for the rights of the most powerless in society.

All this talk about schizophrenia when there is no such thing. Don't misunderstand this is not to deny people's experience. There are no tests for schizophrenia it is simply a number of symptoms that have been given a label. This is not helpful when these symptoms could also be 'manic depression', 'personality disorder' or one of many other diagnosis. Psychiatry has almost no science in it and should not be seen as a branch of medicine. When they do studies on 'schizophrenia' they end up simply measuring the effects of brain damaging neuroleptic drugs.

I hope that the case will continue to progress upwards into the European courts. I have recently began reading UK Indymedia and seen many informative articles and commentaries. However, as I read the comments on the Rampton smoking case. People seem to be missing the point that this case is concerned with an abuse of rights. It is not about whether people should be smoking or not. Or even if Tabacco is effective self medication. The abuse of rights regards the fact that the smoking patients are not doing anything which the Government isn't drawing revenue.

The original smoking ban didn't cover mental health units, prisons or hotel bedrooms yet I note that the ban is coming to extend to all these places by stealth.