Detained mental patients banned from smoking

[nichomach]

OK, so we now have the smoking decree in effect in public premises, whether we think that's right or wrong, but there are groups of people who have no choice about living in a particular place who will now, it seems, be forced to not smoke. BBC NEWS | Magazine | 'Robbed' of the right to smoke
Prisoners are exempt from the smoking ban, but some of the most vulnerable people in our society, the mentally ill, at some of the most terrible points in their lives (when they've been forcibly detained under the Mental Health Acts) are to be deprived of the ability to smoke as well, even in hospital grounds.

So; reasonable or a step too far?

[Salazaar]

I've always been up for people's right to smoke on the proviso that it doesn't impinge on non-smokers right to not smoke.

I guess it depends on the circumstances but I reckon reasonable effort should be made to let people smoke if they want to.

(I don't smoke and I don't like being forced to breath in other people's smoke either BTW)

[Lee H]

That will be the straw that breaks the camels (king-size) back.

Anyone who has given up or tried to give up knows how hard it can be and to put these people through this is diabolical. Treat their mental issues firstly, then afterwards when they are sound of mind assist them in giving up smoking.

I like how prisioners are exempt though. I suppose it gives them something to do while playing on their consoles or watching DVD's in their cells.

[Wyoming]

My opinion on smoking is that you should be free to do so, as long as it does not harm others around you and you have the ability to make a balanced decision when deciding to smoke.

In practice what I mean by not harming others is that businesses and homeowners are free to say that smoking is not allowed on their premises, and a non-smoker has the choice to go elsewhere. This choice acts as a check and allows people to avoid smoke which is believed to be harmful.

When I say has the ability to make a decision I mean that they are old enough and do not suffer from any mental health problems. So in this case I would say this is the correct decision in general, but each case must be looked at. Obviously not everyone with a mental health problem is the same and some will be able to make rational decisions.

[IBM]

I was going to say they should have a smoking room set aside for them to use, but then you have to ensure that there are enough orderleys to be able to monitor both the main and the smoking room.

So I guess there should be a smoking area outside where they can smoke during their time outside. As an ex smoker, I wouldn't be happy with someone smoking near me if I was going through a breakdown of some kind. And the staff shouldn't have to put up with it either.

[TheAnimus]

The problem is the staff.

Why should the staff have to put up with it? I'm entitled to a smoke free environment here. As even are bar staff now. What about the staff?

If the mental patients are hospitalised, odds are niccotine addiction will be the least of their worries, and the cocktail of drugs that they will inevitably be perscribed will have a much stronger effect on them.

I'd say it really should be upto the hospitals in question, the environment on a case by case basis.

As an asthmatic (i know, i'm sounding like someone who writes into the gardian!) i really felt a difference when the smoking ban came in, espesually in pubs and night clubs. Now, whilst i've been known to spend the odd few 18 hours or so clubbing. I've yet to do that 5 days a week.

[nichomach]

The flipside being of course that if you ARE a smoker, as 70% of mental health inpatients are, then being forcibly prevented from smoking may actually make your recovery from or treatment for the illness for which you've been admitted much more difficult. The problem with Wyoming's criteria are that they preclude any allowance being made for patients who are already smokers when they are admitted.

[nichomach]

The problem is the staff....

OK, you'd rather it was banned inside premises, but what about in the grounds? Also, you're assuming that a "cocktail of drugs" will somehow ameliorate their nicotine addiction, but you can't assume that any prescribed drugs will do that; indeed you can't assume that they're on such a "cocktail" at all.

[Blitzen]

OK, so we now have the smoking decree in effect in public premises, whether we think that's right or wrong, but there are groups of people who have no choice about living in a particular place who will now, it seems, be forced to not smoke. BBC NEWS | Magazine | 'Robbed' of the right to smoke
Prisoners are exempt from the smoking ban, but some of the most vulnerable people in our society, the mentally ill, at some of the most terrible points in their lives (when they've been forcibly detained under the Mental Health Acts) are to be deprived of the ability to smoke as well, even in hospital grounds.

So; reasonable or a step too far?

Of course its reasonable tostop them.
My mum is a nurse in a care home for mentally ill people. They live in the bungalows and pay all the bills but there are people like my mum that have to be there 24/7 to help them. They cannot leave without a carer with them and they cannot live by themselves.

With all that in mind, and i know the situation is a little different, they still cannot leave.
However, its still a place of work and these laws on not smoking are to protect non-smokers. My mum doesnt smoke the same as many of the workers in the mental institution you have mentioned.

The problem is the staff.

Why should the staff have to put up with it? I'm entitled to a smoke free environment here. As even are bar staff now. What about the staff?

If the mental patients are hospitalised, odds are niccotine addiction will be the least of their worries, and the cocktail of drugs that they will inevitably be perscribed will have a much stronger effect on them.

I'd say it really should be upto the hospitals in question, the environment on a case by case basis.

As an asthmatic (i know, i'm sounding like someone who writes into the gardian!) i really felt a difference when the smoking ban came in, espesually in pubs and night clubs. Now, whilst i've been known to spend the odd few 18 hours or so clubbing. I've yet to do that 5 days a week.

Spot on!
.... I knew that if i read these boards long enough we would agree on something


People in jail should also be subject to the ban aswell though.

[Sinizter]

Voted yes. Not for their own good though. Its for the benefit of others around those people - those who have to work there and those who have no choice about staying there, but don't smoke.

[Salazaar]

.... I knew that if i read these boards long enough we would agree on something

Sorry about being OT but that made me laugh so much, I totally agree

[Wyoming]

The problem is the staff.

Why should the staff have to put up with it? I'm entitled to a smoke free environment here. As even are bar staff now. What about the staff?

Staff have the ability to find another job; or in my ideal world where the treatment of mental health patients is privatised; hospitals will vary or permitting or banning smoking on premises affording staff with a choice of where to work. This is a case where staff are free to move or rather should be, a patient is not.

[ajones]

The problem is the staff.

I quit smoking about 2.5 years ago, so apparently should be a really aggressive anti-smoker....

I agree that smoking has an impact on those around you in that you are forcing them to passively smoke. But in hospitals with infectious diseases, how do we prevent the patients from infecting those around them? We don't ban them from being ill, we wear protective clothing etc to prevent the staff from becoming infected. Why can't we issue staff with similar to filter the air and protect them from passive smoking?

Smoking is not a disease or illness, it's a wonderful addiction that relaxes the mind, frees the body, makes us feel warm and cozy inside..... god I feel like a smoke! We don't generally force people with other additions to quit, so why are we being so harsh on smokers?

[TheAnimus]

OK, you'd rather it was banned inside premises, but what about in the grounds? Also, you're assuming that a "cocktail of drugs" will somehow ameliorate their nicotine addiction, but you can't assume that any prescribed drugs will do that; indeed you can't assume that they're on such a "cocktail" at all.

Thats me been technical.... i can just about begin to understand the sock pupette theature presents "this is how your asthma medication works". So i can't comment about it in any detail. But i'd of guessed that if it was that bad, they could give them some other form of nicotene. But isn't it only 3 days you physically remain addicted for? If no one smokes around you, or even on the premisises, its hardly like your been victimised. As if you will be reminded that you want to smoke.

Staff have the ability to find another job; or in my ideal world where the treatment of mental health patients is privatised; hospitals will vary or permitting or banning smoking on premises affording staff with a choice of where to work. This is a case where staff are free to move or rather should be, a patient is not.

Yes, but what happens, given that only 25% at most of the population smoke. It puts the price up. Remeber its an enforaceble entiltment to clean smoke free air at work. For most, those with exceptions have a higher rate of pay, because fewer want to do the work, supply and demand. Given that this is a public funded survice, should that be where extra money is spent?

[Hunain]

I had been a smoker for almost 7 years, I quit recently, in december, thats is, I know how hard it is, Ive voted that it should be banned, for their own good, I dont think they can be treated along with smoking, smoking is depressive in someway or the other, atleast IMO.

[nichomach]

I can tell you on the basis of my attempts to cold-turkey that the "3 days" stuff is complete bull (or at least it was for me). And you REALLY don't need reminding that you want to smoke . I actually used the NHS Stop Smoking service, and that was helpful, but although they fund NRT, they will only fund one kind, and it's a one shot deal. In my case what actually worked was a combination of patches + inhalator (I actually bought both myself, although I could have claimed one or the other free). The delivery of ncotine is also completely different than cigarettes; there's no real immediacy so you don't get the instant relief of a cigarette. Now I actually wanted to quit, could afford the means to do so myself, and was not especially vulnerable. I had no pre-existing mental illness either. I fell off the wagon a couple of times and it was not easy.

Contrast that with someone who hasn't been given a choice about whether they're quitting, is being banged up very probably against their will in extremely stressful and unpleasant surroundings, is in a vulnerable and unbalanced state, can't leave, and is suddenly being told that one of the things that helps them cope with that is being taken away. It's going to make them feel a lot worse, it'll make them less likely to cooperate with their treatment, and may even make that treatment less likely to be successful. Balance that against the possibility of providing a few designated smoking areas, or letting people smoke in the grounds (or a combination of the above). Would the latter option really be that bad?