Sandoval county to ban tobacco products

Sandoval county to ban tobacco products

There are 20 comments on the KASA-TV Albuquerque story from Feb 5, 2012, titled Sandoval county to ban tobacco products. In it, KASA-TV Albuquerque reports that:

ALBUQUERQUE - Commissioners in Sandoval County have decided to ban all tobacco products at the county's detention center.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KASA-TV Albuquerque.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1 Feb 5, 2012
Good move, and ban candy and other non-essentials also.

Prisoners should not have such luxuries.

Such luxuries are for honest people, no convicts.

But how are the guards going to enforce such a rule, I can see it now, great black market for guards to make big money selling cigs under the table.

Way around that is to only hire non smokers.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#2 Feb 5, 2012
Bluntly Spoken wrote:
Good move, and ban candy and other non-essentials also.
Prisoners should not have such luxuries.
Such luxuries are for honest people, no convicts.
But how are the guards going to enforce such a rule, I can see it now, great black market for guards to make big money selling cigs under the table.
Way around that is to only hire non smokers.
I was surprised to see it claims to be modeled after BernCo's jail policy! I was unaware we had such a policy.

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#3 Feb 5, 2012
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
I was surprised to see it claims to be modeled after BernCo's jail policy! I was unaware we had such a policy.
When our City/County government banned smoking in all Government Bldgs.,it included MDC.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#4 Feb 5, 2012
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>When our City/County government banned smoking in all Government Bldgs.,it included MDC.
I didn't know that. I'm rather surprised that the courts have allowed it in this specific instance given that the target audience is a 'captive' one (no pun intended) and have no options like the guards do such as off-site lunch.

I guess what amazes me even more is that the courts allowed such an unimportant issue(IMO) to remain when ofttimes much more important issues are contested or struck down. None come to mind at the moment but you know what I mean. Certainly food for thought as to what our legal systems priorities are.

“There is no spoon”

Since: Feb 08

Albuquerque, NM

#5 Feb 5, 2012
Bluntly Spoken wrote:
Good move, and ban candy and other non-essentials also.
Prisoners should not have such luxuries.
Such luxuries are for honest people, no convicts.
But how are the guards going to enforce such a rule, I can see it now, great black market for guards to make big money selling cigs under the table.
Way around that is to only hire non smokers.
I disagree. Though I can't point one out at this specific time there have been studies that have shown that these so called luxury item help keep inmates passive which in turn makes it safer for the guards. At any detention facility the guards are always way outnumbered by the inmates. Why would you be in favor of something that makes an underpaid jail guard's job more dangerous?

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#6 Feb 5, 2012
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't know that. I'm rather surprised that the courts have allowed it in this specific instance given that the target audience is a 'captive' one (no pun intended) and have no options like the guards do such as off-site lunch.
I guess what amazes me even more is that the courts allowed such an unimportant issue(IMO) to remain when ofttimes much more important issues are contested or struck down. None come to mind at the moment but you know what I mean. Certainly food for thought as to what our legal systems priorities are.
I don't know but IMO, I think that they should allow inmates to smoke.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#7 Feb 5, 2012
CallousOneToo wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Though I can't point one out at this specific time there have been studies that have shown that these so called luxury item help keep inmates passive which in turn makes it safer for the guards. At any detention facility the guards are always way outnumbered by the inmates. Why would you be in favor of something that makes an underpaid jail guard's job more dangerous?
Do I agree with you completely or partly here is the question, yes guards are underpaid considering the scum they deal with hourly, daily, weekly etc.

There is also a very small element of guards that break the law/rules and do favors for those locked up for any number of reasons, not just here in NM but in every prison.

First those locked up are being punished, hard labor should be the rule of the day, say like a job, 8 hours of it. One HOT meal a day, one bag lunch, breakfast can be a combo maybe.

As far as tobacco, candy etc. I can maybe agree with candy and stuff by smokes, hey why allow it? cancer kills and unless there is a designated smoking place OUTSIDE away from those that don't smoke I can't agree with it.

Why not serve red wine with dinner, why deprive them of that?

As Fmer said, it is banned on all city, county and state property so it should be banned in prison too.

That is how I see it but I as CD also said, did not know it was 100% banned on most if not all government property.

To be honest it is a tough call and I am willing to bet ACLU steps in and sues over this one.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#8 Feb 5, 2012
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know but IMO, I think that they should allow inmates to smoke.
I'm not one for allowing criminals certain comforts, however IMO this is one I would think that would assist in calming inmates, kinda like being allowed to read for pleasure does. Makes me wonder what the true rationale is for doing it.

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#9 Feb 5, 2012
Bluntly Spoken wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I agree with you completely or partly here is the question, yes guards are underpaid considering the scum they deal with hourly, daily, weekly etc.
There is also a very small element of guards that break the law/rules and do favors for those locked up for any number of reasons, not just here in NM but in every prison.
First those locked up are being punished, hard labor should be the rule of the day, say like a job, 8 hours of it. One HOT meal a day, one bag lunch, breakfast can be a combo maybe.
As far as tobacco, candy etc. I can maybe agree with candy and stuff by smokes, hey why allow it? cancer kills and unless there is a designated smoking place OUTSIDE away from those that don't smoke I can't agree with it.
Why not serve red wine with dinner, why deprive them of that?
As Fmer said, it is banned on all city, county and state property so it should be banned in prison too.
That is how I see it but I as CD also said, did not know it was 100% banned on most if not all government property.
To be honest it is a tough call and I am willing to bet ACLU steps in and sues over this one.
If the ACLU was going to step in they would have done so when it first went into effect several years ago.
The ACLU only steps in when someone's CONSTITUTIONAL rights are violated. I SUPPORT the ACLU!

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#10 Feb 5, 2012
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>If the ACLU was going to step in they would have done so when it first went into effect several years ago.
The ACLU only steps in when someone's CONSTITUTIONAL rights are violated. I SUPPORT the ACLU!
Lol, that communist org? They are sooo misguided and super liberal - and clueless. So I guess smoking is NOT a constitutional right of choice, hence it can be banned - amusing! Oh well, not my problem, it's Sandoval Co's problem to deal with.

If ya can't do the time, don't do the crime!

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#11 Feb 5, 2012
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>If the ACLU was going to step in they would have done so when it first went into effect several years ago.
The ACLU only steps in when someone's CONSTITUTIONAL rights are violated. I SUPPORT the ACLU!
Hold you horses gal, or should I say control Taco!

If this is just going into effect at the prison and not an old ruling they will step in but there are so many companies, universities, colleges, hospitals and businesses that forbid smoking on their grounds I doubt the ACLU could win this one.

Besides to win it would mean they back the tobacco companies and unless I am wrong did they not side with the cancer victims on the cancer issue of smoking years ago?

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#12 Feb 5, 2012
Bluntly Spoken wrote:
<quoted text>
Hold you horses gal, or should I say control Taco!
If this is just going into effect at the prison and not an old ruling they will step in but there are so many companies, universities, colleges, hospitals and businesses that forbid smoking on their grounds I doubt the ACLU could win this one.
Besides to win it would mean they back the tobacco companies and unless I am wrong did they not side with the cancer victims on the cancer issue of smoking years ago?
It seems everyone that HATES the ACLU just doesn't get what they stand for. NO Smoking is NOT a violation of anybody's Constitutional Rights. This law went into effect several years back when they first banned smoking in government bldgs. Then later they banned smoking in all public areas, including restaurants that served liquor.
The only hospital that has it right is the VAH. They know that they aren't going to stop people from smoking so they have a special enclosed area for them to smoke. None of the bull Pres. and UNMH have.

Watch it Blunt or I will get Taco after both you and CD. You know the stories of that boy. He is vicious and very mean. Heck last night that doggie even stole my blankets and wrapped himself up in them like a burrito.

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

#13 Feb 5, 2012
I think they should have smoking cellblocks where only inmates who have been on their very best behavior would be allowed into. And only guards who smoke, or who don't mind being around smoke, would be required to work in those cellblocks.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#14 Feb 5, 2012
Lobo Viejo wrote:
I think they should have smoking cellblocks where only inmates who have been on their very best behavior would be allowed into. And only guards who smoke, or who don't mind being around smoke, would be required to work in those cellblocks.
I like that idea too but better they smoke outside where the smoke dissipates quickly.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#15 Feb 5, 2012
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only hospital that has it right is the VAH. They know that they aren't going to stop people from smoking so they have a special enclosed area for them to smoke. None of the bull Pres. and UNMH have.
Watch it Blunt or I will get Taco after both you and CD. You know the stories of that boy. He is vicious and very mean. Heck last night that doggie even stole my blankets and wrapped himself up in them like a burrito.
Interesting the VA allows it but no other government building, guess they know more then our elected fools.

About Taco, I wonder if ACLU would help me get a restraining order to keep that vicious dog away from me......

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

#16 Feb 5, 2012
Bluntly Spoken wrote:
<quoted text>
About Taco, I wonder if ACLU would help me get a restraining order to keep that vicious dog away from me......
I'll bet ACLU would take the position that Taco was just exercising his right to free speech.

“There is no spoon”

Since: Feb 08

Albuquerque, NM

#17 Feb 5, 2012
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>The ACLU only steps in when someone's CONSTITUTIONAL rights are violated. I SUPPORT the ACLU!
Except when it's a 2nd Amendment issue for the average citizen. When it comes to that and people's right's those bed-wetters don't do squat which is why I don't support them.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#18 Feb 5, 2012
CallousOneToo wrote:
<quoted text>
Except when it's a 2nd Amendment issue for the average citizen. When it comes to that and people's right's those bed-wetters don't do squat which is why I don't support them.
The worst part is I bet half of them are gun owners too.
edmundo

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#19 Feb 6, 2012
The prudish prohibitionists have struck again.

Josef Stalin lives!
Another

Huntsville, AL

#20 Feb 6, 2012
CallousOneToo wrote:
<quoted text>
Except when it's a 2nd Amendment issue for the average citizen. When it comes to that and people's right's those bed-wetters don't do squat which is why I don't support them.
liar.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bernalillo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News No Santa Fe PD Pay Raises 52 min Liar 2
News Las Cruces vigil to honor murdered ABQ child 1 hr blood on his hand 8
News New a Breaking Bada balloon coming to the sky 1 hr remail 6
News Thieves steal thousands of dollars from Albuque... 1 hr remail 5
Good Old Days 2 (Apr '10) 2 hr new parrot 113,104
Today I Saw (Nov '09) 2 hr Mister Chix 62,250
Academy Acres Estates-Abq NE-Burglary Suspects ... 4 hr Coo 8

Bernalillo Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bernalillo Mortgages