Governor Arnold Destroys Decades-Old Prison Bartering System

[Ksyrup]

Schwarzenegger bans smoking in prisons

Decision could save $280 million in related health care costs




SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who set up a tent outside his smoke-free state office to accommodate his taste for a good cigar, signed a bill Monday barring tobacco from state prisons.

The measure amends the state's penal code to bar tobacco products from prisons and youth correctional facilities. Violators are subject to a fine.

Supporters say the changes will help save the state money on health care and improve the health of 160,000 state inmates. Some parts of California's criminal justice system such as county jails have already banned smoking.

The state generated about $1 million in tobacco taxes and $370,000 in sales taxes by selling tobacco products to inmates last year.

Bill sponsor Tim Leslie, a Republican assemblyman, estimates that about half of California prisoners smoke, costing $280 million in related health care costs.

[cthomer5000]

good.

[Coffee Warlord]

I *really* feel sorry for the correctional officers in CA now. Gonna be a lot of pissed off inmates for quite awhile.

[Radii]

Arnold is kinda growing on me as a politician here, he seems to actually seriously be looking for ways to cut costs and balance a budget instead of just tossing around a lot of horseshit like most career politicians.

[Ksyrup]

$280 million savings in health costs; $500 million for Nicorette gum.

[gottimd]

So what happens to a prisoner when he is caught smoking? OOOH a fine! When they don't pay? Bench Warrant?

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm all for this. In fact, I think it should be a national law. Why are we the taxpayers paying more taxes or cutting other services so that people who are already IN JAIL can smoke and get the whole host of health problems associated with smoking. Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to smoke, they should be suffering for their crimes!

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'm all for this. In fact, I think it should be a national law. Why are we the taxpayers paying more taxes or cutting other services so that people who are already IN JAIL can smoke and get the whole host of health problems associated with smoking. Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to smoke, they should be suffering for their crimes!

Yes, prisoners should be prisoners. However, if giving them cigarettes shuts them up and keeps a chunk of them from going apeshit, then give em cigarettes. If you have a bunch of inmates content to sit, smoke, and not cause shit, then keep those suckers well stocked.

Mark my words. There's gonna be a rather rapid run of assaults/muders on correctional officers by a lot of inmates suffering from tobacco withdrawl.

Oh, and a few of those said guards are gonna be a lot wealthier after they start smuggling in cigarettes for the inmates.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Mark my words. There's gonna be a rather rapid run of assaults/muders on correctional officers by a lot of inmates suffering from tobacco withdrawl.

Better yet, any inmate commits a crime in prison, this is going to be an automatic defense attorney argument.

[cthomer5000]

you guys are right, we should never try to make anything better.

[DaddyTorgo]

CW...if they run wild....toss them down in Isolation. Or better yet...beat the crap out of them till they stop. Me personally I'm upset that we havn't reached the "No Escape" point yet. You know that classic movie with Ray Liotta and the prisoners on the island that is surrounded by radar/sonar and gunboats in the middle of the ocean and if they try to escape they get shot. That's what we ought to do...throw all the prisoners down on say...Australia and let them kill each other.

Oh wait...the British already tried that.

[Coffee Warlord]

When a solution that actually makes things better comes up, let me know. This idea makes nothing better. This simply makes convicts slightly healthier, infinitly more pissed off, and working out ways to smuggle cigarettes into the prison. Ain't gonna solve shit, and will create twice as many problems inside of a prison.

[DaddyTorgo]

Eh. So we just toss them down in solitary like I said. Or better yet, institute the death penalty for cigarette-smuggling. Prisons are overcrowded anyways.

[stevew]

Are they adopting the euro as currency now too?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Yes, prisoners should be prisoners. However, if giving them cigarettes shuts them up and keeps a chunk of them from going apeshit, then give em cigarettes. If you have a bunch of inmates content to sit, smoke, and not cause shit, then keep those suckers well stocked.

Mark my words. There's gonna be a rather rapid run of assaults/muders on correctional officers by a lot of inmates suffering from tobacco withdrawl.

Oh, and a few of those said guards are gonna be a lot wealthier after they start smuggling in cigarettes for the inmates.

Sarcasm On

Yeah, that's right, because we all know how genteel and quiet a place prisons are with all the guys just sitting around smoking peacefully.

Sarcasm Off

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

When a solution that actually makes things better comes up, let me know. This idea makes nothing better. This simply makes convicts slightly healthier, infinitly more pissed off, and working out ways to smuggle cigarettes into the prison. Ain't gonna solve shit, and will create twice as many problems inside of a prison.

Will prisoners still be nicotine-raging 5 years from now? The problems you're talking about are either:

1. short-term
2. inherent to the prison system, and unrelated to the ability to smoke or not smoke.

Or maybe if we allowed alcohol and drug use with zero penalty in prison, the prisoners would be reallly calm?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

So now instead of smoking related health problems, they'll have to deal with health related problems stemming from obesity. It's common to gain weight after quitting smoking. Unless the prison officials plan to cut out snack time too.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Will prisoners still be nicotine-raging 5 years from now? The problems you're talking about are either:

1. short-term
2. inherent to the prison system, and unrelated to the ability to smoke or not smoke.

Or maybe if we allowed alcohol and drug use with zero penalty in prison, the prisoners would be reallly calm?

Those in the system who want to smoke are gonna smoke, whether it's banned or not. You can get damn near anything into a prison, and cigarettes are utterly simplistic to get in. (I have a very good friend was a guard many years at a TN Maximum, so I can say that with a pretty good certainty.)

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that anything that will make a prison guard's job even MORE life-threatening is a Bad Idea (tm). A guard really can't do a whole helluva lot to an inmate (the days of being able to beat the living shit out of inmates for any old reason are gone), and certainly is gonna have problems with a few hundred really pissed off felons. Let the fuckers smoke. Big deal.

'Course, if it were REALLY up to me, I'd have every prisoner in 24/7 lockdown. You eat, sleep, shit, everything in that cell. You exit it when your time is up. You get nothing but the food we slip into your door. Since that scenario sure as hell ain't happening, spare the guards from getting shanked in the next few months and let the fuckers have a smoke.

[hhiipp]

I like this decision and will continue to like it until these projected shankings occur, at which time I will bow down and pay hommage to CW for seeing the future.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

I like this decision and will continue to like it until these projected shankings occur, at which time I will bow down and pay hommage to CW for seeing the future.

I know how edgy one can get quitting smoking cold turkey. Combine that with several hundred violent folks already in prison...yeah, I'm saying it's pretty much inevitable.

[hhiipp]

Maybe if a few of these shankings occur prisons will turn into prisons again instead of monitored day care where these people can watch cable tv, and earn a college degree for free.

[Sun Tzu]

Shankings in prison? Now you're just talking crazy.

[timmynausea]

So if the prisoners live longer it's going to cost the tax payers less? I'm curious about how/where they get the $280 million figure and how much of it is directly related to smoking.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

'Course, if it were REALLY up to me, I'd have every prisoner in 24/7 lockdown. You eat, sleep, shit, everything in that cell. You exit it when your time is up. You get nothing but the food we slip into your door. Since that scenario sure as hell ain't happening, spare the guards from getting shanked in the next few months and let the fuckers have a smoke.

Okay good, so at least we agree on the fundamentals CW. Don't worry, when this is a dictatorship under me, this'll be the way it is. Cept for the hot female prisoners...they'll have...ummn...other duties.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Okay good, so at least we agree on the fundamentals CW. Don't worry, when this is a dictatorship under me, this'll be the way it is. Cept for the hot female prisoners...they'll have...ummn...other duties.

License plate making?

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

NAKED License plate making?

SI

there, fixed it for ya SI.

-DT

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I *really* feel sorry for the correctional officers in CA now. Gonna be a lot of pissed off inmates for quite awhile.

Don't feel TOO sorry for those guys, they get paid over $100,000 a year.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Don't feel TOO sorry for those guys, they get paid over $100,000 a year.

CA correctional officers make 100+? Good god. They make like 24k in TN.

'Course, when part of your job includes getting human feces, urine, blood, and anything else thrown at you, along with the threat of being stabbed in the face, they deserve every penny they get.

[RendeR]

The Majority of prisoners (long term) in this country live at a higher level than 30% (estimated by figuring in things people have access to on a daily basis, perks, benefits, etc) of the nation who walk free and try to make a living.

I have a real problem with this.

Prisoners should not have access to video games (prisons in florida, california, PA, and apparently a few others allow them)

prisoners should not have access to TELEVISION, let alone a fucking video game, you're in PRISON , you don't GET to have a good time.

I think prisoners have a right to work on their education
they have a right to read books to their hearts content
they even have a right to physical fitness if it so pleases them.

smoking is a privelage, one they should forfeit when convicted.


god I can't believe how pathetic our prison system has become, we've let so many bunny-loving-treehuggers fuck things up its rediculous.




bah


end raving.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

CA correctional officers make 100+? Good god. They make like 24k in TN.

'Course, when part of your job includes getting human feces, urine, blood, and anything else thrown at you, along with the threat of being stabbed in the face, they deserve every penny they get.

Actually they don't. Since the Prison workers here in CA have a union and the Prison system in CA is so unreformed, the prison workers have been making deals with the CA legislature and getting some very good deals. For example, senior correction officers get paid for time off taken from work and their wages increase something like 35-40% when they do overtime. I don't know the exact numbers, but CA has been losing a lot of money because of this little "hidden" secret. BTW, thanks Gray Davis-you jackass.

[Buccaneer]

If anyone is making excuses of cutting govt expenditures of any kind, then I don't want to hear any f-ing whining about budget deficits.

[Mustang]

Surprised a prisoner hasn't brought up a lawsuit claiming that being subjected to second hand smoke is cruel and unusual punishment. . .

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

If anyone is making excuses of cutting govt expenditures of any kind, then I don't want to hear any f-ing whining about budget deficits.

I'm pretty sure you can do both since the government does have to pay for some stuff (I'm not sure even you can argue that). It's all a matter of where you take that money from.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The Majority of prisoners (long term) in this country live at a higher level than 30% (estimated by figuring in things people have access to on a daily basis, perks, benefits, etc) of the nation who walk free and try to make a living.

I have a real problem with this.

Prisoners should not have access to video games (prisons in florida, california, PA, and apparently a few others allow them)

prisoners should not have access to TELEVISION, let alone a fucking video game, you're in PRISON , you don't GET to have a good time.

I think prisoners have a right to work on their education
they have a right to read books to their hearts content
they even have a right to physical fitness if it so pleases them.

smoking is a privelage, one they should forfeit when convicted.


god I can't believe how pathetic our prison system has become, we've let so many bunny-loving-treehuggers fuck things up its rediculous.




bah


end raving.

You and me and Coffee Warlord RendeR, we'll just have to undertake a complete reform of the penal system in this messed-up country.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm pretty sure you can do both since the government does have to pay for some stuff (I'm not sure even you can argue that). It's all a matter of where you take that money from.

SI

If revenues coming in do not match or fall below expenditures, then you cut down until it matches. That still leaves a lot of expenditures (too much, imo). If the revenues exceed the budget, then you give the money back to the people. In Colorado, we have something called TABOR which does exactly that. Why is this so hard?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

If revenues coming in do not match or fall below expenditures, then you cut down until it matches. That still leaves a lot of expenditures (too much, imo). If the revenues exceed the budget, then you give the money back to the people. In Colorado, we have something called TABOR which does exactly that. Why is this so hard?

Because you're oversimplifying. I bet California could eliminate their budget deficit in the next year if they stopped funding, oh, let's say primary and secondary education, public transportation, and criminal justice (jail, courts, the whole nine yards). It's a crazy example but it does fit under your statement of "cut down until it matches". It's not as if you can say "cut spending" without saying where or how.

SI

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Because you're oversimplifying. I bet California could eliminate their budget deficit in the next year if they stopped funding, oh, let's say primary and secondary education, public transportation, and criminal justice (jail, courts, the whole nine yards). It's a crazy example but it does fit under your statement of "cut down until it matches". It's not as if you can say "cut spending" without saying where or how.

SI

Oh yes I can. People want to oversimplify the claim that we need to stop funding of "primary and secondary education, public transportation, and criminal justice (jail, courts, the whole nine yards)". Give me a break. I think what you really mean is stop increasing the fundings for any govt programs, right?. Or perhaps you mean to have start have the federal and state govts run like a corporation which has to watch its overhead and non-core expenditures?

The minute anyone hints at budget cuts, you get the chicken littles crying that it will kill people, etc. You certainly know about the many billions of pork spending by the federal govt? California is a microcosm of the federal govt. The problem is that the govt "promises" too many things to too many people (corporations, public entities, etc.) - way beyond what they should do. If they stop thinking just for a second that they need to be involved in every single fucking aspect of our lives and get off their fucking thrones, maybe - just maybe - they can do things better at a lower price. You give me a categorized budget and I will show you exactly where they can start looking for cuts. I did that a few years ago with the federal budget and came up with $300 billion in cuts over 5 years (there are some things that can be cut immediately, while others will have to be gradual). You want to hear me keep ranting like an old pirate? Then just continue to say that the govts cannot afford to make cuts or make excuses why we can't be looking.

(SI: this is not a rant specifically at you but at an unfortunate attitude and mindset that prevails in this country away from personal responsibilities, a libertarian govt and against socialism.)

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Because you're oversimplifying. I bet California could eliminate their budget deficit in the next year if they stopped funding, oh, let's say primary and secondary education, public transportation, and criminal justice (jail, courts, the whole nine yards). It's a crazy example but it does fit under your statement of "cut down until it matches". It's not as if you can say "cut spending" without saying where or how.

SI

Or you could raise taxes.

[Buccaneer]

Here is the deal about TABOR from the National Conference of State Legislatures (which I had some dealings with).

Talking Points on TABOR

Below are bullets summarizing the Colorado TABOR Amendment and its consequences for fiscal policy in the state of Colorado. TABOR stands for "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights," and plays on the name of Horace Tabor, a well-known 19^th century Colorado silver king.

1. TABOR is a set of constitutional provisions Colorado voters adopted in 1992 to limit revenue growth for state and local governments in Colorado and to require that any tax increase in any state or local government (counties, cities, towns, school districts and special districts) must be approved by the voters of the affected government.
2. TABOR is principally a revenue limit, not a spending limit. It limits revenue the state government can retain from all sources except federal funds in a year to the previous year's allowed collections (not actual collections) plus a percentage adjustment equal to the percentage growth in population plus the inflation rate. Any revenues received in excess of this limit must be refunded to the voters. In this paragraph, allowed collections means the amount that the Tabor Amendment allowed state government to retain in the previous year.
3. The voters may vote to allow the state to keep the excess. TABOR limits the times when such votes may occur. Voters may also exempt their government from TABOR revenue limits for a set number of years. Both kinds of votes have passed in special districts, school districts and some small cities and in the city and county of Denver. The statewide vote that approved Amendment 23 in 2000 could be considered such a vote, because it allows the state government to retain as much of a TABOR surplus as necessary to fund the K-12 provisions the amendment included. No other such statewide vote has passed.
4. When revenues fall, the following year's limit on collections is still based on the allowed collections of the previous year. The result is that in years following a recession, allowed revenues will grow only from the worst revenue collection year of the recession to the extent allowed by rate of population growth and inflation.
5. TABOR also affected a 1991 limit on spending growth that the General Assembly had passed. By reference, it made the limit impossible to amend except by vote of the people. This provision, known as Arveschoug-Bird, limits the growth of General Fund expenditures to 6 percent more than the previous year or 5 percent of personal income, whichever amount is lower. In practice the 6 percent limit is always less
6. Colorado's early experience with TABOR was successful because of the very rapid demographic and economic growth of the state in the 1990s, due to substantial migration (30 percent population growth from 1990 to 2000) and the rapid expansion of the electronics and telecommunications industries in the state. Taxpayers saw substantial "TABOR reduction checks" as revenues were returned to them. The General Assembly reduced personal income and sales tax rates to reduce surplus (returnable) revenues.
7. Contraction in electronics and telecommunications industries occurred rapidly in 2000 and 2001, shrinking the state economy and tax collections. Personal income grew only 2 percent from 2002 to 2003, the sixth worst rate in the country, when the national average was 2.8 percent. State employment shrank by 1 percent from 2002 to 2003, again the sixth worst rate in the country, when the national average was -0.1 percent.
8. The state's budget problems have been made worse by the interaction of an additional constitutional provision with the TABOR revenue limit. Voters in 2000 approved Amendment 23, which requires the General Assembly annually to increase base per pupil funding for K-12 education by inflation plus one percentage point a year through 2010, and by inflation thereafter. K-12 funding now accounts for 40 percent of the Colorado General Fund budget.
9. Overall, then, it is very unlikely Colorado can grow out of its problems, especially now that migration to the state has slowed and inflation is low. The TABOR cap on revenue growth will ensure that state revenue growth will remain below the rate of economic growth in the state. Amendment 23 will require an increasing share of allowable revenue growth.
10. TABOR prevented the creation of a state rainy day fund through implication as well as its requirement that revenues in excess of a limit be returned to the voters. Reserves of 3 percent of the general fund are allowed, but any use must be repaid in the following fiscal year. Thus the reserve fund is more in the nature of a cash-flow reserve than a rainy-day fund.
11. Colorado uses an annual budget cycle. Since 2001, the General Assembly has wrestled with increased demands for Medicaid and K-12 education while facing reduced tax revenues. It is now considering ways to release the state higher education system from state government in order to allow institutions of higher education to raise tuition and fees outside of the TABOR limits (tuition and fees count toward the state government TABOR limit).
12. Both Republicans and Democrats in the state are considering constitutional amendments to revise TABOR and Amendment 23 to ease the long-term state budget dilemma. Republicans favor amending or repealing Amendment 23 with some adjustments to TABOR, such as changing the provision that rachets down allowable revenue collections after a recession. Democrats favor keeping Amendment 23 and making more substantial changes to TABOR. Both sides are hampered in designing constititutional amendments for the voters to consider by a single-subject rule for initiatives and referendums that did not exist in 1992 when TABOR was submitted.
13. Governor Bill Owens (a Republican) has long been a supporter of the TABOR provisions as a means of limiting or reducing the size of government in Colorado. He has recently urged the General Assembly to recommend to the voters revisions in TABOR and Amendment 23 to address the state's fiscal issues. In the past week, the governor has recommended the suspension of both constitutional provisions for two years to allow a greater flow of tax collections to the state as the economy recovers and to deal with the state's current fiscal problems. The governor has not released details of his proposal.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Oh yes I can. People want to oversimplify the claim that we need to stop funding of "primary and secondary education, public transportation, and criminal justice (jail, courts, the whole nine yards)". Give me a break. I think what you really mean is stop increasing the fundings for any govt programs, right?. Or perhaps you mean to have start have the federal and state govts run like a corporation which has to watch its overhead and non-core expenditures?

The minute anyone hints at budget cuts, you get the chicken littles crying that it will kill people, etc. You certainly know about the many billions of pork spending by the federal govt? California is a microcosm of the federal govt. The problem is that the govt "promises" too many things to too many people (corporations, public entities, etc.) - way beyond what they should do. If they stop thinking just for a second that they need to be involved in every single fucking aspect of our lives and get off their fucking thrones, maybe - just maybe - they can do things better at a lower price. You give me a categorized budget and I will show you exactly where they can start looking for cuts. I did that a few years ago with the federal budget and came up with $300 billion in cuts over 5 years (there are some things that can be cut immediately, while others will have to be gradual). You want to hear me keep ranting like an old pirate? Then just continue to say that the govts cannot afford to make cuts or make excuses why we can't be looking.

(SI: this is not a rant specifically at you but at an unfortunate attitude and mindset that prevails in this country away from personal responsibilities, a libertarian govt and against socialism.)

No offense taken at all and I enjoy the old pirate rating

I agree with you on all of the above points. I'd love to get rid of the pork if you could show me how to break the "pork funds candidates, candidates approve pork" cycle. Good luck finding a decently financed candidate to do that as you just can't get your name out there in the media age without decent cash. It's one of those things where I wish it were true, but I just don't see it happening any time soon.

Just because I really don't want to be doing homework anyways, how about the example of higher education. Like everywhere else, Kansas cut taxes in the late 90s, expecting the surpluses to continue. But when the economy went south, education spending was the first to get on the chopping block. So, to pay for it, they've enacted a 120% tuition increase in the last 5 years. But Kansas has a relatively low per capita income and what happens when they keep pricing people out? Isn't there some value in educating your people and keeping funding high so that costs are lower?

Then again, I suppose you can contend that there should be no funding for upper level education. But isn't that going to kill the future tax base of your people by not educating them?

SI