On 1 July, smoking in prisons was banned in the Australian state of Victoria, following New Zealand’s lead. But is stripping prisoners of their smokes a benefit to society?

Before attempting to answer this, it is worthwhile looking at the reasoning behind the ban.

The Australian government is concerned about the effect second-hand smoke has on prison staff and other prisoners. Other reasons include reducing healthcare and maintenance costs, the risk of fire and legal action by non-smokers within prisons.

These may sound practical, but should be taken with a pinch of salt. Yes, smoking is harmful to human health, but does that necessarily justify a ban?

First, the ban applies to indoor and outdoor areas. But there is no evidence that smoking harms anyone besides the smoker in open areas.  

Anti-smoking groups argue that a ban is justified because smokers are not sufficiently aware of the harm they do to themselves when they smoke. However, in his book Trade-offs, economist Harold Winter presents evidence that shows people actually overestimate the risk associated with smoking by 33 to 38% on average.

Second, the ban is likely to create a black market for tobacco, and will not stop prisoners from resuming smoking once they finish their sentence. Studies from the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research, found that across the US, anywhere from 20% to 76% of prisoners self-reported smoking in violation of bans. It is also likely that staff were supplying cigarettes due to the large quantity available.

Third, smoking provides relief from boredom and stress, especially within prisons. Almost proving the point, 300 prisoners rioted in response to the ban in Victoria prisons by starting fires – ironic considering it was meant to lower fire risk.

Australia following New Zealand’s lead is problematic. New Zealand’s ban was introduced in 2011 and has been challenged twice by a non-smoking prisoner.

The High Court initially ruled the ban was unlawful, invalid and of no effect. It did not comply with the Smoke-free Environments Act (SEA) and was inconsistent with the Corrections Act. However, before the verdict was delivered, the government quickly amended the SEA.

An alternative strategy could be to allow prisoners to opt for a smoke free environment and to enter a cessation program. Governments should ease up on the paternalism and just roll with it.