Lost your Password?
Click Here
Don't have an account?
Register Here
Welcome to the EuroPris Knowledge Management System. The table below shows questions and responses from European National Agencies. Select a question for more information or use the filters on the left to narrow down questions based on Agency or Category.
Want to ask a question? Please read our guidance information found here: Submitting a KMS Question
← Back Search KMSThis content is only available to registered members of EuroPris.
Introduction: The European Commission’s Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (Chafea) and the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) have commissioned ICF to conduct a study on smoke-free environments and advertising of tobacco and related products. The purpose of the study is amongst others to provide a comprehensive overview of the: - Implementation, functioning and impacts of the 2009 Council Recommendation on smoke-free environments in all EU Member States, EU candidate countries and countries of the European Economic Area. ICF in return has asked EuroPris to consult our members on this issue. As part of their field research, they would like you to complete the KMS questionnaire on smoke-free environments in your sector of activity. Your feedback will directly feed into the Commission’s understanding of gaps in the current regulatory frameworks, and will inform their future strategy.
Prison staff and inmates fully accept restricted smoking areas, as expected in prison rules. These areas involve nursing facilities, coffee shops, offices, dinner rooms and/or common areas for staff, amongst others. Smoking in cells is allowed, but non-smokers are respected if they wish a non-smoking cell.
Instances/examples of non-compliance with current arrangements in prisons?In some cases, specially with troubled inmates who show bad behaviour on the whole, some internal regulations are not respected and observed, not only related to non-smoking rules. In this regard, there are situations in which some individuals smoke in certain places where it is not allowed.
Issues/challenges faced by your Service or individual prisons in complying with rules on smoke-free environments?Some challenges are related to particular behaviours showed by both inmates and prison officers. These behaviours are not common or representative, but they are truly an example of how difficult it may be to implement real smoke-free environments over time. Prisons, due to their particular characteristics and users (drug-abusers, for instance), may pose some challenges for healthy and safe settings.
Economic impacts of smoke-free measures in prisons?No structured economic analysis have been carried out to date, but it seems clear that smoke-free settings support and facilitate safe and healthy working environments for everyone. This is helpful for improving intervention programmes on the whole, prevention of relapse or avoiding breathing problems. Even altough this economic dimension has not been thoroughly studied, there is a high level of agreement on the impact of such measures.
In penitentiaries and prisons in the Republic of Croatia, there are separate rooms for the accommodation of smoking and non-smoking prisoners in closed conditions of serving a prison sentence. In addition, there are special rooms for smokers in closed-type penitentiaries, such as living rooms and other common areas for smokers. In open and semi-open prison conditions, prisoners are not allowed to smoke in the rooms in which they are accommodated, but there are special rooms for smokers (living rooms and other common rooms for smokers). Prisoners in the vast majority of cases adhere to the above rules and measures. However, if, while serving a prison sentence, they violate the provisions of the House Rules and enjoy tobacco products in the premises or areas where this is not allowed in the penitentiary or prison, appropriate disciplinary proceedings will be initiated against the offender.
Issues/challenges faced by your Service or individual prisons in complying with rules on smoke-free environments?In the prison system of the Republic of Croatia, we do not have a penitentiary or a prison with a complete ban on smoking, not including the Correctional Institution (minors), so we have not faced any major issue nor challenge in terms of complying with rules on smoke-free environments. Given that all prisons and penitentiaries have separate smoking rooms, all prisoners and prison staff are subject to disciplinary and legal frameworks in this regard. According to the Law on the limitation of use of tobacco goods, in Croatia smoking is forbidden in all closed public places. Areas/rooms for smokers are not allowed in places which provide health and education services. Exceptionally, smoking is allowed in special areas/rooms seat out for smokers in psychiatric institutions and other health and social institutions which provide services for mentally disturbed persons and in prisons and penitentiaries. These areas/rooms must be marked with "Smoking permitted" sign.
Economic impacts of smoke-free measures in prisons?In the prison system of the Republic of Croatia, we have not recorded significant economic impacts regarding to smoke-free measures, because the benefits of that measures outweigh the investment itself.
A total smoke free policy was introduced in Scottish prisons from 30th November 2018, amidst growing concern about inequities in occupational exposures to second-hand smoke (SHS), and tobacco related-harm among people in custody (PiC). As part of a comprehensive evaluation of the process and outcomes of the implementation of smoke free policy, 14 focus groups with staff and 23 interviews with people in custody in Scotland were conducted 6-8 months after implementation. The evaluation was an independent study conducted by a team of researchers from the University of Glasgow and the University of Stirling led by Prof Kate Hunt. The study of smoke free prisons found that total restrictions on smoking had been widely accepted by people in custody in Scotland, after a relatively brief period of adjustment which had been less troublesome than participants believed it could have been. Benefits of the smoke free policy for the safety and comfort of staff who were now no longer exposed to second hand smoke and for the health of people in custody who were no longer able to smoke were widely acknowledged. Drawbacks of the smoke free policy such as the difficulties of enforced smoking abstinence for certain groups (e.g. new admissions) and displacement of tobacco with other substances (e.g. e-cigarettes, illegal drugs) were also reported. Contraband tobacco was not thought to be a major problem since prisons in Scotland became smoke free. The findings corroborate international experiences that smoke free prison policies can be implemented without causing major disruption and highlight the need for the removal of tobacco to be underpinned by careful planning, partnership working, and ensuring support measures are available for smokers. Experiences from Scotland may be of interest, and some comfort, for policy-makers in other jurisdictions who are considering a similar path in the future.
Instances/examples of non-compliance with current arrangements in prisons?As Q1
Issues/challenges faced by your Service or individual prisons in complying with rules on smoke-free environments?The introduction of the smoke free policy was generally perceived to have been less troublesome than staff and people in custody believed it could have been and prior fears about the possibility of significant disorder (e.g. ‘riots’) in prisons had not materialised. Several factors which might have aided the relatively smooth implementation of the policy were identified in the data. First, the transition to smoke free prisons was perceived to have been well managed by the Scottish Prison Service at both national and local levels. The decision to stop the sale of tobacco several weeks prior to the implementation date, and permitting local policies for the removal of tobacco, were highlighted as important aspects of the implementation strategy, since they increased the likelihood of people in custody cutting down smoking over a period of time. Second, good communication and engagement with people in custody, staff and other stakeholders were perceived to have been important to the overall success of the policy. ‘Countdown’ posters in prisons were generally perceived to have been helpful in ensuring widespread awareness of the move to smoke free rules in advance of their implementation, although it was acknowledged that some people in custody had not taken notice of information, especially towards the end of the poster campaign. Hence, considerable efforts were also made to engage people in custody one-to-one or in groups to understand opinions of smoke free rules; identify potential problems and solutions; signpost or make referrals to the smoking cessation service; and get feedback on new products such as e-cigarettes. At times, some staff participants said they would have liked details of the implementation strategy (e.g. introduction of rechargeable e-cigarettes) to have been shared and enacted sooner. Third, collaboration with and input from a range of stakeholders was perceived to have been instrumental to success, given the scale and challenge of the task of prohibiting smoking in the prison population. This included partnership working across health and justice services (NHS and SPS), collecting the views people in custody, and contributions (and acceptance) from staff at all levels, and from people in custody. Fourthly, the increased availability of smoking abstinence/cessation support (via Quit Your Way Service, see) in prisons were considered essential to the successful removal of tobacco in prisons. There was discussion in some of the staff groups about how this support might need to evolve under smoke free rules, for example in relation to competing demands on the prison regime and prison staff (some of whom had been trained to act as Quit Your Way advisors during the implementation period). In one staff group, there was a suggestion to integrate nicotine education and support with other health promotion activities in prisons going forward, to improve holistic health of people in custody. Finally, a broader factor which was perceived to have aided implementation of smoke free prison rules was the increasing de-normalisation of smoking in many contexts as a consequence of the 2006 legislation banning smoking in most public places in Scotland.
Economic impacts of smoke-free measures in prisons?Changes to canteen orders were observed e.g. purchase of vaping kits.
The ban on smoking in prison area (cells included) came into effect on 2 September 2015. The Law on Tobacco Control stipulated that the administrative bodies of a legal person must ensure that its personnel, clients and visitors are not exposed to tobacco smoke. It took some time for the inmates to accept the new regulations. The Tobacco Products and Related Products Control Law of 2016 subjects e-cigarettes to the same heavy restrictions as tobacco products. Special outdoor smoking areas which have a ceiling or roof and benches were arranged for inmates.
Instances/examples of non-compliance with current arrangements in prisons?9 cases of inmates' non-compliance with current arrangements were reported in October 2020.
Issues/challenges faced by your Service or individual prisons in complying with rules on smoke-free environments?The biggest challenge is the ban on smoking in common areas inside prison. Inmates never smoke in the areas where physical supervision (guards) are present, but they like to violate the rules and smoke in the unsupervised areas, usually toilets.
Economic impacts of smoke-free measures in prisons?We haven‘t calculated the economic impact so far.
The Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) had committed to making its prisons smoke free by September of 2020 and much preparatory work was done. However following the outbreak of the coronavirus in March 2020 the decision was taken to pause this work. That decision will be reviewed in January of 2021 but whatever the outcome of that review NIPS is committed to becoming smoke free in due course
Instances/examples of non-compliance with current arrangements in prisons?see above
Issues/challenges faced by your Service or individual prisons in complying with rules on smoke-free environments?see above
Economic impacts of smoke-free measures in prisons?see above
This content is only available to registered members of EuroPris.
Conditions of protection against harmful effects of smoking in prison facilities follow the generally binding regulations applied in the whole society (Act No. 377/2004 Coll. on Non-smokers Protection and on amendment of certain acts as amended by later regulations). Smoking in prison facilities within the Slovak Republic is possible only in smoking cells (only smokers can be accommodated there) and in the restricted smoking areas that can be directly ventilated. Smoking outside of these spaces is strictly prohibited. Additionally, the smoking is also prohibited in the prison hospital and in common areas of each prison facility (corridors, staircases, sanitary facilities, walking yards, etc.) and in the premises where can be present juveniles. The mentioned prohibition of smoking applies to all persons (inmates, prison staff, visitors, etc.). Violation of this prohibition can result in a disciplinary punishment, a penalty up to 331 EUR, or a labour sanction for the prison staff.
Instances/examples of non-compliance with current arrangements in prisons?The most common case of not obliging the current measures is smoking of inmates out of restricted smoker spaces.
Issues/challenges faced by your Service or individual prisons in complying with rules on smoke-free environments?Separate placement of smokers from non-smokers in cells presents considerable organisational and technical problems in the view of a high number of inmates, accommodation of several inmates in one cell and compliance with all security (prison) rules of their placement (moreover, the mentioned issues are often deepened by purposive behaviour of inmates – e.g. an inmates changes its smoking status (smoker/non-smoker) several times a month).
Economic impacts of smoke-free measures in prisons?-
As per April 1st 2017, indoor smoking has been prohibited in Danish prisons. However, inmates are allowed to smoke outside in the yard facilities. Due to sparse personnel resources, several prisons and detention houses with many inmates and detainees have introduced a practice where inmates can smoke outside in smaller groups once a day for one hour. The prohibition arose as a response to the recurrent staff survey concerning working environment in the Danish prisons and detention houses. Prison authorities have thus voluntarily ended the practice as a health and safety measurement in order to comply with the staffs’ wishes. The practice has significantly improved the indoor climate, as was the intent. The inmates cannot bring cigarettes and lighters to their cell. Instead, remedies for smoking are kept in lockers that are only opened in connection with the daily one-hour smoking recess. Each inmate has his or her own locker in order to prevent conflicts arising from missing cigarettes etc. Apart from minor disturbances and cases of vandalism for example in order to light cigarettes smuggled into the inmates cells by igniting electrical cords, the implementation of the ban has been relatively peaceful. There has not been any cases of violent acts in relation to the prohibition. Violations of the smoking prohibition are met by disciplinary punishments. First time violations are punished by fine – repeatedly, if violated continuously. In approximately 77% of the cases of breaches, the case is settled by fine. In cases of serious or repeated violations (e.g. where vandalism has been committed or where fines have proven inefficient), penalty cells are used. In approximately 23% of the cases of breaches, the case is settled by penalty cell. Punishment by penalty cell entails that a member of the prison staff writes a report and interrogates the inmate. Subsequently, decisions regarding duration and terms of the stay are made, after which the sanction is announced. The number of violations has been stagnating and eventually declining since the introduction of the ban.
Instances/examples of non-compliance with current arrangements in prisons?As per April 1st 2017, indoor smoking has been prohibited in Danish prisons. However, inmates are allowed to smoke outside in the yard facilities. Due to sparse personnel resources, several prisons and detention houses with many inmates and detainees have introduced a practice where inmates can smoke outside in smaller groups once a day for one hour. The prohibition arose as a response to the recurrent staff survey concerning working environment in the Danish prisons and detention houses. Prison authorities have thus voluntarily ended the practice as a health and safety measurement in order to comply with the staffs’ wishes. The practice has significantly improved the indoor climate, as was the intent. The inmates cannot bring cigarettes and lighters to their cell. Instead, remedies for smoking are kept in lockers that are only opened in connection with the daily one-hour smoking recess. Each inmate has his or her own locker in order to prevent conflicts arising from missing cigarettes etc. Apart from minor disturbances and cases of vandalism for example in order to light cigarettes smuggled into the inmates cells by igniting electrical cords, the implementation of the ban has been relatively peaceful. There has not been any cases of violent acts in relation to the prohibition. Violations of the smoking prohibition are met by disciplinary punishments. First time violations are punished by fine – repeatedly, if violated continuously. In approximately 77% of the cases of breaches, the case is settled by fine. In cases of serious or repeated violations (e.g. where vandalism has been committed or where fines have proven inefficient), penalty cells are used. In approximately 23% of the cases of breaches, the case is settled by penalty cell. Punishment by penalty cell entails that a member of the prison staff writes a report and interrogates the inmate. Subsequently, decisions regarding duration and terms of the stay are made, after which the sanction is announced. The number of violations has been stagnating and eventually declining since the introduction of the ban.
Issues/challenges faced by your Service or individual prisons in complying with rules on smoke-free environments?As per April 1st 2017, indoor smoking has been prohibited in Danish prisons. However, inmates are allowed to smoke outside in the yard facilities. Due to sparse personnel resources, several prisons and detention houses with many inmates and detainees have introduced a practice where inmates can smoke outside in smaller groups once a day for one hour. The prohibition arose as a response to the recurrent staff survey concerning working environment in the Danish prisons and detention houses. Prison authorities have thus voluntarily ended the practice as a health and safety measurement in order to comply with the staffs’ wishes. The practice has significantly improved the indoor climate, as was the intent. The inmates cannot bring cigarettes and lighters to their cell. Instead, remedies for smoking are kept in lockers that are only opened in connection with the daily one-hour smoking recess. Each inmate has his or her own locker in order to prevent conflicts arising from missing cigarettes etc. Apart from minor disturbances and cases of vandalism for example in order to light cigarettes smuggled into the inmates cells by igniting electrical cords, the implementation of the ban has been relatively peaceful. There has not been any cases of violent acts in relation to the prohibition. Violations of the smoking prohibition are met by disciplinary punishments. First time violations are punished by fine – repeatedly, if violated continuously. In approximately 77% of the cases of breaches, the case is settled by fine. In cases of serious or repeated violations (e.g. where vandalism has been committed or where fines have proven inefficient), penalty cells are used. In approximately 23% of the cases of breaches, the case is settled by penalty cell. Punishment by penalty cell entails that a member of the prison staff writes a report and interrogates the inmate. Subsequently, decisions regarding duration and terms of the stay are made, after which the sanction is announced. The number of violations has been stagnating and eventually declining since the introduction of the ban.
Economic impacts of smoke-free measures in prisons?Implementation of the smoke-free measures are dealt with as part of the general operating economy of the Danish Prisons. Specific data on the economic impacts of smoke-free measures in prisons are therefore not available.
This content is only available to registered members of EuroPris.
In Latvian imprisonment places prisoners may voluntarily choose to be in smoking or non-smoking cells, for which they submit written applications to the prison administration. No smoking is allowed in the Centre of Addicts (hereinafter – Centre) of Olaine Prison (the Latvian Prison Hospital), except during walks.
Instances/examples of non-compliance with current arrangements in prisons?Mostly, smoking regulations in the Centre are not followed due to the desire to smoke during the period when such activities are not allowed. As inmates are taken for a walk for at least one hour, during this time inmates are issued tobacco and its accessories at specially located tobacco storage cabinets which are lockable, and provided for a walk in walking areas. Returning from a walk, inmates who smoke put the remaining tobacco and its accessories. No complaints have been received that inmates have any restrictions on smoking at the time allowed, during walking. Dissatisfaction is expressed in the initial assessment process, when inmates, arriving in the Centre, are used to smoke without a ban in other Latvian prisons. Examples of situations/violations: in the Centre, where the addiction reduction program is implemented, smoking is not allowed indoors, but inmates, in turn, try to bring tobacco indoors as smoking 1-2 times a day for them is not enough. The average number of violations in the Centre is 2-3 per month. No problems of such type have been in women section. Before the ban of smoking in 2010 the explanatory work was carried out in several institutions for about a year, by various activities the negative consequences of smoking were discussed with prisoners. Smoking in the territory of institution was prohibited also for staff and guests. Prisoners were warned several months before, from which date the smoking was prohibited in the institution. The staff of Resocialisation Department worked hard to strengthen the motivation among the informal leaders of prisoners to quit smoking, which helped to create a favorable climate for smoking bans. During the process of quitting to smoke, prisoners were provided with the support of a psychologist, doctor, social worker and inspectors of Resocialisation Department. The challenge was the negative attitude of many institution employees towards the ban on smoking. The administrative and legal resources have been used to change the attitude and views of employees. The supporting measures were ensured financially, e.g. stationery, prizes etc. There was an opportunity to use free videos from Internet, which is not possible at the moment. Following the ban on smoking, attempts were made by prisoners to smoke illegally in the cell by smoking with electrical wires with all the resulting consequences (damaging the socket, violating the safety regulations). Recently, the number of the above-mentioned cases has decreased significantly (no cases were fixed this year).
Issues/challenges faced by your Service or individual prisons in complying with rules on smoke-free environments?Nicotine addiction is a chronic disease and only a part of tobacco users manage to maintain a constant abstinence after first attempts to quit smoking. For most smokers quitting attempts are cyclical. Ensuring a smoke-free environment and reducing the harm caused by smoking is one of the health priorities of prisoners. There are no miracle cures to quit smoking that allow everyone to stop this habit quickly and easily, but there are a number of steps that can help to achieve this goal. This, in turn, requires funding. In order to implement measures aiming to quit smoking in prisons, such as ensuring a smoke-free environment, restricting tobacco advertising and sales, consulting a narcologist, informing prisoners about the harmful effects of tobacco on health and providing prisoners with healthy free time opportunities, such as sports or artistic activities etc. Primarily, smoking possibilities in prisons should be strictly limited. The introduction of a non-smoking environment in the Centre, without affecting the individual, which depends on the intake of nicotine in the body, differs significantly from the individual’s own persistence and period of smoking. The institution enables the individual involved in the addiction reduction program to assess his or her need for the use of this harmful substance. While in the Centre’s reduction programs, an individual can smoke during a walk, after a walk there is no such a possibility. It is complicated to create or maintain a smoke-free environment as long as smoking is not prohibited in prisons. At the moment, it is allowed to smoke without restrictions in living spaces of all Latvian prisons, except the Centre, as well as to buy an unlimited amount of tobacco in the prison shop.
Economic impacts of smoke-free measures in prisons?Funding for the implementation of measures enabling to quit smoking is not provided in the budget of the Latvian Prison Administration. At the moment, some support group meetings funded by the Ministry of Health were held in prison. In addition, some specialists (psychologists) voluntarily try to promote the inmates’ belief in quitting tobacco smoking. If the funding envisages a statutory change in the purchase and use of tobacco products in prisons, there will be an effect on prisoners as whole rather than on an individual level. Unfortunately, tobacco is a local currency, which has a negative effect on the relationship between inmates.
In the prisons where smoking is allowed only outside, the prisoners smuggle tobacco products into the cells and smoke secretly.
Issues/challenges faced by your Service or individual prisons in complying with rules on smoke-free environments?When the prisoners smoke inside their cells without a permission they often use electrical appliances to light the cigarettes because they do not have cigarette lighters or matches. This causes fire hazard.
Economic impacts of smoke-free measures in prisons?For the time being it is made possible to smoke outside. This consumes a lot of working time of the staff and hinders other activities. Tobacco detox products are sold to prisoners at discount prices. If smoking will be entirely forbidden in closed prisons the prisoners will get the detox products for free.
A tolerance concerns cells (in which detainees can smoke); nevertheless, being a non-smoker is one of the criteria taken into account for the assignment of persons detained in cells; staff can smoke only outside (inside the structure). There is no tolerance in confined spaces.
Issues/challenges faced by your Service or individual prisons in complying with rules on smoke-free environments?In France, around 80% of detainees smoke (JACOMET C., GUYOT-LENAT A., BONNY C., HENQUELL C., RUDE M., DYDYMSKI S., LESTURGEON JA, LAMBERT C., PEREIRA B., SCHMIDT J . Addressing the challenges of chronic viral infections and addiction in prisons: the PRODEPIST study. European Journal of Public Health, 2016, Vol. 26, n ° 1, p. 122-128). The challenge is to reduce this significant consumption in detention; knowing that French prisons are not tobacco-free establishments. Actions have been taken (for the attention of detainees and staff): tobacco-free month in detention (the deployment of which within EPs is included as an action in the PPSMJ health roadmap 2019-2022), actions on funds MILDECA, a tobacco-free wing (at Villepinte remand center) that the prison administration wishes to extend to other establishments.
Economic impacts of smoke-free measures in prisons?No information on the economic impact of tobacco control measures.