Incarcerated Pennsylvanians now have to pay $150 to read.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

Books to Prisoners, an organization run by the bookstore Left Bank Books, has been accumulating lists of banned books in various prisons for years. You can see the information here: http://www.bookstoprisoners.net/banned-book-lists/.

In my state, for example, everything from How to Draw Birds to Fifty Shades of Gray are banned. Sure, there is also a ton of stuff on the list that is pornography or clearly violent, etc. But I do know that the list is not static. A warden can see a book come in and decide only after the prisoner has paid for it that it is going on the banned list. It is confiscated and the prisoner doesn't get his book or his money back.

Not surprised. Cops/jailers aren't satisfied with the sentence prisoners receive and feel they're justified in inflicting any form of additional punishment whenever they feel like it.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

Books to Prisoners, an organization run by the bookstore Left Bank Books, has been accumulating lists of banned books in various prisons for years. You can see the information here: http://www.bookstoprisoners.net/banned-book-lists/.

In my state, for example, everything from How to Draw Birds to Fifty Shades of Gray are banned. Sure, there is also a ton of stuff on the list that is pornography or clearly violent, etc. But I do know that the list is not static. A warden can see a book come in and decide only after the prisoner has paid for it that it is going on the banned list. It is confiscated and the prisoner doesn't get his book or his money back.

Here, NZ, prisoners cannot make most types of purchases or conduct financial transactions outside of the prison without pre-approval of the specific purchase or transaction. In any event the purchase of anything by a prisoner to be delivered to the prison has to be preapproved as to the item, the source and the deliverer before purchase. So there should be no case of prisoner legitimately bought books being banned on arrival.

As far as I am aware this is generally the case in Australia as well. I would be surprised if that is not normally the case in the USA too??

Here, as far as I know, delivery of prisoner subscribed magazines and papers to the prison for the prisoner is banned as a matter of policy due to risk.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

In my state, for example, everything from How to Draw Birds to Fifty Shades of Gray are banned. Sure, there is also a ton of stuff on the list that is pornography or clearly violent, etc. But I do know that the list is not static. A warden can see a book come in and decide only after the prisoner has paid for it that it is going on the banned list. It is confiscated and the prisoner doesn't get his book or his money back.

In Canadian prisons, a prisoner wanting to make a purchase from outside the prison has to have the purchase pre-approved. Books from retailers, book clubs and publishers are allowed and must be shipped directly to the prison -- if they are not banned for various reasons. Books from other sources are not permitted though your relatives/friends/whomever can pay the retailer, etc. to have books shipped to you.

Given the number of drug overdoses and overdose deaths in Canadian prisons, the sheer number of people willing to stand up on their hind legs and scream that any policy that attempts to make drugs harder to obtain and reduce the number of overdose deaths is violating the prisoners' civil rights are more than a trifle amusing to me. Oddly, many of that number overlap with those who insist self-destructive behaviours such as drunk driving and smoking need to be banned. Evidently drunkards and smokers can have their civil rights violated "for their own good".

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Oddly, many of that number overlap with those who insist self-destructive behaviours such as drunk driving and smoking need to be banned. Evidently drunkards and smokers can have their civil rights violated "for their own good".

Are you claiming that the serious adverse effects of drunk driving are limited to the drunk driver? (And there is also the second hand smoke thing.)

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Oddly, many of that number overlap with those who insist self-destructive behaviours such as drunk driving and smoking need to be banned. Evidently drunkards and smokers can have their civil rights violated "for their own good".

Laws against driving drunk aren't put in place for the drunk's own good.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Are you claiming that the serious adverse effects of drunk driving are limited to the drunk driver? (And there is also the second hand smoke thing.)

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Laws against driving drunk aren't put in place for the drunk's own good.

I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of quite a few people who are willing to claim that attempting to prevent the use of drugs in prison is an unacceptable violation of the prisoner's rights while fining and/or jailing impaired drivers and smokers is somehow acceptable.

If we are willing to allow access to drugs in prison given the known side effects of drugs, is it not somewhat logical to argue that imposing limitations on impaired driving or smoking is an equally unacceptable violation of civil rights. Owsley's finest blotter for all!

BTW, latest statistics seem to show that distracted driving is even more of a killer than impaired driving yet it doesn't have the opprobrium associated with impaired driving.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of quite a few people who are willing to claim that attempting to prevent the use of drugs in prison is an unacceptable violation of the prisoner's rights while fining and/or jailing impaired drivers and smokers is somehow acceptable.

Maybe it's just that they are banning a free activity and replacing it with a scheme to make money. Are there not other ways to inspect the books for contraband? Drug sniffing dogs? Only allowing books shipped directly from Amazon or some other business as others have mentioned?

If we are willing to allow access to drugs in prison given the known side effects of drugs...

Again, I disagree with your assertion that not wanting to see people be screwed is the same as supporting smuggling drugs.

is it not somewhat logical to argue that imposing limitations on impaired driving or smoking is an equally unacceptable violation of civil rights. Owsley's finest blotter for all!

Driving under the influence places other people at risk. So does smoking in restaurants and bars. Are you honestly arguing that drunk driving should be easier?

BTW, latest statistics seem to show that distracted driving is even more of a killer than impaired driving yet it doesn't have the opprobrium associated with impaired driving.

A: It's newer
B: Have you not seen any of the billboards, PSAs, etc?
Here's a Bing image search that I pulled up using 'distracted driving billboard' - https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...rd&FORM=HDRSC2

[j.p.s]

DNSB, you have twice conflated banning drunk driving with banning drinking. Do you refuse to make the distinction?

[DNSB]

QUOTE=ZodWallop;3774376]Driving under the influence places other people at risk. So does smoking in restaurants and bars. Are you honestly arguing that drunk driving should be easier?[/QUOTE]

Are you going to argue that drugs do not place other people at risk? Not even considering the number of overdose deaths, the number of deaths related to drug use such as traumatic deaths indirectly related to drug use, newborn deaths owing to a mother's drug use, deaths from infection related to intravenous use, for example, HIV infection and hepatitis. Then we have the number of deaths in robberies and other criminal activity in an attempt to support a drug habit.

Going back to the driving theme, one set of statistics from MADD stated that in 2014, 299 deaths or 13% were attributed to drivers using alcohol alone, 618 deaths or 26.9%, were attributed to drivers using drugs alone and 356 deaths or 15.5% were attributed to drivers using a alcohol/drugs cocktail. This was out of total of 2297 traffic fatalities.

On a nastier note, perhaps you should visit a maternity ward and watch a newborn going cold turkey.

I was not arguing that impaired driving should not be easier. I was being amused by the number of people who are willing to complain about limitations such as books in prison despite considerable evidence that they are used to smuggle drugs while being equally vocal in supporting other limitations due to potential harm.

As for distracted driving? Go into the office and tell the people there that you were ticketed for having your cell-phone in your hand and chatting away while doing 100km/h on the freeway. Tell the same people that you were arrested for blowing 70 while doing 40km/h on a street near your home. Note which one gets you some sympathy and which gets you treated as a pariah. This despite the statistics that show Canadian distracted drivers are involved in more accidents and more fatality accidents than are attributed to drivers who have been using alcohol and/or drugs.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

B: Have you not seen any of the billboards, PSAs, etc?
Here's a Bing image search that I pulled up using 'distracted driving billboard' - https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...rd&FORM=HDRSC2

Here's a link to a story about a woman who has obviously been paying attention to those PSAs.
Texting, reading, and eating: Meet Vancouver's worst distracted driver

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

DNSB, you have twice conflated banning drunk driving with banning drinking. Do you refuse to make the distinction?

Interesting. Where did I confuse drunk driving with drinking? Or combine the two into an omnibus edition? Did I miss myself calling for the return of the Great Experiment? Are you suggesting that banning illicit drugs or drunk driving which are both criminal offences in most jurisdictions is the same as banning drinking which is not a criminal offence in most jurisdictions--unhabitants of American dry counties possibly excepted.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Interesting. Where did I confuse drunk driving with drinking? Or combine the two into an omnibus edition? Did I miss myself calling for the return of the Great Experiment? Are you suggesting that banning illicit drugs or drunk driving which are both criminal offences in most jurisdictions is the same as banning drinking which is not a criminal offence in most jurisdictions--unhabitants of American dry counties possibly excepted.

We are apparently unable to communicate, I will not continue to try.

[Pizza_Cant_Read]

Silly that in some states felons are regaining a right to vote and in others the prison industrial complex marches on. There are certain non-profits that collect books by donation and after being inspected by prison officials are made available to prisoners either for free or on loan.

Worth checking your state's policy on the matter. I was happy to see the FCC which I often view as criminally commercially biased help out with cost of inmate telephone calls. This is just as bad or worse! Books occupy the mind, help build our faculties and keep us out of trouble. "Idle hands are the Devil's playground" :'(

I know, don't encourage prisoners to read or go to school. Just send them to the gym and out to play tough guy in the yard.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Pizza_Cant_Read

Silly that in some states felons are regaining a right to vote and in others the prison industrial complex marches on.

I don't think that's a good comparison. The felons regaining the right to vote (in Florida anyway), are people who have served their time.

That doesn't mean that there necessarily are any changes in the prison system in those states.

[Pizza_Cant_Read]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I don't think that's a good comparison. The felons regaining the right to vote (in Florida anyway), are people who have served their time.

That doesn't mean that there necessarily are any changes in the prison system in those states.

Yeah, unfortunately you are right. Didn't Washington also do something like this? I think a liberal state has a better chance of passing meaninful reforms. It is left to felons regaining their rights to follow through with their use and help those left in the system. Ari Kohn (postprisonedu.org) is an example of a powerful personality who has been a voice for prison reform and has aided many get on their feet upon returning to the real world. I can only hope that others follow his lead. Either way empowering felons with the right to vote is a good start

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Pizza_Cant_Read

Yeah, unfortunately you are right. Didn't Washington also do something like this? I think a liberal state has a better chance of passing meaninful reforms. It is left to felons regaining their rights to follow through with their use and help those left in the system. Ari Kohn (postprisonedu.org) is an example of a powerful personality who has been a voice for prison reform and has aided many get on their feet upon returning to the real world. I can only hope that others follow his lead. Either way empowering felons with the right to vote is a good start

The hoops former felons had to jump through to regain their civil rights was pretty gross if you research the origins of it. but I'll leave it there since this isn't the P&R forum.