Maryland Update
Read Newest Articles:? Maryland Page 3
Md. Bans Smoking, Approves Wage Bill
Deal to Save Hospital In Pr. George’s Seems Unlikely as Session Ends
By John Wagner and Lisa Rein, Washington Post Staff Writers
April 10, 2007
A deal between state and county leaders to save the financially troubled Prince George’s County hospital system was on the verge of collapse late last night as Maryland lawmakers neared adjournment on the frenetic final day of a legislative session that also brought final approval of a statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.
In the waning hours of the General Assembly’s 90-day session, legislators also pushed through a measure to make the state the first to require its contractors to pay their employees significantly more than the minimum wage and passed a $30 billion state budget that reflects the first-year priorities of Gov. Martin O’Malley (D). Those include record spending on public education, a freeze on university tuition this fall and an increase in spending on stem cell research.
Md. Smoking Ban Would Force Big Changes for Restaurants
4/8/07
Reported by Jobin Panicker
Reported by Jobin Panicker
SALISBURY- As Maryland State lawmakers close in on a statewide smoking ban, restaurants are expecting changes on their end.
Warren Custis of the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) in Salisbury said bars and restaurants will miss out on a major part of their business.?
“It’s wrong to try to tell someone where to smoke at,” Custis said. “Most of the time it doesn’t bother people.”
But people like Don Kersey disagree. He said, “I don’t enjoy smelling smoke while I eat.”
But Custis noted that businesses spend a lot of money installing smoke eaters.? This device sucks up the smoke when it is in the air. This allows for separate smoking and non-smoking sections.
“Restaurants and bars have them and now it’s [going to be] useless,” Custis said.
But some who do not smoke say a ban on smoking in restaurants is a good idea.
“I dont smoke and I don’t want to deal with people who smoke,” said Jonathan Silverio. “If you want to kill yourself, then go ahead.”
The statewide smoking ban would apply to bars, restaurants, and private clubs.? Lawmakers tentatively agreed to the ban last week. A formal agreement may be reached Monday.? The bill then heads to Gov. Martin O’Malley, who plans to sign it.????
Maryland would join Washington, D.C. and Delaware with statewide smoking bans.
House and Senate Negotiators Reach Compromise on Statewide Smoking Ban
By Annapolis Notebook
April 7, 2007
April 7, 2007
Maryland lawmakers said last night that they had hammered out a compromise on legislation that would impose a statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.
Under the deal reached by House and Senate negotiators, the ban would take effect in February. The bill would not exempt private clubs or other member organizations, as allowed in the version of the bill passed by the Senate.
But establishments would be able to seek hardship waivers from the state. The criteria for such a waiver would be drawn up in regulations by the state and granted by local health departments, House negotiators said.
“The ban would apply equally to everyone,” Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-Montgomery) told his chamber.
The Senate approved the compromise 31 to 16 last night. The House is expected to vote on the measure before the legislature adjourns at midnight Monday.
When the ban takes effect, Maryland will join at least 18 states and the District, which have similar prohibitions to protect workers and patrons from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) had voiced support for a statewide ban in recent weeks but expressed concern about the number of exemptions in the Senate bill.
Last night, his spokesman, Rick Abbruzzese, said O’Malley looks forward to signing the bill produced by the conference committee.
— John Wagner
— John Wagner
House and Senate Negotiators Reach Compromise on Statewide Smoking Ban
By Annapolis Notebook
April 7, 2007
April 7, 2007
Maryland lawmakers said last night that they had hammered out a compromise on legislation that would impose a statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.
Under the deal reached by House and Senate negotiators, the ban would take effect in February. The bill would not exempt private clubs or other member organizations, as allowed in the version of the bill passed by the Senate.
But establishments would be able to seek hardship waivers from the state. The criteria for such a waiver would be drawn up in regulations by the state and granted by local health departments, House negotiators said.
“The ban would apply equally to everyone,” Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-Montgomery) told his chamber.
The Senate approved the compromise 31 to 16 last night. The House is expected to vote on the measure before the legislature adjourns at midnight Monday.
When the ban takes effect, Maryland will join at least 18 states and the District, which have similar prohibitions to protect workers and patrons from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) had voiced support for a statewide ban in recent weeks but expressed concern about the number of exemptions in the Senate bill.
Last night, his spokesman, Rick Abbruzzese, said O’Malley looks forward to signing the bill produced by the conference committee.
— John Wagner
— John Wagner
Compromises Needed For State Smoking Ban
3/29/07
By Shawn Soper
It now appears a statewide smoking ban in Maryland will become a reality after both the full House and Senate approved their own versions of a bill this week, but there are some differences to iron out before the measures are passed along to the governor for approval.
3/29/07
By Shawn Soper
It now appears a statewide smoking ban in Maryland will become a reality after both the full House and Senate approved their own versions of a bill this week, but there are some differences to iron out before the measures are passed along to the governor for approval.
Smoking ban closer with passage of bills
03/29/07
By Nate Sandstrom
The Maryland Senate and House of Delegates passed statewide public smoking bans in recent days, although the two bodies must work out differences in the bills before sending a final measure to Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has said he supports such a ban.
03/29/07
By Nate Sandstrom
The Maryland Senate and House of Delegates passed statewide public smoking bans in recent days, although the two bodies must work out differences in the bills before sending a final measure to Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has said he supports such a ban.
Statewide smoking ban in bars, eateries is close
03/28/07
By LIZ FARMER, Capital News Service
ANNAPOLIS — With little fanfare or debate, the General Assembly moved one step closer March 23 to approving a statewide ban on smoking in restaurants and bars, a measure that will likely come to a vote for final passage this week.
Smoking ban moves closer to O’Malley’s desk
3/25/07
ANNAPOLIS (AP) – A statewide smoking ban in Maryland moved one step closer to the governor’s desk Saturday when the House gave final approval to a ban on a 98-40 vote.
3/25/07
ANNAPOLIS (AP) – A statewide smoking ban in Maryland moved one step closer to the governor’s desk Saturday when the House gave final approval to a ban on a 98-40 vote.
Smoking Ban Approved in Md. Senate
March 23, 2007
By Kristen Wyatt
By Kristen Wyatt
ANNAPOLIS, Md. – A statewide smoking ban that would force all bars to go smoke-free cruised through the Maryland legislature Friday and is close to the governor’s desk.
However, lawmakers still have to work out whether the ban should apply to private nonprofit clubs.
The Senate gave preliminary approval to the ban Friday morning after a short debate, and the House did the same later in the day. The bans would snuff out smoking in all bars and restaurants by next year; however, bars could apply for a waiver if they can prove their business would suffer under a ban.
Maryland lawmakers have considered a statewide ban several years before without agreement. This year, the ban picked up speed after Maryland’s largest city, Baltimore, voted last month to bar smoking. Four counties already require smoke-free bars.
“To me it was a clear vote for public health,” said Sen. Rob Garagiola, D-Montgomery, who sponsored the ban.
Lawmakers rejected two amendments that would have undone the ban.
Sen. Richard Colburn, an Eastern Shore Republican who opposes a ban, tried to change the bill so that bars could still allow smoking if they posted a sign outside alerting customers if smoking were allowed. Colburn’s plan failed 30-17. One more vote is required in both chambers, possibly by Monday.
Colburn told his colleagues that people should take responsibility for secondhand smoke exposure, and that lawmakers shouldn’t meddle with smoking.
“We can’t always legislate to protect people from themselves,” Colburn said.
Later, the House soundly rejected an amendment that would have made all tobacco illegal. The measure was seen as an attempt to derail the measure.
“If you are really, really concerned about the health of the state of Maryland, you’ll support this,” said the amendment sponsor, Delegate Joseph Minnick, D-Baltimore County. Minnick’s tobacco ban was rejected 94-38.
Lawmakers still have to iron out the difference before sending the measure to the desk of Gov. Martin O’Malley, who supports a ban. Garagiola said the two chambers would “be able to work something out” on the veteran’s groups, but he didn’t say how.
“I’m confident we’re going to have a bill that protects public health,” he said.
Senators had differing opinions on how important the private group exemption was to their final votes. Republican Sen. George Edwards, an American Legion member, has said the ban should not apply to veterans who want to smoke over sandwiches in their private clubs. On Friday, the western Marylander said that the private club exemption was important to rural areas.
“In rural parts of the state, these are sometimes the only gathering places,” Edwards said. Talking about his local American Legion, Edwards said, “In the town I live in, it’s the only bar.”
Most areas of the bill are similar. Both bans would take effect by the beginning of next year. Both would reduce the amount of smoking rooms allowed in hotels from 40 percent to 25 percent. Also, both would set up fines for violations, but allow bar owners to avoid fines if they take steps to prevent smoking such as removing ash trays and posting no-smoking signs.
A Maryland Doctor who is also a Senator Shares his Thoughts about the Pending Ban
03/23/07
Thank you for contacting me with your comments regarding a statewide smoking ban.
?As a parent and a physician, I certainly understand concerns many have about second-hand smoke that exists in public venues. There are many establishments statewide, including bars and family restaurants, that have chosen on their own to become smoke-free. I applaud them and frequent these establishments.
?I believe that government should proactively issue health and safety regulations in order to protect the public from hidden risks. The inspection of a restaurant kitchen and preparation area would be an example of that protection – an inspection of parts of the establishment that the public does not see. Bars and restaurants where smoking is permitted are hardly hidden risks.
?Imposing a smoking ban on bars and restaurants, which already indicate whether they are smoke-free or not, would be no different than banning businesses from promoting rock climbing, snow and water skiing, or white water rafting, because they are all activities with high risks that are well known to the public.
?I would support laws to require establishments to indicate whether or not they are smoke-free. This gives the consumer a clear indication of the environment that they are about to enter and empowers them to choose whether or not to be exposed to the risk. If businesses begin to lose business because they are finding that customers are choosing to say no to smoking venues, they will change. That’s the beauty of a free-market economy – it will be a consumer’s free and informed choice, not government’s mandate.
?With regards to exposure of employees to second-hand smoke, the same choice exists. They should be told whether or not they will be exposed to second-hand smoke in the working environment, and then be free to choose to work there or not. Again, by example, why do we let coal companies expose miners to known risks or voluntary hospitals expose heath care workers to HIV positive patients? The answer’s obvious – workers accept those risks in return for wages. To impose a statewide smoking ban would be to allow government to chip away at yet another form of personal freedom – a problem in its own sense.
?Thank you for taking the time to write. As with many issues that come before the legislature, I know that my view may be different from yours – but I hope you understand the reasoning behind the position I take when I cast my vote on an issue as controversial as this. It is not without an appreciation that there are very valid points to consider on both sides of this issue.
Sincerely,
Senator Andrew P. Harris, MD
Office of Senator Andrew P. Harris, MD
420 James Senate Office Bldg.
110 College Ave.
Thank you for contacting me with your comments regarding a statewide smoking ban.
?As a parent and a physician, I certainly understand concerns many have about second-hand smoke that exists in public venues. There are many establishments statewide, including bars and family restaurants, that have chosen on their own to become smoke-free. I applaud them and frequent these establishments.
?I believe that government should proactively issue health and safety regulations in order to protect the public from hidden risks. The inspection of a restaurant kitchen and preparation area would be an example of that protection – an inspection of parts of the establishment that the public does not see. Bars and restaurants where smoking is permitted are hardly hidden risks.
?Imposing a smoking ban on bars and restaurants, which already indicate whether they are smoke-free or not, would be no different than banning businesses from promoting rock climbing, snow and water skiing, or white water rafting, because they are all activities with high risks that are well known to the public.
?I would support laws to require establishments to indicate whether or not they are smoke-free. This gives the consumer a clear indication of the environment that they are about to enter and empowers them to choose whether or not to be exposed to the risk. If businesses begin to lose business because they are finding that customers are choosing to say no to smoking venues, they will change. That’s the beauty of a free-market economy – it will be a consumer’s free and informed choice, not government’s mandate.
?With regards to exposure of employees to second-hand smoke, the same choice exists. They should be told whether or not they will be exposed to second-hand smoke in the working environment, and then be free to choose to work there or not. Again, by example, why do we let coal companies expose miners to known risks or voluntary hospitals expose heath care workers to HIV positive patients? The answer’s obvious – workers accept those risks in return for wages. To impose a statewide smoking ban would be to allow government to chip away at yet another form of personal freedom – a problem in its own sense.
?Thank you for taking the time to write. As with many issues that come before the legislature, I know that my view may be different from yours – but I hope you understand the reasoning behind the position I take when I cast my vote on an issue as controversial as this. It is not without an appreciation that there are very valid points to consider on both sides of this issue.
Sincerely,
Senator Andrew P. Harris, MD
Office of Senator Andrew P. Harris, MD
420 James Senate Office Bldg.
110 College Ave.
Md. House Follows Senate in Smoking Ban Approval?
20 Mar 2007
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — A statewide smoking ban in Maryland appears all but certain this year after a House committee voted Tuesday to prevent smoking in bars and restaurants.
??
The vote came a day after a committee in the Senate approved a similar bill. The main difference between the two is that senators voted to exempt private nonprofit clubs, such as the American Legion, while the House did not. The full Senate was to begin work on a smoking ban Wednesday.
??
Both chambers decided to allow businesses to apply for an exemption from the ban if they can prove their business suffers from a ban.
??
House members debated the smoking proposal for several hours Tuesday, but ultimately voted 15-8 in favor of it, over the objections of some restaurant owners.
??
“At the end of the day, public health has to come before profit,” said Delegate Derrick Davis, D-Prince George’s, who leads the committee that approved the ban.
??
The full House and Senate will consider smoking bans in coming days. It would be unusual for a bill to clear a committee hurdle and then fail on later debate.
??
“This is a brave and important piece of legislation,” said Delegate Sue Hecht, D-Frederick.
??
All the Republicans on the committee, plus two Democrats, disagreed. They voiced concerns about running corner bars out of business, or said the decision should be left to local governments.
Already four counties — Howard, Prince George’s, Montgomery and Talbot — ban smoking in restaurants. Baltimore City will go smoke-free next year.
??
“I think we’re cramming something down their throats when we already have something proven that works,” said Delegate Richard Impallaria, R-Baltimore County. “I think it’s a bad piece of legislation. It’s bad business planning.”
??
Delegate Mary Roe Walkup, an Eastern Shore Republican, said restaurants have already done work to protect the health of nonsmokers, such as buying expensive ventilation systems.
??
“I think we’re going a bit too far on this,” Walkup said.
??
However, several lawmakers said public opinion strongly favors a ban. One delegate said he had to set up a special voice mailbox at his office to handle calls about the question.
??
“Public input from my district has been about 100 to 1 in favor,” said that delegate, Democrat Jim Mathias of Worcester County.
??
Even Davis, who made a public health plea for the ban, said politics were a factor, too. “We’ve seen and read the polls” about public support for a ban, Davis said.
??
As adopted by the House, private clubs would get no waiver to continue to allow smoking. That decision was made in part at the request of other bars, who feared they’d be at a disadvantage to veterans’ clubs or other private groups. House members also took out an exemption for volunteer fire halls.
??
The House version would direct state health officials to set rules for how bars would get exemptions. The Senate bill leaves that question up to local counties.
??
Violators of the House ban would get a written warning on a first offense, with fines up to $250 possible after three violations. Bar owners who allow smoking could also be fined; however, bar owners could avoid fines if they make an effort to prevent patrons from smoking, such as posting no-smoking signs and removing ashtrays.
??
The decision now heads to the full House and Senate. A Senate vote could come this week, and House Speaker Michael Busch said Tuesday the ban would have no trouble clearing the House.
??
“If you have to work in an environment, it ought to be smoke-free,” said Busch, D-Anne Arundel.
??
Gov. Martin O’Malley also voiced support. He told a reporter that he preferred the House version, with no exemptions for private clubs, though he didn’t say he’d veto a bill that exempted them.
??
“I would prefer a bill that has no exemptions, frankly,” O’Malley said. “If we’re going to do it, we should do it across the board.”
??
“I think we’re cramming something down their throats when we already have something proven that works,” said Delegate Richard Impallaria, R-Baltimore County. “I think it’s a bad piece of legislation. It’s bad business planning.”
??
Delegate Mary Roe Walkup, an Eastern Shore Republican, said restaurants have already done work to protect the health of nonsmokers, such as buying expensive ventilation systems.
??
“I think we’re going a bit too far on this,” Walkup said.
??
However, several lawmakers said public opinion strongly favors a ban. One delegate said he had to set up a special voice mailbox at his office to handle calls about the question.
??
“Public input from my district has been about 100 to 1 in favor,” said that delegate, Democrat Jim Mathias of Worcester County.
??
Even Davis, who made a public health plea for the ban, said politics were a factor, too. “We’ve seen and read the polls” about public support for a ban, Davis said.
??
As adopted by the House, private clubs would get no waiver to continue to allow smoking. That decision was made in part at the request of other bars, who feared they’d be at a disadvantage to veterans’ clubs or other private groups. House members also took out an exemption for volunteer fire halls.
??
The House version would direct state health officials to set rules for how bars would get exemptions. The Senate bill leaves that question up to local counties.
??
Violators of the House ban would get a written warning on a first offense, with fines up to $250 possible after three violations. Bar owners who allow smoking could also be fined; however, bar owners could avoid fines if they make an effort to prevent patrons from smoking, such as posting no-smoking signs and removing ashtrays.
??
The decision now heads to the full House and Senate. A Senate vote could come this week, and House Speaker Michael Busch said Tuesday the ban would have no trouble clearing the House.
??
“If you have to work in an environment, it ought to be smoke-free,” said Busch, D-Anne Arundel.
??
Gov. Martin O’Malley also voiced support. He told a reporter that he preferred the House version, with no exemptions for private clubs, though he didn’t say he’d veto a bill that exempted them.
??
“I would prefer a bill that has no exemptions, frankly,” O’Malley said. “If we’re going to do it, we should do it across the board.”
On the Net:
Read House Bill 359:? http://mlis.state.md.us/2007rs/billfile/HB0359.htm
Read House Bill 359:? http://mlis.state.md.us/2007rs/billfile/HB0359.htm
Md. smoking ban gaining momentum in legislature
March 15, 2007
KRISTEN WYATT
KRISTEN WYATT
ANNAPOLIS — A statewide smoking ban is nearing approval in Maryland, with a Senate committee possibly approving the idea as soon as Friday, lawmakers say.
The bill to snuff out smoking in Maryland’s bars and restaurants, long a priority for health activists, now appears to have the support to become law.
”How many more years can we put this thing off?” said Sen. Thomas ”Mac” Middleton, who leads a committee that considered a ban today. Middleton, D-Charles, told reporters his committee could forward the measure to the full Senate as soon as Friday.
”The votes are there” to pass it, he said.
There is a sense among lawmakers that a statewide smoking ban is inevitable. Momentum built after last month’s decision by Baltimore to ban smoking in bars starting next year. That vote by the state’s largest city will mean that by next year, more than half the state’s population will live in areas that don’t allow indoor smoking in public places.
A House committee is considering a similar statewide ban and could vote by the middle of next week. The legislature’s ruling Democrats — House Speaker Michael Busch and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller — have said there is enough support to pass the ban in both chambers.
Even a cabinet member for Gov. Martin O’Malley — John Colmers, secretary of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene — has spoken in favor of the idea. Testifying today, Colmers told senators the ban is needed to protect restaurant and bar workers.
”At this point we believe it’s a matter of equity, a matter of cost, a matter of public health,” Colmers said.
The sponsor of the Senate smoking ban, Sen. Rob Garagiola, D-Montgomery, said ”this is definitely the year” a smoking ban becomes law.
”We should be doing it statewide from a public health perspective,” he said.
It’s not clear, however, whether lawmakers will add a provision allowing businesses to apply to an exemption because of ”undue financial hardship.” In other words, small bars could get a chance to still allow smoking if they could prove they were losing a lot of business after banning smoking.
Republican Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, a member of the House committee soon to vote on a smoking ban, said a hardship exemption could win over more lawmakers. That would allow the state law to match Baltimore’s ordinance.
Haddaway-Riccio — whose Eastern Shore district includes areas that allow smoking as well as smoke-free Talbot County — said she wasn’t sure yet whether the ban would pass in her committee. But she predicted some statewide ban would eventually pass.
”With more and more jurisdictions going in that direction, eventually we’ll have to streamline the state,” she said.
At the invitation of the Restaurant Association of Maryland, Mark Lee presented the following testimony before the Maryland state legislature in opposition to proposed statewide mandatory smoking ban legislation. The Maryland state legislature has defeated similar proposals in each of the past five years, with no legislation having been approved by any committee in either the Senate or House of Delegates.
In addition to the Restaurant Association of Maryland, opponents also included the Maryland State Licensed Beverage Association, the Maryland Hotel/Lodging Association, and the Maryland Tourism Council.
————
Testimony Before the Maryland House of Delegates Economic Matters Committee Public Hearing in Consideration of House Bill 359 Regarding a Proposed Statewide Mandatory Smoking Ban
on March 7, 2007
by Mark Lee
?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
In addition to the Restaurant Association of Maryland, opponents also included the Maryland State Licensed Beverage Association, the Maryland Hotel/Lodging Association, and the Maryland Tourism Council.
————
Testimony Before the Maryland House of Delegates Economic Matters Committee Public Hearing in Consideration of House Bill 359 Regarding a Proposed Statewide Mandatory Smoking Ban
on March 7, 2007
by Mark Lee
?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Mark Lee and I am a Washington, D.C., small business owner, a member of the Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington, and a member of the D.C. Nightlife Association.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Washington hospitality community — the small business owners, operators, service professionals, and entertainment artists comprising D.C.’s largest local industry, biggest taxpayer, and major employer — I take this opportunity to report the significant effects of the negative economic impact experienced as a direct result of the recent forced imposition of a mandatory smoking ban at alcohol-licensed establishments in the nation’s capital.
Contrary to the glib assurances by smoking prohibition special interest groups that the abandonment of hospitality freedom of choice will not result in a loss of jobs, a reduction in business revenue, the retrenchment and closure of community small businesses, a decrease in tax revenues, or a decline in the diversity and character of local establishments, I am here today to tell you that such claims are simply not true. In fact, in every instance in the minority of state and local jurisdictions imposing mandatory bans — without exception — the harm is real and the economic pain is substantial and sustained.
All? local Washington news media reports indicate “D.C. bars are struggling” and that “double-digit losses due to the smoking ban” are commonplace. Economic losses at bars, lounges, and nightclubs as high as 40 percent, the virtual disappearance of happy-hour and weeknight patrons, and the reduction of operating hours have been reported. Of regional note, the newly-imposed ban in Scranton, Pennsylvania, has crippled local working-class and neighborhood bars and restaurants. The Scranton Times-Tribune quotes City Council member Bill Courtright in a recent edition as saying “I’m for the ban, but I didn’t know it would devastate businesses like this.” Other jurisdictions across the country — urban, suburban, and rural — have reported the individual loss of thousands or hundreds of jobs and business closures numbering in the scores or hundreds.
After 16 years, my own community nightlife business has ceased operations due to the fact that the known and quantifiable effects of mandatory smoking bans no longer makes it possible to justify the continued commitment by myself and my associates of our time, energy, and resources in our long-successful endeavors.
Survival for many businesses boils down to significant levels of unenforced and unenforceable violations of the law commonplace in communities both large and small. Extraordinary increases in noise complaints due to displaced smokers are also common and chronic.
Hospitality industry business establishments survive and thrive by accommodating marketplace preferences. A diversity of popular choices in the marketplace — not the social and economic havoc caused by the artificial imposition of a one-size-fits-all policy of forced social engineering — provides for the healthiest approach in responding to the real-world patrons we serve. Absolute prohibition results in the total elimination of all personal choice.
To mandate adult prohibition is a folly of finance and freedom. To do so based on the controversial “junk science” claims demonstrating only a statistically-insignificant incidence of hypothetical risk in the face of the outright rejection of such claims by the federal government’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an internationally-respected medical journal, and the largest longitudinal scientific study conducted by the UCLA School of Public Health and involving tens of thousands of subjects over nearly thirty years, among others, is more than mere folly.
Among the majority of non-smokers it is unusual to elicit more than an admitted annoyance of “smelly clothes” — few citizen-patrons suggest an actual health peril derived from casual encounters with so-called “secondhand smoke.” They know that we are not dragging dead bodies out in trash bags with the empty beer bottles at the end of the night.
There is only one potential victim before you today. I urge you to act to protect freedom of choice, personal liberty, and individual preference — for workers, patrons, and businesses alike.
###
Read:? City?Council OKs smoking ban
Smoking ban: How they voted
Baltimore Sun – Baltimore,MD,USA
The City Council advanced a proposed smoking ban on second reader procedural vote yesterday. That puts the ban up for final approval Feb. 26. …
?
Smoking ban to be aired
Baltimore Sun – Baltimore,MD,USA
Shropshire, who has met with about 10 restaurant and bar owners who are concerned about the effects of a smoking ban, has wavered in recent days on what …
?
Smoking ban idea fires up council
Annapolis Capital – Annapolis,MD,USA
Mr. Christman said he realizes the importance of a smoking ban, but doesn’t believe the city should go out on a limb. This isn’t the first time the city has …
Those against smoking ban say ‘butt out’
January 22, 2007
ANDREW SCHOTZ
ANDREW SCHOTZ
Where there’s smoke, there’s ire.
Health advocates are trying again to extinguish smoking from bars and restaurants, the last Maryland workplaces not covered by a statewide ban.
The fight over secondhand smoke has returned to the Maryland General Assembly in Annapolis.
On Friday, Sen. Robert J. Garagiola, D-Montgomery, filed the Clean Indoor Air Act of 2007.
Del. Barbara A. Frush, D-Anne Arundel/Prince George’s, plans to file a House version on Wednesday, according to her office.
Similar bills failed the last three years.
Phil Andrews, a Democratic councilman in Montgomery County, which has a smoking ban, said a statewide version has a better chance under Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, than former Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican, who didn’t support it.
Montgomery County’s ban has been largely popular since it started four years ago; restaurants still are succeeding and revenues are increasing, Andrews said.
Still, not everyone is thrilled by the idea.
Smoking ban opponents
“I don’t really see a need for government to dictate how to run our businesses,” said Lou Thomas, who owns The Yellow House, a Boonsboro-area bar.
As a businessman, he would react if customers were upset about smoke, said Thomas, who is on the board of directors of Washington County and Maryland restaurant associations.
“I haven’t heard any complaints,” he said.
The issue has been framed as protection for employees.
A Maryland Occupational Safety and Health prohibition of smoking in almost all workplaces went into effect in 1995.
However, restaurants and bars were excluded, with conditions. Establishments without a liquor license could permit smoking in a separate room. Those with a liquor license could have smoking in a separate room, the bar area or both.
Thomas said his customers expect smoke as part of their social outing. Many join in.
As a worker-protection measure, a smoking ban doesn’t make sense at The Yellow House because “quite a few employees smoke,” he said.
Friday night in Hagerstown, Heather White of Martinsburg, W.Va., Alex McCoy of Hagerstown, and Angela Zittle of Hagerstown smoked at the bar on a break at Burhans Station, where they work.
Speaking as a smoker and a food and drink patron, “I’m totally against it because we need a place to go, too,” McCoy said. “I think it’s discrimination … We’re paying customers. Our smoke over here doesn’t bother them over there.”
Two filters over the bar absorb smoke and clean the air, said Pat Amatucci, one of Burhans Station’s owners.
Compromise or prohibition?
Del. John P. Donoghue, D-Washington, whose Health and Government Operations Committee has killed past incarnations of the proposed ban, said he favored the original compromise: Advocacy groups let restaurants and bars install new ventilation systems to avoid a smoking ban.
Nick’s Airport Inn and The Grille at Park Circle, for example, paid plenty to retrofit their air-quality systems, Donoghue said.
Dick Roulette, an owner of The Grille at Park Circle, doesn’t know how his customers would react to a ban.
An area at the front door is a buffer between the nonsmoking dining room and the smoking-permitted bar.
“Our situation seems to work well,” he said. “Both sides of our restaurant are popular.”
Back at Burhans Station, local blues guitarist and singer Pete Lancaster said, “I like the smoking atmosphere … They want to hear live music; they want to smoke … Everyone gets so stressed these days — trying to survive, working two jobs. The weekend comes, they cut loose.”
In 2002, Ruby Tuesday in Hagerstown voluntarily prohibited smoking, joining Roccoco (which since has a new owner and new name), House of Kobe and the Old South Mountain Inn.
Two months into the ban, Ruby Tuesday’s general manager at the time, Carolyn Gelhard, said the restaurant lost an average of six or seven tables of business a night, but the wait for nonsmoking tables decreased.
Asked for an update on Friday, Richard Johnson, a spokesman at Ruby Tuesday’s headquarters in Maryville, Tenn., said the company doesn’t comment on sales at specific branches. In general, though, the voluntary ban, enacted at branches where customers wanted it, “has not had a negative effect,” he said.
Mike Kirkpatrick of Waynesboro, Pa., didn’t know Ruby Tuesday was smoke-free as he and his family headed in for dinner Friday night. But it was fine by him — no one in his family smokes, and his children have asthma, which can be aggravated by smoke.
Health vs. hazard
Although opponents depict the debate as liberty vs. regulation, Garagiola said it’s actually health vs. hazard.
“It’s one thing if you want to harm your own health,” but secondhand smoke hurts others, he said.
“Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent,” says a summary of a report U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona issued in June 2006.
If the same carcinogens came from pipes or a stove, a restaurant would be closed down as a health risk, Andrews said. Besides, he added, smokers are used to stepping outside to smoke.
Montgomery, Prince George’s, Talbot, Howard and Charles counties in Maryland have total or partial smoking bans. Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County are considering their own.
Washington, D.C., 16 states and some foreign countries do not allow smoking in restaurants and bars, according to Smoke Free Maryland, a coalition pushing for a ban.
Advocates try again for smoking ban in Md. bars, restaurants
Jan 11, 2007
BEN NUCKOLS
BEN NUCKOLS
BALTIMORE – Backed by health advocates and restaurant owners and employees, two Montgomery County Democrats on Thursday proposed a statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.
Similar efforts have failed in the General Assembly the past four years, in part because of resistance from Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller.
The bill sponsored by Sen. Rob Garagiola and Delegate Barbara Frush would extend to bar and restaurant employees the protections against smoking in the workplace guaranteed to all other Maryland workers.
“We’ve had a regulation in place since 1995 that protects most workplaces, with the exception of bars and restaurants,” said Kari Appler, executive director of Smoke Free Maryland. “This legislation is attempting to close that loophole.”
Sixteen states and 250 local jurisdictions have already mandated smoke-free pubs and eateries, according to supporters of a ban. Those localities include four Maryland counties: Montgomery, Prince George’s, Howard and Talbot.
Arundel County Executive John Leopold proposed a countywide smoking ban on Wednesday in an effort to spur a statewide ban. County Council Chairman Ronald Dillon said the council would not consider Leopold’s bill until after state lawmakers take up the issue. Leopold, a Republican, attended a news conference in Annapolis on Thursday announcing the state bill.
The Baltimore City Council also is considering a ban.
Advocates for smoke-free restaurants sought to counter the arguments of the Restaurant Association of Maryland – which claims that a statewide ban would create a hardship for bar owners who rely heavily on alcoholic beverage sales – by recruiting restaurant workers and owners to their cause.
Dana Koteen, a server at Roy’s, a nonsmoking restaurant in downtown Baltimore, said the benefits of a smoking ban outweighed the drawbacks.
“Smokers generally, in my years of experience … drink more, so they do tend to spend a little bit more money, and they do generally tip higher,” Koteen said. “But the health risk alone devalues any extra five or ten dollars that you might make off table No. 1, because you’re going to pay for it later.”
Smoking ban bid for restaurants, bars hits hurdles
January 11, 2007
SHANTEE WOODARDS and JEFF HORSEMAN
SHANTEE WOODARDS and JEFF HORSEMAN
Efforts to ban smoking in bars and restaurants face an uphill battle at the state and county levels.
A day after County Executive John R. Leopold proposed a county ban that was promptly shelved by County Council Chairman Ron Dillon Jr., a survey by The Capital finds lawmakers at both levels of government divided on the issue.
Within minutes of Mr. Leopold unveiling his vision for a smoke-free Anne Arundel yesterday, Mr. Dillon, a Pasadena Republican, said he wouldn’t introduce the local legislation until after the General Assembly considers a statewide bill during this session.
Efforts at the state level have failed four consecutive years. The county never has considered a local ban.
Opponents of smoking bans say they put an unfair burden on smaller, independent facilities that can’t afford to take such hits.
Del. Tony McConkey, R-Severna Park, said individual restaurants should be able to make their own decisions about whether to allow smoking.
“For government to step in and say it’s not allowed anywhere under any circumstances, I would oppose that,” he said.
Supporters and health advocates said such a bill would only take the state’s existing laws one step further.
“The state had regulations in place for 10 years that bans smoking in places other than restaurants and bars,” said Kari Addler, director of Smoke Free Maryland. “Many jurisdictions have moved forward in protecting all their employees. There has been a lack of action at the state level, and that’s a shame.”
On the county level, opinions on the issue are similarly split.
“I’m going to take my time with this one,” said Councilman Jamie Benoit, D-Piney Orchard. “It gives me a lot of pause when government (takes away) the abilities of people to do things that are perfectly legal. On the other hand, it’s a serious health issue.
“In any case, expect a very dividing vote if it comes to the county. I don’t think we’re going to see a consensus on this issue.”
Councilman Daryl Jones, D-Severn, owns Bill Dotson’s Live in Glen Burnie. The bar has been closed since a November fire.
Mr. Jones said a lot of his clientele smokes. But he wanted to examine any proposed bills before making a decision.
“The businesses that suffer are the small neighborhood businesses,” he said. “The small neighborhood taverns would carry the brunt of that.”
Mr. Leopold was in Glen Burnie last night to kick off the annual Daffodil Days cancer awareness event at Baltimore Washington Medical Center. He said a statewide ban would be even better than a county ban.
“I’ve seen this issue die year after year,” Mr. Leopold said. “There’s no guarantee the General Assembly will pass this legislation.”
He said momentum is building for a ban in Maryland and other states, but he wouldn’t place any bets on the outcome.
“I never prejudge legislation … I’ve seen too many bills die over the years,” he said.
On the heels of Mr. Leopold’s announcement yesterday, bar owners at Whiskey 1803 in Annapolis announced that it will go smoke-free starting Jan. 19. The bar has an outside deck where patrons can go to smoke, then come back inside, said co-owner Dave Tieff.
Susan Rocci, who owns Ebb Tide on Bay Ridge Road, said she hopes that if anything is enacted, it affects both the city and the county.
Montgomery County faced some challenges after passing its smoking ban in 2003. Some cities went with the ban and others didn’t, causing businesses to suffer.
“We have a lot of customers who don’t come here because of the smoke, and a lot of customers who do smoke,” Ms. Rocci said. “If none of us can, then it’s OK.”
Mr. Leopold’s proposed bill excludes private clubs. It would set a $500 fine for anyone not following the law for the first offense, and $1,000 for the second offense.
The bill would include Annapolis, but the County Council would work with the City Council to work out the details, officials said.
“A statewide ban makes more sense and doesn’t create islands of competition,” Councilman Ed Reilly, R-Crofton said. “(Other people) can talk about the need for people to do what they want, but this is a public health issue.
“It just doesn’t make sense to exclude the people who are most affected by working in confined areas that have a high concentration of second-hand smoke.”
But changes should ultimately be up to business owners, officials from the Restaurant Association of Maryland said.
“We don’t think the decision should be the government’s to make,” said Melvin Thompson, the organization’s vice president of government relations. “A lot more establishments are going smoke-free voluntarily, but to tell every business owner they have to ban smoking, that’s a slap in the face.”
O’Malley Will Support Smoking Ban
1/5/2007
KATHERINE AMENTA
KATHERINE AMENTA
Governor-elect Martin O’Malley has been the center of attention when it comes to a possible Maryland smoking ban. O’Malley tells WMDT that he would support a statewide ban as governor. As Baltimore’s mayor he did not support a citywide ban. O’Malley spoke last night at the Maryland association of counties gathering.
O’Malley says “when you ban smoking in restaurants and taverns it doesn’t mean that every restaurant runs out of business in fact some places have found to the contrary that it makes dining out more enjoyable for more people. I think certainly the science is on the side of doing a statewide ban.”
O’Malley says he will listen to both sides and consider everyone’s views on all issues.
Read More: Maryland Page 1
