Posted on 04/22/2006 7:01:17 AM PDT by SheLion
For the fourth time since November, a bill to ban smoking in all Howard County bars and restaurants - this one to take effect June 1, 2007 - has been submitted to the County Council.
The move sets up another month of conflict between the health advocates and Democrats who want to eliminate what they consider a public health hazard, and the business owners who fear financial ruin joined by Republicans who oppose a loss of personal freedom.
The sponsors, County Executive James N. Robey and Councilman Ken Ulman, both Democrats, said they submitted their bill yesterday because substantive changes they want to make in the smoking-ban bill now before the council would require a public hearing. They also want to give new Councilman Calvin Ball, an east Columbia Democrat, a chance to participate at the hearing. The Robey-Ulman bill would be formally introduced May 1 and voted on June 5.
Robey said he was prepared to amend the current bill until he received legal advice that the changes would require another month and a new hearing anyway.
"One year still gives businesses time to adjust to it," Robey said. The new deadline is seven months closer than Jan. 1, 2008, the full enforcement date in his original bill. Robey said he later opted for a two-year delay as a compromise to give businesses time to recoup money spent for separate smoking areas and to adjust to the change.
But western county Republican Councilman Charles C. Feaga said introducing a new bill is "childish and immature" political one-upsmanship.
The new bill is expected to have support from a new majority of three council Democrats on the five-member council. Former Councilman David A. Rakes, a Democrat who resigned last month, sided with the two Republicans in opposing Robey and Ulman's first bill.
Council Chairman Christopher J. Merdon, an Ellicott City Republican who sponsored the second and third no-smoking bills but has mainly sided with businesses who oppose changing current law, denounced the new measure as anti-business and a blatant political move. Democrats deny both charges.
"This is another measure taken against the business community and provides for a lack of predictability," Merdon said. "They've [Robey and Ulman] chosen to delay the vote for political purposes."
Joe Barbera, president of the Howard County Restaurant Association, said the one-year enforcement date will mean the end for some small businesses.
"The number of restaurants that fail is in direct relation to the amount of time you give people" to consider their business options. "One year is not enough time," he said.
But Glenn Schneider, legislative chairman of the Smoke Free Howard County Coalition, applauded the measure as "a great, strong bill," though he'd prefer no enforcement delay, he said.
"We're not crazy about the [enforcement] phase-in, but I'm excited that politics might have produced a stronger, better set of public health protections for Howard countians."
Robey's initial smoking-ban bill, introduced last fall, delayed full enforcement until Jan. 1, 2008. Merdon tabled that, and then backed a bill with a four-year delay, which was passed by the council, but vetoed by Robey. Merdon's latest bill, which carries an enforcement deadline of July 1, 2008, is scheduled for a May 1 vote, but would be tabled, Ulman said.
In addition to the June 2007 enforcement date, the Robey-Ulman bill would:
Eliminate exemptions for truck stops and commercial catering halls.
Require managers in stronger language to refuse to serve or seat smoking patrons in a non-smoking place.
Ban smoking in enclosed outdoor restaurant areas.
Exempt Main Street Ellicott City from a provision that bans people from smoking outside within 15 feet of a building door, window or ventilator because of narrow sidewalks.
LOL! Isn't he cute? hehe!
So let me understand--what you are saying is, if you can't smoke, you and most smokers will stop going out to eat? With smoking bans in Montgomery County, Howard County, and DC, there won't be many places for smokers to go out to eat in central Maryland.
Speaking as a nonsmoker myself, someone who LOVES a smoke-free atmosphere, I am generally opposed to smoking bans. Let the market decide; let the private restaurant owner make a decision about how he wants his space used. The point I'm trying to make is, probably only 15% of the people in upscale, health-conscious Howard County smoke, and those are the ones who don't have much disposable income for dining out anyway. So I'm wondering how losing 15% of the customer base will drive many restaurants out of business. Statistically most of their customers now must be nonsmokers.
It doesn't affect me much one way or another; I'm only trying to understand, without criticizing smokers.
incrementalism proven once again.
I absolutely agree with you. It was years ago that Rush warned us about the coming campaign against SUVs, and he was proved correct. The same thing is true of smoking. You've heard that there are increasing attempts to legislate what we eat, because the government knows better than we do about what we should consume and how we should live. They're talking about regulating what's in vending machines in high schools.
No, I don't like coming home from an evening out with my clothes reeking of cigarette smoke. But that's a nuisance, as you say. I'm willing to put up with a certain level of nuisance if it keeps the government from interfering in our lives. I don't entirely buy the argument that restaurants in upscale Howard County, Maryland, are going to go out of business because people can't smoke there, but I think government should stay out of it. They should stay out of everything except, maybe, building aircraft carriers and missile systems, the stuff that private citizens can't do for themselves. Everything else is none of their business.
"who oppose a loss of personal freedom. "
Pretty much sums it up for me.
Like I said, the anti-smoking laws are not as bad as the peoples reaction to something that just a few years ago would have had people acting out physically. I know my mom would have told these people what to do with their head, if they would have told her to not smoke in the American Legion, along with the rest of the vets.
Why would restaurants go out of business because no smoking is permitted?
Thanks for the ping!
That's the word I was looking for! :)
I'm a long-term smoker (since '60), but can't connect smoking and the First Amendment, in any way. Hells bells, I'd just go to a *smoking allowed* place, and avoid the others, or dine at home.
Screw The Nicotine Nazis.
Businesses are going to fail in large numbers if the omit their smoking patrons. This crap will be overturned within 2 years, IMO.
Require managers in stronger language to refuse to serve or seat smoking patrons in a non-smoking place.
The above statement is a comment I copied from the news story. It seems to me that this indicates that the government could require managers of resturants and bars to use a certain kind of language to deal with people who smoke. My opinion is that this would be in violation of the first amendment to our constitution. It would infringe on freedom of speech in that the government could tell you what to say and how to say it to a certain segment of our population.
My apologies if I caused confusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.