Baltimore City moves to ban smoking in all public places

A Baltimore City Council committee has proposed a measure that would ban smoking in all public places by January 2008, and is currently awaiting approval by the full council and the mayor.

If the ban is approved, people who smoke in restaurants, bars or any form of public transportation including taxi cabs can be fined up to $250; owners who allow smoking would be fined $500 per smoker.

Exceptions would be made for cigar bars, private clubs, some tobacco stores and outdoor seating areas at restaurants if the owner applies for a waiver. Smoking would also be allowed in hotels as long as 75 percent of the rooms were smoke-free. Studies of the effects of smoking could be allowed.

An amendment to the bill would allow businesses to apply for a waiver if they felt that the ban would sharply reduce customers or create other significant problems. The waiver would initially cost $1000 and $500 for every renewal.

"It's about time we take this effort," said Robert W. Curran, the city councilman who helped propose the anti-smoking bill. "This is not cutting-edge legislation anymore; five or six years ago, maybe. Baltimore

is ranked 18th in population size. Only two larger cities -- Memphis, Tenn. and Detroit -- have no smoking bans. Baltimore is one of the few remaining cities on the list without a ban. We're no longer on the cutting edge, we're the caboose."

Curran said he helped to sponsor the bill because of the health issues involved. "400,000 Americans die every year from smoking related illnesses. 53,000 to 58,000 Americans die every year from secondhand smoke. For every eight people that the tobacco industry kills, it kills one non-smoker through involuntary inhalation of secondhand smoke," Curran said. "150 to 200 Baltimoreans die every year from illnesses related to secondhand smoke."

With bans already in place in Howard, Talbot, Montgomery and Prince George's counties, Carran said, "There is no excuse that Baltimoreans have to be second-class citizens in their own state."

Curran hopes that the Baltimore ban may lead to more state-wide action. "The ban in New York followed a ban in New York City, Massachusetts followed Boston. Soon Pennsylvania will follow Philadelphia. If Baltimore comes aboard, Maryland will become the next state." A statewide smoking ban has been brought up before the legislator and rejected each year since 2003.

When it comes to passage of the bill, "I'm not going to take any chances," Curran said. The bill will go for its second reading on Dec. 7, and the third reading will occur on Jan. 22, 2007. Curran said the delay is a calculated effort to halt passage of the bill until Mayor Martin O'Malley leaves his position to become governor of Maryland. While Martin has not commented on the bill, he has previously declared his support of a statewide ban instead of local provisions. Curran said that mayor-elect Sheila Dixon, the current president of the council who received her master's degree from Hopkins, will most likely approve the measure.

A February 2006 study from the Bloomberg School of Public Health entitled "The Economic Impact of Secondhand Smoke in Maryland," measured the economic cost of exposure to secondhand smoke, which includes "physician visits, visits to the emergency room, hospitalizations and the economic value of premature deaths."

The study found that costs related to childhood illness and death totaled $73.8 million, and costs related to adult illness and premature death were around $523.8 million. The study also reported that "in a work environment, `passive' smokers -- those breathing secondhand smoke -- actually inhale higher concentrations of several toxins and carcinogens than primary smokers."

One of the major opponents to the proposed smoking ban has been the Restaurant Association of Maryland (RAM). According to their Web site, RAM's opposition to the ban stems from "the negative economic impact such ordinances impose on smaller independent establishments. Contrary to what smoking ban supporters say, restaurants and bars do suffer significant revenue losses as a result of smoking bans." Melvin Thompson, vice president of government relations for the Restaurant Association of Maryland, could not be reached for comment before press time.

RAM points to sales tax records from the Maryland Comptroller's Office as a sign of how smaller restaurants and bars that serve alcohol would be most affected by the ban. "Because many customers who smoke also drink, prohibiting smoking in bars and in bars and restaurants destroys the lucrative profits derived from alcohol sales. While larger establishments and chain restaurants may be able to compensate for lost alcohol profits through the high volume of dining customers they serve, smaller independent operators who lose alcohol profits are often forced to cut costs, slash employee hours, layoff staff or shut down business completely." Data that RAM collected shows an 11 percent decline in sales in smoke-free Talbot County.

A study by the University of Maryland conducted in October 2005 shows "that the Montgomery County smoke-free ordinance had little if any impact on taxable sales or employment in the hospitality business within the county."

According to the study, business growth and revenue was the same for other urban Maryland counties where the ban was not implemented. The study, entitled "The Impact of the Montgomery County Smoke Free Ordinance on Restaurant Sales and Employment," also reported that "employment in full service restaurants and bars increased slightly in Montgomery County ... while employment decreased slightly in restaurants without liquor licenses."

"[Smoking ban proponents have] been employing the same misleading tactic nationwide -- using industry-wide sales data to downplay the negative impact that smoking bans have on a specific segment of the restaurant industry," Thompson said in a RAM press release. "This remains a controversial issue and an uphill battle. But the debate should begin with data that is accurate and relevant."

According to Curran, the bill has an "80 percent approval rating from the general public. Sixty percent of smokers support the ban." With this support, Curran does not predict much backlash to the law.

"Banning smoking on airplanes does not affect passenger revenues," RAM said in a statement from their Web site. "Banning smoking in offices and retail stores does not affect business revenue. To deny hospitality business owners the right to make market-based decisions on issues that impact their bottom lines is a slap in the face of free enterprise."

"The Restaurant Association of America continues to question the scientific data. That I find reprehensible," Kari Appler, director of Smoke Free Maryland, said. "I think they're misguided. I understand that they're fearful. They know and we know that smoke free is coming. It's only a matter of time." Appler said Smoke Free Maryland is a strong supporter of the bill.