After nearly two years of debate, the Baltimore City Council has approved a controversial ban on smoking in bars, joining 15 states and over 100 municipalities nationwide with similar laws.
The ban, which Mayor Sheila Dixon signed yesterday while announcing the city's allocation of $100,000 to help current smokers quit, passed with the support of nine council members — one more than needed — and will go into effect Jan. 1, 2008. Baltimore County follows Howard, Prince George's, Montgomery and Talbot as the fifth and largest in Maryland with smoking restrictions.
"It was a great sense of relief, my staff and myself have worked on this quite extensively," said City Council Vice President Robert Curran, who introduced the bill back in March 2005. "It's only one consequence of the legislation — lives will be saved."
The bill, sponsored by Curran and Councilman Kenneth Harris, prohibits smoking in any enclosed area to or in which the public is invited or permitted, and in any enclosed area that is part of a place of employment. Exemptions are made for private property, vehicles and smoking clubs that meet specific criteria.
Violation of the ban will cost businesses $500 per offense and smokers themselves are subject to a $250 penalty.
Sworn to fill the 6th District seat just hours before the bill, Councilwoman Sharon Middleton approved the measure, pressuring Councilmembers Paula Johnson Branch and Helen Holton, who had both abstained previously.
Mayor Sheila Dixon's eleventh hour lobbying efforts were credited with persuading the final two councilmembers to approve the measure.
"I spoke personally with each of my colleagues, as well as the Mayor, and Mayor Dixon was kind enough to lend her support as well," City Council President Stefanie Rawlings-Blake said. "We were hopeful that among the abstentions, there were enough potential `yes' votes to put us over the edge on the third and final vote last night."
With Baltimore's ban decided, focus has shifted on the General Assembly in Annapolis where lobbying efforts have intensified to pass a previously rejected statewide ban.
Governor Martin O'Malley, who previously took no stance, pledged to sign legislation for a statewide ban if it reaches his office.
"He prefers a statewide ban and is pledging his support to promote public health for Maryland citizens," said Nick Stewart, a spokesperson for O'Malley. "As mayor, he had said that he didn't support a city ban disproportionately impacting Baltimore city business."
Councilman Nick D'Adamo, who rejected Baltimore's smoking ban alongside Bernard Young, echoed this sentiment.
"I support the idea but it needs to be done statewide; I think the city government shouldn't be involved in an issue that should be handled by the state."
With now just less than half of Maryland under regulations for smoking, some people now worry that without a statewide ban, customers will simply travel to those counties where can smoke. This line of reasoning has found favor in Annapolis as an argument for an all-Maryland ban.
"I think we have a good chance of passage this year in the legislature because legislators from districts that border Baltimore City — and Talbot, Montgomery, and Prince George's — will now not worry about their neighborhood restaurants and bars losing business because smokers might go to a bar in the next county," said Sen. Jennie Forehand, a Montgomery County Democrat.
Other senators echoed similar responses of the high possibility of the passing of a statewide ban.
"The ban in Baltimore gives a lot of impetus to approval of a statewide ban through the Healthy Indoor Air Act," Sen. Jamie Raskin said. "I think that chances are good for passage this year and excellent over the course of the next two or three years."
"I believe that if this bill gets on the floor of the House and Senate it will pass. The key will be if it makes it out of the each committee," said Republican Sen. Richard Colburn, who has not yet taken an official stance on the issue.
The main argument for the city and statewide smoking ban rests in health benefits.
A recent study by Hopkins researchers at the School of Public Health found that the air in nonsmoking bars was nearly 90 percent less harmful than those that allowed smoking.
"Smoke-free bars can provide complete protection from exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke," researcher Ana Navas-Acien said.
Health, Risk and Society professor Jonathan Samet said the effects of secondhand smoke have now been well described.
"In adults, exposure to secondhand smoke causes both lung cancer and coronary heart disease. It likely contributes to worsening of asthma and causes irritation of the eyes and nose."
"Other effects are also possible but not so firmly established in adults. For children, there are a wide range of effects, primarily respiratory, and also increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome," he added.
However, even with these health facts, opposition proclaims that businesses and citizens should have the right to decide on the issue.
"To deny hospitality business owners the right to make market-based decisions on issues that affect their bottom lines is a slap in the face of free enterprise," said Melvin Thompson, vice president of Government Relations for the Restaurant Association of Maryland, the largest organization to oppose the ban.
In addition to the issue of rights, the Association argues that "following a smoking ban in Talbot County, sales at bars/restaurants with liquor licenses declines by 11 percent compared to the same period in the previous year."
The restaurant association also claimed that the city council's example of New York business sales increasing after the smoking ban was a myth: "The fact that the tax rate increase occurred within a few months of the City and statewide smoking bans makes it convenient for smoking ban supporters to claim that the smoking ban improved business."
In response, Shaun Adamec, communications director for the council president, said, "The increase in restaurant and bar activity since the enactment of the smoking ban in New York does not solely apply to sales within these establishments. Since enacting the smoking ban, the city has added jobs to that industry, experienced an increase in business tax payments, and experienced an increase in liquor licenses."
Rawlings-Blake said that she does not pretend to ignore the potential impact the smoking ban could have on businesses.
"My view is that the business gained by the enactment of a smoking ban will far outweigh the business lost by the ban," she said.
Hearings for the statewide ban in the House Economic Matters Committee and the Senate Finance Committee are scheduled for next month.
"I do not discount the apprehension that businesses may be adversely affected. That's why we all urge that the State General Assembly now enact a Statewide ban, to give our businesses a level playing field within Maryland," State Sen. Mary Pat Clarke said.
"The Governor has announced that he will sign a smoking ban bill if approved by the General Assembly. That's a sign and an assurance," Clarke added.
Thompson, speaking on behalf of the restaurant association, begged to differ.
"Regardless of what Governor O'Malley says, the real question is whether smoking ban legislation will reach his desk. The legislation may not have enough support to make it out of Committee."
He added, "With Baltimore City, Montgomery County, Prince George's and other local jurisdictions addressing the smoking ban issue on their own, many lawmakers in Annapolis no longer feel any pressure to address the issue statewide. What's best for Baltimore City may not be best for Allegany County."
