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.
Ping
It's really sad, Randall, the thousands of businesses that have closed over the past years because of the smoking ban. But do you think the media will tell us about them? HA!
Tell all the people that you know, this must be voted against. The ban was voted on and enacted, in WA state. When you go to the bar, the bartender actually shuts down about every 15-30 minutes to go outside and have a smoke. It seems like such a small thing, but it is a symptom of the sheepish attitude of todays American. Most of the bar patrons smoke, the bartenders smoke, yet the govt has used bully and propaganda tactics to "save" us from a voluntary use of a legal substance. I have said it before, but it is appropriate here also, 50 years ago the police would have been physically assaulted for enforcing this law. Heck, 80 years ago when booze was outlawed, people went out of their way to flaunt the law. Now, they talk quietly of how this is for their "own good", and how thankful they are that there is no more smoke, in the smoke filled pub.
I am asking this out of a sincere desire to understand, not to be sarcastic or liberal. I'm ignorant about this because I don't smoke. Here goes:
Why would restaurants go out of business because no smoking is permitted? Don't smokers still get just as hungry? Don't nonsmokers go out to eat? In an upscale place like Howard County, most people don't smoke anyway, so I wouldn't think the customer base in Columbia would be much affected by a smoking ban. As it is you hardly see anybody smoking anymore, except for the poor, who aren't a big source of revenue to Howard County restaurant owners.
I am not trying to argue, just trying to understand.
bump
(so I can watch you catch it) ;9)
Because the bar business dries up.
In CT, the bar business went to the indian casinos or private clubs (both of which are allowed to have smoking). The rest of the bars saw huge declines in customers and revenues...and tables full of people who stay all night and drink one soda.
For whatever reason, it seems that non-smokers do not drink as much or go to bars as often as smokers.
I think a lot of non smokers drink, they just don't drink in bars.
The Nicotine Nazis™ march ever onward in support of the socialist, fascist, commie, nanny state.
• Require managers in stronger language to refuse to serve or seat smoking patrons in a non-smoking place
Wouldn't this be in violation of the first amendment right to free speech?
Sure! And even smokers say "Well, I want to quit anyway, so this ban will be a good thing." Good thing??!! How can anymore government intervention be a GOOD thing?! Why can't people just step up to the plate and quit on their own? God knows, Big Pharm has enough quit smoking junk on the market to waste the money on!
More government intervention is NOT a good thing!
Your answers were very good, Randall. I can only speak for myself, but when it's my time and my dime, I spend it the way I want to spend it. Why would I go out to eat in a restaurant that didn't allow smoking, when I truly enjoy smoking before and after my meal with my coffee and/or beverage?
Why rush in, eat and rush out again? Heck, I can do take out and eat at home where I can relax. I used to be a good tipper too. Pity. But when Maine forced the smoking ban, that did it for me.
I use my eating out money for other causes. :)
ahhhhh 
ROTFLMAO!! I have GOT to send that pic to my Wife!!
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.