CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
City bars to face tighter smoking ban
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: BALTIMORE
)
.
The state ban, set to be signed by Gov. Martin O’Malley next Thursday, has a three-year limit on financial hardship exemptions; the city law has none. Unfortunately for city bar owners seeking a long-term exemption from the ban, the state law is written so the state’s stricter provisions supersede the city’s.
“The city version has no limitations on hardship exemptions, but the state has a three-year sunset clause,” said City Council Vice President Robert Curran, who introduced the city ban.
“Whichever parts of each law are stricter prevails, meaning city bar owners are only eligible for a three- year exemption and are governed by the sunset clause of the state ban.”
The tighter restrictions were criticized by a lobbyist for city bar owners, who said many of his clients were hoping to take advantage of the city’s more liberal exemption clause.
“The exemption provided the one glimpse of hope that we had in the city to deal with economic loss that is going to affect bar owners. The state law blew that little light right out,” said Frank Boston III, a spokesman for the Baltimore City Licensed Beverage Association. “The state law recognizes the need for an exemption and then takes it away, which doesn’t make sense.”
City Health Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein said the state will now set the standards for exemptions.
“We won’t be setting the rules, but we will be reviewing the applications. I think the state law is excellent,” he said.
To streamline the implementation of the ban, Curran is introducing legislation at the council’s next session on May 21 to push back the effective date for the city’s ban.
“The state ban is effective Feb. 1, 2008, a month before the city ban takes effect,” Curran said. “My bill will give the city bill the same date.”
Curran thinks that in the long run, bars will not need hardship exemptions.
“Once bar owners realize that a smoking ban does not hurt business, I think the limitation on exemptions will be less of an issue,” he said.
What do you think of the smoking ban? Respond in our comments below.
Comments from Examiner Readers
2:51 PM MST on Sun., Nov. 16, 2008 re: "Rivals unite against Ohio smoking ban changes"
Report as inappropriate
9:30 AM MST on Sat., Nov. 15, 2008
re: "Voters reject Kenosha smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
7:42 PM MST on Sun., Nov. 9, 2008
re: "Voters reject Kenosha smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
2:52 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 5, 2008
re: "Voters reject Kenosha smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
4:33 PM MST on Tue., Sep. 9, 2008
re: "Full smoking ban to take effect June 1 in Howard County"
Report as inappropriate
12:55 PM MST on Sun., Sep. 7, 2008
re: "Pa. smoking ban takes effect in less than 2 weeks"
Report as inappropriate
12:52 PM MST on Sun., Sep. 7, 2008
re: "Pa. smoking ban takes effect in less than 2 weeks"
Report as inappropriate
8:50 PM MST on Tue., Sep. 2, 2008
re: "Statewide smoking ban soon taking effect in Pa."
Report as inappropriate
8:58 PM MST on Sun., Aug. 10, 2008
re: "Escambia County to have tobacco-free hiring policy"
Report as inappropriate
9:26 AM MST on Sun., Jul. 27, 2008
re: "Maryland smoking ban exceptions are rare"
Report as inappropriate
5:54 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 20, 2008
re: "No deal yet on smoking ban in Mich. bars, restaurants"
Report as inappropriate
8:23 AM MST on Sat., May. 24, 2008
re: "No deal yet on smoking ban in Mich. bars, restaurants"
Report as inappropriate
9:31 AM MST on Mon., Mar. 31, 2008
re: "Smoking ban exception fails in House committee"
Report as inappropriate
5:58 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 10, 2008
re: "Smoking over in Maryland bars"
Report as inappropriate
2:41 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 5, 2008
re: "Smoking ban yields few complaints"
Report as inappropriate
1:28 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 5, 2008
re: "Smoking ban yields few complaints"
Report as inappropriate
5:59 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008
re: "Smoking ban raises few complaints in Maryland so far"
Report as inappropriate
1:43 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 2, 2008
re: "Smoking over in Maryland bars"
Report as inappropriate
1:30 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 2, 2008
re: "Full smoking ban to take effect June 1 in Howard County"
Report as inappropriate
10:46 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 2, 2008
re: "Smoking over in Maryland bars"
Report as inappropriate
7:41 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 2, 2008
re: "Smoking over in Maryland bars"
Report as inappropriate
5:40 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 2, 2008
re: "Smoking over in Maryland bars"
Report as inappropriate
10:03 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 6, 2007
re: "Michigan House passes bill to ban smoking in bars, restaurants"
Report as inappropriate
6:19 PM MST on Mon., Oct. 1, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
6:54 PM MST on Sun., Sep. 30, 2007
re: "A smoking ban loophole? Not for many, health advocates say"
Report as inappropriate
4:01 PM MST on Sun., Sep. 30, 2007
re: "A smoking ban loophole? Not for many, health advocates say"
Report as inappropriate
5:06 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 31, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
12:07 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 22, 2007
re: "Harford Community College bans smoking"
Report as inappropriate
1:49 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 23, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
1:49 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 23, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
1:49 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 23, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
1:35 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 23, 2007
re: "Blagojevich signs law making Illinois's public places smoke-free"
Report as inappropriate
4:52 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 15, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
3:27 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 11, 2007
re: "Howard Co. smoking ban to override state law"
Report as inappropriate
3:25 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 11, 2007
re: "Bay Area city revists restrictive smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
8:20 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 1, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
2:32 PM MST on Tue., May. 29, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
8:46 PM MST on Wed., May. 23, 2007
re: "Howard Co. smoking ban to override state law"
Report as inappropriate
10:05 AM MST on Mon., May. 21, 2007
re: "Minnesota Lawmakers Pass Smoking Ban"
Report as inappropriate
5:29 PM MST on Fri., May. 18, 2007
re: "Minnesota Lawmakers Pass Smoking Ban"
Report as inappropriate
4:01 PM MST on Fri., May. 18, 2007
re: "Full smoking ban to take effect June 1 in Howard County"
Report as inappropriate
10:38 AM MST on Mon., May. 14, 2007
re: "Minnesota Lawmakers Pass Smoking Ban"
Report as inappropriate
11:31 AM MST on Fri., May. 11, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
10:21 AM MST on Fri., May. 11, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
10:17 AM MST on Fri., May. 11, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
9:47 AM MST on Fri., May. 11, 2007
re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"
Report as inappropriate
7:54 AM MST on Fri., May. 11, 2007
re: "Full smoking ban to take effect June 1 in Howard County"
Report as inappropriate
5:45 PM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007
re: "Full smoking ban to take effect June 1 in Howard County"
Report as inappropriate
12:46 PM MST on Wed., May. 2, 2007
re: "Complaints are rolling in after smoking ban took effect"
Report as inappropriate
banthebans said:
Legislators are not "changing" the rules. They are giving what was promised in the original vote. Had the SmokeFree people not deceived the voters through implying that family owned businesses and private clubs would be exempt, we would not now need a new law to correct the lies on the ballot. Over 350 bars and family owned businesses have closed within a year of enforcement of this ban. Over 1500 hospitality workers have lost their jobs, and all was based upon misleading language on the ballot. Correct that lie, please and pass the exemptions. If, as you say, the ban was not a threat to business, then why the hell would there be a need for a "level playing field" The restaurant association is made up of chain restaurants who would not be allowed an exemption. That is the ONLY reason they are opposed. Since so many non smokers are now frequenting these places, there is clearly no problem in providing signs and business owners the choice of being smoking or not.
4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Rich said:
I live in neighboring Illinois which instituted a smoking ban last year. Although before the ban there were dire warnings from opponents, there have been no negative effects and it is now a pleasure to know that I can go into a public place without the spectre of second hand smoke.
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
JohnnyB said:
2nd hand smoke is NOT a health hazard. Surgeon Generals 2006 Report says it is not 108 times. People have the right to smoke as it is legal. Property owners have the right to say what does and doesn't go on in their premises. Non-smokers DO NOT have a right to smoke free air (there's no such law or right). Non-smokers who don't like premises with smoking can not go in. This is democractic. State dictate banning smoking is a jack boot walking across peoples rights and freedoms and oppressing democracy. Let the free market decide. Impositions are draconian and devisive. End of story.
3 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Secondhand smoke is a definite proven health issue. It really isn't that difficult to keep the smoke outside to protect the health of the 80 percent of adults (customers and staff) who are non-smokers.
5 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
How about having a smokers only bar non-smokers not allowed
12 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Democracy says I should be able to breath fresh air and not cigarette smoke.. Thanks for the ban on smoking in restaurants..
4 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
What harm do obese people do to you? Do you eat their food? I inhale your smoke when you smoke near me........ If you must smoke,, do it where I won't inhale it.....
6 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner ReaderCMugga said:
How about Chewing and seperate sections for children and obese people
5 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is yet another strike against Democracy. So much for an individual's God given rights. Very soon this country will like the Soviet Union. People need to stand up for and draw the line against the government's rights to tell us what to do and not to do. I personally think this is one of the stupid acts the county has done. I am very angry and do not even live in Escambia County. I feel shure that other counties will follow, just to have more control of ones God given rights.
11 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Go to your local VFW or Legion and see how the ban has hurt business. And why is it ok for veteran organizations on the Eastern Shore to have 5 slot machines and the other vet groups in Harford, Howard, Baltimore City and county, etc denied. O'Malley seems to discriminate against those who defend our nation. Oh yea, what branch of the service was he in?
3 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is definitely a health issue. Nobody is forcing anyone to quit smoking or banning the sale of cigarettes. Smoke if you want to, just don't do it where it negatively impacts on the health of others.
13 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
After five months, one bar in Illinois successfully beat the Illinois ban as unconstitutional.
10 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
i love the ban thank god
9 agree | 16 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Rhonda said:
who can you call if your company supports people who smoke in the work place.
14 agree | 11 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
What a load of ninnies! Yes, smokers can be annoying, but then so are people who shout into the cell phones, parents who don't discipline their spoiled, obnoxious children when they throw tantrums in public, drivers who apply make-up/eat breakfast/talk on their cell phones/tear through areas of heavy pedestrian traffic in order to shave five seconds off their commute. What's Belmont doing about those omnipresent forms of anti-social and unhealthy behavior? Absolutely nothing. Smokers, an ever-shrinking segment of the U.S. population, have become the ultimate pariahs.
27 agree | 19 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Am in Belmont alot and I smoke where I want to...When Belmont stops its hypocrsy then I will abide by their laws. Stop selling cigarettes (I bought a pack there), stop taking any tax dollars that was given to you..Then I will abide by your laws..if not I will continue to smoke where I please!!!
24 agree | 17 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Jeff, an Independent said:
Welcome to the nanny state. Kudos to Mr. Cooke (1:43). I am not a smoker, but I do not want anymore freedoms taken away. I understand the health hazards of smoking, but the government could have mandated smoke eaters instead of flat out ban. What's next? Trans Fats, Alcohol, Legal Gun ownership, Our Free Speech? (oh yeah, that is already being limited now.)
53 agree | 47 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
William H. Cooke said:
I don't know if any of you realize this or not, but we claim to have freedom in this country. If I start a business and want to allow smoking in it that is not your concern. If you don't like it don't go in. No one is putting a gun to your head. The fact is that most bars and restaurants were banning smoking on their own. Why you would want to take away, by force of law, the few places that I like to drink is beyond me. Anti-smoking zealots are mentally ill.
88 agree | 75 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Nobody is "banning smoking". All they're doing is saying that you can't smoke indoors where non-smokers are present. This is something that the entire public health community agrees is necessary. You can still buy cigarettes, and you can still smoke in many places. There is certainly no similarity to the alcohol prohibition that was tried back in the 1920s and 1930s. The idea here is that you can certainly smoke, just not in areas that can negatively impact the health of others.
65 agree | 82 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
mark a New Yorker said:
An excellent cross section of opinions. This reporter did a non-biased job It has not hurt business in New York.My guess is that the ban on smoking has increased family outings to places that parents would not usualy take their kids
83 agree | 75 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
William H. Cooke said:
The current ban has no exceptions for private clubs and that is an extremely serious infringement on freedom.
89 agree | 84 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Second hand smoke is a pubic health hazard. Therefore it is appropriate that it be banned from any business open to the public. Open up a private smoking club and let the rest of us enjoy the clean air. Next we need to fine smokers who throw their cigarette butts in the street. Also, don't forget how many fires are started buy careless smokers. Clearly, these druggies are a menace to society.
70 agree | 96 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Michigan Smoker said:
These politicians who can't seem to deal with such trivial issues as balancing a State budget and properly funding public education somehow think they have a mandate to tell consenting adults where and when they can enjoy a smoke. They want to ban smokers from public places while still balancing the budget - or at least trying to - on the backs of those same smokers with their $2.00 per pack State Excise Tax on cigarettes. If they are truly concerned they should go the whole way and ban the sale of yobacco in Michigan and also forgo the taxes those sales bring to the State's coffers. Let the new Puritan smoke nazis pick up the tax gap by shelling out on something else, maybe a 50 cent a bottle tax on Evian water. There is nothing to keep anyplace from going smoke free and when the demand in the marketplace is there I'm sure there will be some bars and rrestaurants catering to non-smokers, while others will make a business of offering a haven for those who do smoke. No probl
77 agree | 76 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Pretty sad that someone would be so addicted to cigarettes that they would not go to a bar simply because they'd have to step outside to smoke.
141 agree | 156 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Call it a day on the enticements. I know what I like and want and its not a lawyer.
138 agree | 127 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Call it a day on the enticements. I know what I like and want.
135 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Larry Waller,Hou. Tex. said:
If a smooker sat next to a person with a really bad body odour, then they should understand how a non-smooker feels about cig. smoke. STINKS!!!
110 agree | 100 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
smoking ban about time
163 agree | 155 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I have never smoked, but have put up with smokers for all my life. When I worked I had to put up with smoking in meetings and on the job. This gradually went away, but I still had to put up with it in bars and restaurants. Did it ever occur to you smokers, that you getting to be a very small minority? Why should the majority of the people put up with you and your stinking cancer causing habit? You keep blaming the lawmakers. Who do you suppose the lawmakers are trying to appease? If you were in office, would you be trying to get the vote of smokers or non smokers? Even you smokers should be able to figure out the answer.
160 agree | 139 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I have never smoked, but have put up with smokers for all my life. When I worked I had to put up with smoking in meetings and on the job. This gradually went away, but I still had to put up with it in bars and restaurants. Did it ever occur to you smokers, that you getting to be a very small minority? Why should the majority of the people put up with you and your stinking cancer causing habit? You keep blaming the lawmakers. Who do you suppose the lawmakers are trying to appease? If you were in office, would you be trying to get the vote of smokers or non smokers? Even you smokers should be able to figure out the answer.
142 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I have never smoked, but have put up with smokers for all my life. When I worked I had to put up with smoking in meetings and on the job. This gradually went away, but I still had to put up with it in bars and restaurants. Did it ever occur to you smokers, that you getting to be a very small minority? Why should the majority of the people put up with you and your stinking cancer causing habit? You keep blaming the lawmakers. Who do you suppose the lawmakers are trying to appease? If you were in office, would you be trying to get the vote of smokers or non smokers? Even you smokers should be able to figure out the answer.
160 agree | 102 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I thought there were exceptions to this law, such as allowing smoking in Casinos that are on the Mississippi that compete with riverboats in Iowa and Missouri. Also, what about private clubs, such as the VFW, American Legion, AmVets, etc. ??
115 agree | 117 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Discrimination? Don't be silly. said:
Kicking a random person in a bar would result in a lawsuit (or fight). Second hand smoke is just as physically annoying (and i'm not talking about health issue here) yet you argue by saying "Don't go to the bar. It's easy". Well why don't YOU better not go to the bar instead? My another favourite is "OMG let us smoke you deprive us of our rights" Well why don't you let us have a nice comfortable time in a bar without us having to constantly cough, without sore throat, red eyes and sniffing the stinky air?
184 agree | 149 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Not a moral issue said:
It's not a moral issue. It's a health issue.
193 agree | 191 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
I need some air said:
In California, smoking bans historically have been OSHA-based. Employers are obligated to provide a safe and healthy environment for employees, hence there is no smoking wherever even one person is employed. Taking that same logic outside of the workplace, the public also has a right to a safe and healthy environment wherever their tax dollars are being spent. Second-hand smoke endangers the life and health of anyone who is exposed to it, even outdoors. Smoking, like drinking alcohol, are tolerated by society up to the point where they become a nuisance or a danger. You can be arrested for being drunk in public if your intoxication causes you to become a nuisance. The same should be true for smoking. If smokers insist on endangering others, they will have to suffer the consequences. They can fight aagainst it, but they can't win. Public smoking is about to become a thing of the past, whether they like it or not.
141 agree | 127 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I am the person that stated YOU WILL NOT PUBLISH THIS. I forgot to mention a few items regarding problems that COULD occur without being around SMOKERS, the fact that PEOPLE seem to forget about the CHEMICALS we are around every DAY, or have been exposed to years ago and are probably still exposed TO!!!!! IT JUST AMAZES ME, how quick people are to put the blame on one item. HELLO PEOPLE THINK !!!!!!!!!!1
179 agree | 178 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I applaud the new smoking ban. I have been waiting for years. I am a Republican and welcomed a democratic govenor feeling this was a strong possiblity. Thank you
195 agree | 186 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
marie taylor said:
I am a smoker with as much human rights as the next person. What i don't understand is this most of the elected official call themselves christians. Why are you so busy with the small person smoking when you have allowed Gays the freedom to get married to live as they choose when the smoker cannot sit in a public place and have a cigarette. when a criminal has the right to choose what type of diet he would like in jail. or convicted felons to prey on other people to live back in the community, you are not concern about the high cost of gas or BGE increases just smoking,HIV kills more people than second hand smoke.I voted for mayor o'malley but that will not happen again he signed the bill to ban smoking to make maryland a smoke free state what about a crime free state the officials need to get a clue as to what is important and a damn cigarette is not worth all this controversity. what will be next how we sleep in our homes or will our homes be included in this state wide ban.
219 agree | 220 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
An EX-smoker who thinks smoking in public is ok said:
I think the state needs to stop wussy footing around. I f people want to smoke let them, or make smoking totally illegal. I am an ex-smoker. I think it should an all or nothing thing. Caffeine should be illegal too because it is a stimulant. Alcohol should be illegal look how many people die from that each year....Oh we tried that one it didn't work. I think this is all part of the wussification of America
134 agree | 125 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Scott B. said:
I have to say I am against this bill but personally what I think is the real heart of the matter is if they stop the people from smoking in bars people will not go hence the drinking and driving statistics will go down. This is just a back door entry to stop people from doing that. What they need to be doing is instead of wasting time and money on ways to stop people for doing something that is legal they need to put that money and time to the people that protect us and take care of the real problems that the US faces today.
129 agree | 130 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Phil H People don not get the fact that we are legislating our civil liberties away left & right. It seems lkike they can't do anything about drugs and crime and shootings but lets ban a legal product! And as far as a worker choosing to work in a smoking environment thats everones right to work where they choose to and accept the risks involved like coal minners and police officers all kinds of harmfull environments. I just believe that there are so many other issues that need front page attention but, this looks good on paper. Watch out as obesity is now a leading cause of death so your ice cream might be next on the banned list!
208 agree | 202 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Josh L. said:
That's all BS! Who gave them the right to tell use what we can and can't do LET US SMOKE! If people think they will die from 2nd hand smoke Don't go to the bar. It's easy. Granted it's a bad thing but it are choice. NOT YOURS!!!
146 agree | 140 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Steve D. said:
Hopefully bars here will do the same thing that bars in Califonia do, it's simple...they all put "additions" on the back part of the bar that only has 3 walls and a roof and a couple of space heaters and then put a tree in the middle of the area - it consitutes an "outdoor" area and smoking is permitted. If there's no smoking INSIDE the bar, the non-smokers can't bitch about us going OUTSIDE in our specified section to smoke and enjoy ourselves.
213 agree | 184 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Bar owners here will have to follow Canada and the Netherland's bars' examples and park an empty "smoking" bus outside the bar - smokers should be able to have a place to go and smoke and drink at the same time if they want to! Especially in the winter. What's next? No smoking in your car? On the sidewalk? Why not just go after the manufacturers if it's so bad, and force them to stop making cigarettes!
205 agree | 177 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Rediculous! As an occasional smoker, bars were the one place i used to enjoy it the most - to take that away would also take away that pleasure. People have to expect smoke in bars - that's part of the package - at least, that's how I grew up. Then again, I never grew up...I just grew older!
192 agree | 181 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Meghan B. said:
This is the first of a lot of stupid things this County will do. To me It seems like because there are new public officals in office "THEY" are trying to make a point, or even make it look like they are conducting strong offical business. Look... they didn't have to push this so hard. If anything they should have put the ban at bars, restaurants, etc during the daytime when there are small children at these places. For the adults who dont like smoke...well... They think NO SMOKING is a great thing. Maybe they should invest into Baltimore by building there own "SMOKE FREE" business.
196 agree | 188 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Karl Chue said:
If "non-smoking" bars were a good business model, were just as economically viable as smoking bars, or if there was a demand from the "non-smoking" public, then there would have been more of them before the ban. I've been to pretty much every bar in Baltimore and not a single one employed that model. This may not destroy the bars, but it will force them to raise prices and/or institute mandatory gratuities to offset the revenue loss. I would suggest that bars implement a plan where non-smokers pay more than smokers to make things fair.
181 agree | 225 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mario Arenas said:
This ban is essentially going to kill small bar and restaurants. I've been to New York City, Los Angeles, and Boston where they all have similar bans in place, and the bar employees that I have spoken to all say that their income has significantly dropped since the bans have been in effect. For a so called liberal state, Maryland and Howard County especially really don't show tolerance for the rights of anyone who doesn't agree with those that get these laws passed - because it certainly is not the majority. While I was still employed in Ellicott City, the Howard County Times flat out refused to print an editorial I wrote because I was speaking against the ban. What everyone fails to realize is that bar employees are paid less than minimum wage and depend on tips to make up the difference. And, it doesn't hurt me to say it, but typically families and non-smokers are horrible tippers. So servers work harder for less money. But I guess non-smokers get what they want, noone else matte
210 agree | 243 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Ray Petrulsky said:
The Arizona Science Center has the Bodyworlds 3 exhibit which shows an actual smokers lung versus a non-smokers. Smokers already know they are going to die a slow and painful death. Nothing society can do or say will stop them from hacking their way to the grave. I have not seen one documented case that second hand smoke kills people. This law is just another way for our government to involve themselves in people lives. It all began in California when they started to section off portions of restaurants for better customer service and has turned into a nightmare for people who go to bars and wish to light up. The people who are poisoning their liver with alcohol feel that it is okay to ban someone else's disease casusing habit as long as they can have their own. Oh the Hypocrisy!!!!
174 agree | 168 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree