Phil Andrews County Council Member, District 3 Wednesday, July 02, 2003; 2:00 p.m ET
The Montgomery County Council passed a nonsmoking bill that bans smoking in local bars and restaurants. The bill will be in effect in three months and is the Washington area's toughest nonsmoking policy. Although nonsmoking advocates praise the new law, local business owners are concerned about losing customers and many have already invested in expensive ventilation systems. Montgomery County Council member Phil Andrews will be online Wednesday, July 2, to talk about the new non-smoking bill. The transcript follows. Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
|
Phil Andrews: Hello everybody,
Thanks for your questions and comments. I introduced the restaurant smoking ban legislation to provide restaurant workers and patrons with the same protection against hazardous second-hand smoke that people in all other indoor public places already enjoy in Maryland. I look forward to answering your questions.
________________________________________________
Silver Spring, Md.: Thanks for your support on this issue. This law will surely save lives, but how can the County Council convince naysayers of that - especially the industry who is contemplating another lawsuit.
Phil Andrews: Thanks for your comment. I think most of the public has been persuaded by the scientific envidence of the dangers of second-hand smoke. That will continue to be more persuasive than what the Council says about the dangers of second-hand smoke.
________________________________________________
Bethesda, Md.: Phil--
First, congratulations to you and the County Council for your vote yesterday.
My question is this--in New York and other jurisdictions where smoking bans have been implemented, has there been a corresponding loss of business for restaurants, bars and other public gathering spots? Given the fact that so few adults now smoke in the US, it would seem that a stronger argument could be made that a smoking ban would actually pump up sales by attracting those people who stay away because these places are filled with smoke. What are the facts?
Thanks. Don
Phil Andrews: Thanks Don. There have been numerous studies done on the economic effects of restaurant smoking bans. The ones that are based on objective data rather than on anecdotal evidence show no decline in sales tax revenues in the restaurant industry. Given that about 88% of Montgomery County adults don't smoke, it stands to reason that a large number of non-smokers will begin to patronize fromerly smoking restaurant more.
________________________________________________
Rockville, Md.: Congratulations for having the nerve to stand up to tobacco interests and pass legislation that the majority of people in Montgomery County truly want.
What was the most difficult part in passing the law?
Phil Andrews: Thanks. The most difficult part was preventing an amendment to delay the ban for two years from passing. The strong support from the bill's supporter's in the community helped keep a majority of the Council from delaying the law's effective date.
________________________________________________
Silver Spring, Md.:
How is a bill like this going to pass Constitutional muster if it has already failed once? We see the same thing, more or less, in Virginia...the State Legislature keeps outlawing bartial-birth abortions only to have it repeatedly thrown out by the courts. Montgomery County legislators, I guess, are just going to have to learn what their Virginia counterparts have already learned.....some laws, no matter how much the local populace may want them, are just not going to stick as long as judges have the power to throw them out.
Well, if this doesn't work out....then maybe the County will outlaw drinking in bars instead.
Phil Andrews: Smoking bans in restaurants have withstood court challenges in other parts of the country. The Council measure that was overturned in court previously was a Board of Health regulation, not legislation. Council lawyers are confident that this legislation will withstand a legal challenge.
________________________________________________
Gaithersburg, Md.: Mr. Andrews,
Thank you for achieving what the vast majority of Montgomery County citizens want -- protection from secondhand smoke in indoor public places.
Most smokers don't even smoke in their own home in order to protect their family members. It is not asking much for them to do the same in a public setting.
You are savings lives and preventing the serious illnesses which secondhand smoke causes. You should be proud.
Phil Andrews: Thank you. I think the County Council's action is tikely to be the most important public health protection we enact for quite a while.
________________________________________________
Wheaton, Md.: I'm glad the county council has finally acted to get the filthy cigarette smoke out of the restaraunts. However, will smokers now gather at the entrace of these places and smoke? I think its terrible now, that the only way to enter most office buildings is to walk through a cloud of filthy cigarrete smoke. I hope we won't have to do that at restarauts, too.
Phil Andrews: The bill does not include the outside areas of restaurnats. It will be up to restaurant owners as to how they handle smoking outside the entrances of their restaurant.
________________________________________________
Rockville, Md.: Congratulations on a great victory for Montgomery County residents! Recent data in Calfornia shows that there are no long-term, financial ramifications from enacting smoking bans. How can you prove to restaurant owners that much of the negative financial data from other jurisdictions with smoking bans are published by tobacco lobbyists?
Phil Andrews: Thanks.
________________________________________________
Rockville, Md.: I'm the worst kind of non-smoker - Ex-smoker. I HATE going to restaurants or bars/pubs that allow smoking, which leaves me with fast food and small Mom&Pop places. If 90% of MoCo residents don't smoke, that's a lot of the population that is not going out with the family because of the smokey environment. I also don't want my kids watching people smoke. It's that "takes a village" thing. When the ban is enacted, we'll go to the new Clyde's in Tower Oaks. See you there!
Phil Andrews: I think there are many county residents who will patronize restaurants that were formerly smoking restaurants. I think you should let the owners and staff know that you are patronizing them because smoking is no longer present.
________________________________________________
Wheaton, Md.: Phil - what studies have been done on the number of nonsmokers that seek out specifically nonsmoking establishments for business and how do you expect this to effect Mont. Co. business?
Phil Andrews: I expect the restaurant industry in the county will do fine, and that many people who used to avoid restaurants that allowed smoking will begin to patronize those restaurants. I think the evidence is mainly anecdotal at this point, although there may have been surveys that address your question.
________________________________________________
College Park, Md.: As a resident of MoCo, I am angry that a few loud-mouthed, hateful people were able to bully the council into passing a Talibanesque law like this. In a period when public funding is at a premium, and services are being cut, I particularly resent the fact that MoCo is going to have to expend millions of dollars in enforcement and legal expenses defending such a reactionary piece of legislation.
Simply appalling. What's next on their too-much-time-on-their-hands repressive agenda?
Phil Andrews: The people advocating this law were civil at all times and based their argument on the well-documented dangers of second-hand smoke. People have the right to be safe in a public place, such as a restaurant. Enforcement costs are likely to be very low.
________________________________________________
Rockville, Md.:
Thank you for being in this forum,
I am personally against the smoking ban. I am not a smoker but realize that there are plenty of non-smoking establishments in MoCo for people who don't like smoke to patronize. I have the following questions for you:
1. What is the rationale for the ban? To my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence conclusively demonstrating that the infrequent couple of hours one spends in a bar/restaurant leads to cancer.
2. If it's a worker health issue, it seems those workers are most against the ban. Is the council saying that these workers have been coerced to work in these places or are incompetent to make decisions?
3. Councilmembers state that businesses won't suffer from the ban. What if the council is wrong and bars/restaurants fail in MoCo due to the ban? What provision has the council made for that event? If a provision has been made, will my taxes go up?
Thank you.
Phil Andrews: Thanks for your questions.
1) The rationale is that all indoor public places in Montgomery County should be safe. Second-hand smoke has effects within 30 minutes on the heart, can trigger asthma attacks quickly, and puts workers at significantly increased risk for lung cancer.
2) Workers weighed in on both sides of the issue. All other workers inside a public workplace are protected from second-hand smoke. Restaurnat workers deserve the same protection.
3) Experience elsewhere shows that the restaurant industry does fine after a restaurant smoking ban is implemented. One must be cautious in attributing cause and effect to the performance of any individual restaurant. The Council will follow the impact and listen to everyone.
________________________________________________
Bethesda, Md.: Mr. Andrews,
If I want to open a bar in Montgomery County, why can't I decide whether or not to allow smoking in my establishment? And, if non-smokers don't want to come as a result, it's a risk I should be able to take for my private establishment.
As free adults, we can all make free decisions. Are you going to drop by the house and make sure I eat my vegetables tonight too?
Phil Andrews: This law is not about vice or virtue. Inidviduals are free to continue to smoke as long as they don't do so that harms others. It's a public health issue because it's occuring in a public place open to all -- not a private issue in this case.
________________________________________________
Silver Spring, Md.: Just a comment, I believe Montgomery council members made a good decision that will benefit all of the resident in Montgomery County who would like to enjoy clean indoor restaurants, barns, taverns, etc. I'm proud of our council members for voting with their own hearts and minds!
Alejandro
Phil Andrews: Thank you A;lejandro.
________________________________________________
Bethesda, Md.: This is yet another example of intrusive, overly aggressive MoCo government. I'm not a smoker, but I find it offensive that you wield the blunt instrument of legislation to dictate human behavior. I'll remember this at the next election.
Phil Andrews: Laws are sometimes necessary to provide basic protection of public health. There's nothing more basic than clean air. Until this legislation is implemented, restaurant workers will remain the only workers who work in a public place in Montgomery County who are exposed to dangerous second-hand smoke.
________________________________________________
Silver Spring, Md.: I am not a smoker. But, to be honest, I am a bit confused about this legislation. If a smoker can't smoke in public, then he/she is relegated to their homes. Is that essentially it?
Phil Andrews: No. The law only pertains to the inside of restaurants.
________________________________________________
Takoma Park, Md.:
As Montgomery County resident, I am SO HAPPY to see the nonsmoking bill pass by such a wide margin.
Some businesses may complain about smokers leaving, but have these same business ever thought about how many non-smokers they would gain?
I do not go to most bars or pubs because they are filled with smoke. I would be much more likely to patronize businesses that have a smoke free atmosphere.
Phil Andrews: Thanks. Let the businesses know you like the fact that the air is healthy.
________________________________________________
Rockville, Md.: Given that the Council's ban was passed the same week Metro's new weekend hours (until 3 a.m.!) were put into effect, has the county given due consideration to what a bill like this would mean to the local economy?
This isn't California or New York, after all. People do have other options close at hand...
Phil Andrews: Yes. The Council did discuss the issue. Most concluded that any impact is likely to be temporary and that the benefits for public health are substantial. Moreover, studies of restaurant bans enacted elsewhere, and wherever they are enacted there are border issues like the one you raise, show that the restaurant industry does fine. Keep in mind that about 88% of Montgomery County adults don't smoke. That's a huge market for non-smoking restaurants.
________________________________________________
Silver Spring, Md.: Mr. Andrews, why did the county council feel the need to force restaurants and bars to change their business practices, rather than allowing them to choose smoking vs. non-smoking practices? Would conventional wisdom state that any restaurants/bars that are nonsmoking would appeal more to nonsmoking clientele?
Phil Andrews: The Council concluded that restaurant workers and patrons should not be the only people inside a public place in Montgomery County who are exposed to the well-documented hazards of second-hand smoke. The rationale is the same that was used to prohibit smoking inside of airplanes, which are also confined indoor places. In my view, restaurant workers shouldn't be the only workers who aren't ensured a safe workplace when it can clearly be provided.
________________________________________________
Silver Spring, Md.: Why not allow bar owners to decide, and if they opt to allow smoking, then display a sign that says something to the effect of "this is not a smoke free establishment" The public would be warned, and those who choose to go there still can. Couldn't the bars be considered private establishments where they should be allowed to have their own rules?
Phil Andrews: Restaurants (there are no stand-alone bars in Montgomery County) are public places. All public places should meet basic public health standards. Second-hand smoke is a completly preventable health hazard. It's reasonable to require smokers to refrain from smoking when it harms other people in a public place.
________________________________________________
Bethesda, Md.:
Enforcing this law, it seems, is going to be extremely difficult. Many of the County's Police force smokes, drinks, and goes to bars themselves. If an off-duty cop (or even one on duty) decides to light up with a buddy, then he/she is not going to be very likely to take out cuffs and put them on that buddy they are smoking with.
And by the way, the 88% non-smoker rate you quote is highly suspect, especially with so many undocumented people in the county...no one really knows how many of them smoke or not.
Phil Andrews: I do not think enforcement will be difficult, because it is easy to determine when someone is smoking. I think the overwhelming majority of people will respect this law, whether or not they agree with it, The 88% figure was cited by the former chief health officer for Montgomery County.
________________________________________________
Silver Spring, Md.: I inhale more toxic fumes from the large number of city buses that I must pass every day, both while walking and while in my car. Why not do something to lessen the thick plumes of black smoke emitted from them instead of focusing on the smoke in bars which I am fully capable of avoiding if I so choose?
Phil Andrews: You're correct that pollution from buses is a problem, ant the county and region are moving toward cleaner buses. Smoke in restaurants/bars, however, is a serious health hazard that is particularly dangerous to employess because of the long-term exposure. All workers in public places, such as restaurants, deserve basic protection from hazardous substances such as second-hand smoke.
________________________________________________
Bethesda, Md.: Thank you for passing this law. Although cigarette smoke was never a deterent whether I frequented an establishment, I am very happy to be able to come home not smelling like smoke and not inhalling second hand smoke. I spent last summer in LA and there was never a lack of patrons in restaurants, clubs, and bars, and I went out often. I also visit NY frequently and still see people out. If smokers want to smoke, go ahead, in the private of own home. The public should have a choice not to inhale. My grandmother and uncle both died of smoking related diseases, so I hope this ban helps people quit.
Phil Andrews: Thank you for your comment.
________________________________________________
Germantown, Md.: Thank you so very much for passing this legislation! My hubby & I won't take our toddler (or my mom, for that matter) to several restaurants where we know the second-hand smoke will be there (mom has asthma and we don't want to subject toddler to it).
It's not a question of "you're bad if you smoke and we can tell you not to" it's an issue of your rights cease where they infringe upon mine.
So, thanks again!
Phil Andrews: Thank you for your comment. I agree that this issue is public health. When smoking harms others in a public place, legislation to prevent that is appropriate.
________________________________________________
Bethesda, Md.: Mr. Andrews - About what percentage of business do you think Montco bars & restaurants will lose over this? As mentioned in the article today, a certain percentage of people will continue to eat/drink in their neighborhood, but, how much business do you think Mont. Co. establishments will lose as a destination?
Phil Andrews: Studies in other places that have enacted smoking bans in restaurants/bars show the industry does fine. I expect that the same will be true here. Some smokers may go to other places, but I think a considerable number of non-smokers will begin to patronize restaurants that formerly allowed smoking inside.
________________________________________________
Potomac, Md.: Are you working with neighboring counties to pass similar legislation? this would be one way to prevent business from crossing the border.
Phil Andrews: Good point. I think that Montgomery County's action will greatly increase the prospects for similar legislation elsewhere, including statewide. I will urge my colleagues in neighboring counties to do the same.
________________________________________________
Bowie, Md.:
Council Member Andrews- -
I thought your statements yesterday captured the essence of the issue- - health care versus money. The Council is vested with the responsibility of protecting the health of the public first and the economy thereafter. Limiting the use to this addicted habit is the best thing to do to ensure lower health costs to the county.
Will you advocate now for the state bill in 2004?
Phil Andrews: Thank you for your comment. Yes, I will work for a statewide restaurant/bar smoking ban in 2004.
________________________________________________
Wheaton, Md.: Bethesda has an excellent point...you were too quick to discount it. Enforcement of this law is going to be next to impossible. Metro tried no eating and drinking laws...a total failure. DOT tried a 55 MPH limit...a total failure. I'm afraid we're going to make fools of ourselves with something that for the most part, is simply unworkable.
Phil Andrews: The reason I do not think enforcement will be difficult is because I think many restaurnat patrons will insist that others follow the law.
________________________________________________
Fairfax, Va.: Congrats to you on passing the legislation. As a non-smoker, I am so tired of going out and being inundated with smoke, even in the non-smoking areas of some places. While I don't normally spend much time on MoCo, I will likely be more willing to do so as a result of this cleaner environment. I wish our legislators had the same degree of determination.
Phil Andrews: Thanks for your comment.
________________________________________________
Bethesda, Md.: Don't you think this measure will be challenged in court?
Phil Andrews: It may well. be challenged. However, I am confident that it will be upheld because it is legislation rather than a Board of Health regulation, and has been carefully crafted to withstand a legal challenge.
________________________________________________
College Park, Md.: I don't particularly care for cigarette smoke, but what's next? Are the police going to start walking into bars and arresting people for public intoxication? It happens only occasionally..these days. Are we heading towards a new prohibition? "They" could justify anything under some homeland security measure.
As far as losing business, shops will probably just see a shift in clientele.
Phil Andrews: The measure is to protect public health, not to enforce private morality. People can still smoke in many places. When smoking harms others in a public place, however, it's appropriate for government to step in;.
________________________________________________
Southern Maryland : I'm a nonsmoker who can't stand cigarette smoke, and I don't agree with the smoking ban. Why not just limit smoking to a restaurant's bar area with adequate ventilation? Many chains like Applebee's and Ruby Tuesday have this setup already.
And limiting smoking in a bar? Completely unworkable. There's a line from the 1970 film "Cold Turkey" which I believe applies in real life: "The drink bone is connected to the smoke bone." Most people who do one also do the other.
Phil Andrews: According to the American Society of Heating, Cooling and Refrigerant Engineers, ventilation systems don't remove the toxins in second-hand smoke. They provide comfort but not safety. That's why the Council rejected that approach.
Montgomery County has no stand-alone bars, and about 88% of adults don't smoke.
________________________________________________
Olney, Md.: I just wanted to say thank you. My wife and I were in a restaurant in Reston this past weekend, and although we were in the smoking section, we were at the end closest to the bar and every time anyone walked from the bar area (which included the soda fountain and the front door) into the main seating area, smoke wafted across our table. It made the experience quite unpleasant, but what most smokers "rights" people ignore is that one exposure to significant amounts of smoke can be very uncomfortable or even dangerous for some people. While I realize the impetus for this law was to protect the health of service workers, it will benefit many consumers, too.
Now I just have to decide whether I will go back to Clyde's or the Anchor Inn (who fought the ban) after the ban takes effect. I'm still mad at them, but I would also like to prove them wrong (about their business suffering).
Phil Andrews: Thank you for your comment. I encourage you to patronize restaurants that will be switching over and to let them know you like the fact that smoking isn't allowed inside.
________________________________________________
Silver Spring, Md.: Thank you Councilman Andrews for your support in passing this bill. The vote for the bill was 8 to 1; if Duncan vetoes the bill, does the council have the right to overturn that veto? If so, does that mean that this bill is essentially going to be enacted in about 91 days (give or take)? Are there any other factors that could inhibit this bill from going into effect?
Dena
Phil Andrews: Thank you.
If Doug Duncan vetoes the bill, the Council can override it, and I am confident, would do so. I hope and expect that he will sign it.
A legal challenge is more likely than not, and could delay implementation for awhile.
________________________________________________
Gaithersburg, Md.: Have any of you heard of "Smoke and Duck" ? It's very popular in smoke-free New York. Patrons simply go outside for a smoke and duck-out on their tab. How is this good for business? I'm not a smoker but I don't live in the bar either, it's a choice, if you can't tolerate smoke, stay away.
Phil Andrews: I tthink the overwhelming majority of restaurant/bar customers are law abiding and won't do a "smoke and duck." If that becomes a problem, I expect that restaurants will find a way to deal with it.
________________________________________________
Bethesda, Md.: Is Montgomery County concerned with the business that will be lost to Washington DC for people that want to go out and smoke after a meal or while they have a drink with friends?
Phil Andrews: This was discussed at the Council session. I think the fact that there are so many more non-smokers than smokers will ensure that the restaurant industry will continue to thrive in Montgomery County.
I think it is just a matter of time before most jurisdictions enact restaurant smoking bans. Protecting public health justifies local action.
________________________________________________
DuBois, Pa.: I know many will disagree... but although I can see a person's right To smoke, I don't enjoy inhaling the second hand smoke which I can't control.... so the only solution seems to be to remove it from indoors. Just a little note of humor on the subject - how funny a restaurant is that has a smoking and nonsmoking section that is only divided by an aisle - as if the smoke doesn't cross the line. Get real!
Phil Andrews: Thanks for your comments.
________________________________________________
Crofton, Md.: Would there be a possibility of "rolling back" the ban in bars if it has shown to hurt businesses? Also how much money does the council expect to spend for enforcement?
Phil Andrews: Anything is possible, however I would not support a rollback because the reason for adopting the measure is to provide important protection to restaurant employees and patrons from hazardous second-hand smoke -- the same protection that all other workers and patrons in a public place enjoy in Montgomery County.
I do not think the restaurant industry is going to suffer, based on the experience elsewhere.
________________________________________________
Vienna, Va.: While I myself believe that both smoking and drinking are foolish and do neither myself, I feel that this law is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp the rights of smokers and of restauraunt owners. People who smoke know the risks....and these risks are very real. They don't need the idiots in Rockville to try and legislate it for them. Restaurants already have no-smoking areas for those like me who choose not to smoke or don't want to be around secondhand smoke. Why should we who do NOT smoke try and dictate to those who DO? Consider that Maryland itself collects a tax on tobacco...it is a perfectly legal substance for those over 18 (or is it 21 now)? The County Council should be ashamed of themselves for passing a piece of legislative garbage like this.....the courts are almost certainly going to strike it down...again.
Phil Andrews: This measure is not about vice or virtue. It's about protecting public health. No smoking areas don't adequately protect patrons and don't protect workers at all.
Every other worker in a public place in Maryland is protected from hazardous second-hand smoke. Restaurant workers are no less deserving. They shouldn't have to trade their health for a paycheck.
The legislation has been drafted to withstand a court challenge. Many other jurisdictions have enacted restaurant smoking bans successfully.
________________________________________________
Arlington, Va.: Thank you for passing this bill! You can be sure I'll be making the trek from Arlington to enjoy a smoke-free environment.
A question: The result of smoking bans in California and New York City has been smokers getting up, standing outside wherever they can - usually the front door - to take their smoke breaks. This results in noise and big piles of cigarette butts, as well as the occassional fight over a lost seat. Any sense of how this will be handled? Hopefully Montogomery County can learn from the experiences of other locales.
Phil Andrews: Thanks for your comment.
Too early to say how the issue of smokers congregating at entrances will be handled. I expecdt that restaurants will find a way to address it if it becomes a major problem.
________________________________________________
College Park, Md.: Wouldn't having bars and restaurants use more efficient and effective air filtering systems be more democratic than banning smoking?
Phil Andrews: The Council had expert testimony that ventilation systems don't remove the toxins from second-hand smoke. Therefore, a ban is the only way to protect public health.
________________________________________________
Fairfax County, VA: Great job! I hate returning from a night out smelling like an ash tray. I hope Fairfax County BOS will follow suit sooner rather than later.
Phil Andrews: Thanks. I hope Fairfax County moves forward also.
________________________________________________
Rockville, Md.: Why did the council vote against allowing restaurants to create separately ventilated smoking areas? This seems a reasonable compromise. Why reject it?
Phil Andrews: Ventilation systems don't remove the toxins from second-hand smoke. They provide comfort but not safety.
________________________________________________
Washington, D.C.: If "88% of Montgomery County residents don't smoke" why is a smoking ban necessary; that is, why don't the bars and restaurants simply ban smoking on their own?
Phil Andrews: 100 percent of employees in restaurants that allow smoking are exposed to dangerous second-hand smoke. It's unfair to provide protection against second'hand smoke to all workers in public places, except restaurant employees.
________________________________________________
Washington, D.C.: So I see that so far you're only taking supportive comments.
I'm a bartender in DC, and I'd hate to see a smoking ban go into effect. I've worked in non-smoking places, and it's just awful, income-wise, for the staff.
Did you even consider alternatives such as allowing smoking in seperately ventilated areas?
Phil Andrews: Please see my answer to other questions about ventilation systems.
________________________________________________
Bosdarros, France: Could you please site the specific scientific studies that led the council to this decision. Was there any professional consultant to assist the council. I ask because I recently red that the effects af second hand smoke may not be clearly understood.
Thank you from a former Montgomery County resident.
Phil Andrews: Check out studies by the U.S. Surgeon General, and testimony from associations such as the American Lung Association, and medical societies. No one testified at the public hearing that second-hand smoke is not unhealthy.
________________________________________________
Washington, DC: When smokers I know rant about such bans, I often make parallels to disturbing the peace laws and regulations. listening to music is perfectly legal, but doing so at 3am on a residential street at 150 decibels is not. I haven't heard a good response yet as to how outlawing smoking in public places (ie restaurants) is significantly different. Sure, smoking is legal and it's a personal choice, but it's a choice that--due to its health-damaging & nuisance effects on others--needs to be made in private.
Phil Andrews: Public health is the key issue. People can harm themselves if they choose, but other people have the right to a safe environment in a public place.
________________________________________________
Stop ignoring the bars!: You keep talking about the restaurants. Well, that's just fine and dandy, make them all nonsmoking. But what about bars? Why shouldn't they be allowed to have a smoking section? Why shouldn't a bar be able to declare itself a smoking or nonsmoking bar? What about cigar bars? Doesn't an owner have the right to declare that cigars can be smoked in his cigar bar?
Phil Andrews: In my view, all workers in a public place have the right to a safe workplace if it can be provided. That goes for workers in bars too.
________________________________________________
Chevy Chase, Washington, D.C.: I live in upper Northwest and you can bet I'll start eating and drinking more in Bethesda than in Adams-Morgan or Georgetown!
Phil Andrews: Glad to hear it. Please let them know why you're there.
________________________________________________
Washington, DC: To those Chicken Littles who worry about business dropping off in MontCo -- I assure that many people (yours truly included) will now be more likely to make the trek up there to go out because of the added no smoke incentive!
Phil Andrews: Thanks for your comment. I'm glad you're headed our way to spend money in Montgomery County restaurants that are smokefree.
________________________________________________
Germantown, MD:
Mr. Andrews, how many smokers in NY, LA, and other places that have similiar laws continue to routinely light up in bars inspite of the ban?
I think the caller from Bethesda had a good point....the law itself is one thing. Enforcing it will be quite another matter.
Phil Andrews: I think patrons will help enforce it here.
________________________________________________
Aspin Hill, Md.:
During normal business hours, you can go to almost any place of work and see a bunch of fat slobs smoking cigarettes in front of the building. Will this now be the norm at restaraunts?
Phil Andrews: Too early to tell. I think restaurants will find a way to deal with it if becomes a problem.
________________________________________________
Washington, D.C.: Living in San Francisco for a few years, I can surely appreciate the non-smoking restaurants and bars. I think more people came to the places. Smoking was still allowed in certain areas where there was no wait-staff and outdoors.
Phil Andrews: Thanks for your observation.
________________________________________________
Montgomery County, Md.: As soon as the smoking ban is securely in place, I’m going bar-hopping! There are times when I could really enjoy bellying up to the bar for a brew with friends. For some 15 years I have not gone into bars or clubs due to the prevalence of cigarette and cigar smoke, instead patronizing smoke-free establishments. Once the ban takes effect I have many more venues from which to choose. It’s like getting a life again!
I have been to Boulder, CO, where all the bars are nonsmoking and they are packed nightly, sometimes with waiting lines to get in, so any proprietor who thinks a smoking ban will kill business is flat out wrong. What about my business? Don’t my dollars count? I’ll be happy to linger long in clean air.
Be advised that as much as I am going to enjoy the new smoke-free restaurants & bars, at the first sign of tobacco smoke I’m out the door-fast.
Phil Andrews: I think many people, like youself, will appreciate that all restaurants will be safe to go to.
________________________________________________
Southern Maryland::
Tobacco farmers down here were bought out by the Government to stop them from growing tobacco. I'm glad. It may be a money crop but it's ruined the health of millions of people. I'm not a smoker, but I have gotten sick (pounding headaches, nausea) from being around smokers, even dirty ash trays make me gag. At one time I used to sit between two chain smokers -- talk about going home sick every night! My clothes stank from it.
Phil Andrews: Smoking does harm others. That's why this legislation was needed. Thanks for your comment.
________________________________________________
Silver Spring, Md.: How many smokers and non-smokers are on the council?
Phil Andrews: I'm unsure.
________________________________________________
Wheaton, Md.: What if the State Legislature enacts legislation overturning this rule and permits smoking in bars statewide? Governor Ehrlich would be very likely to sign it.
Phil Andrews: I think the General Assembly is more likely to pass a statewide smoking ban in restaurants than to override local authority.
________________________________________________
New York, N.Y.: As a NY resident I was against the smoking ban because of its big brother-esque quality, but having spent a lot of time in bars over the last couple months I have to say it is a GREAT law. When travelling outside of NY I REALLY notice the difference - both immediately when entering a smokey bar and afterward, when I get home and realize my clothes are ruined.
It takes a bit of getting used to (and yes, the clusters of smokers crowded outside create another, different problem), but once it starts you'll never want to go back!
Phil Andrews: Thanks for sharing your experience and change of mind.
________________________________________________
Potomac, Md.: If this is a way to protect non-smokers, hypothetically, if you could have a no smoking section that was completely sealed off from the rest of the restaurant/bar, like they have in airports, that had proper ventillation and would prevent second-hand smoke from escaping, and the workers who worked in that section were smokers themselves, then that should be legal under your reasoning behind the legislation.
Phil Andrews: Ventilation systems don't remove the toxins in second-hand smoke. They increase comfort but don't provide safety.
________________________________________________
Helena, Mont.: If second hand smoke is so hazardous why hasn't OSHA jumped all over that? How about the bartenders/waiters unions?
Phil Andrews: OSHA is subject to congressional oversight, as well as to presidential pressure. Both the president and Congress have failed to act appropriately to protect public health with regard to second-hand smoke.
________________________________________________
Washington, D.C.: Since few people can agree on whether there's a reliable study on second-hand smoke, here's a related question: Studies from MADD show that more people die in alcohol-related automobile accidents every year than die from second-hand smoke. Will the Montgomery County Council move to ban alcohol next? It seems to be a bigger threat to public health than cigarettes.
Phil Andrews: Driving under the influence is certainly a serious puublic safety problem and, of course, is already against the law. The County Police actively enforce drunk driving laws. The misuse of alchohol is a serious personal and public health issue. Banning alcohol consumption is not going to happen nor would it be necessary to address the public health problems of excessive alcoholic use.
The County Council approved a ban on smoking inside of restaurants because, as in other confined indoor spaces, second-hand smoke is dangerous to others.
________________________________________________
Automatically Update Page
| Get New Responses | Submit Question
 |