Global Ridicule Extinguishes Montgomery's Anti-Smoking Bill

By Jo Becker Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, November 28, 2001; Page A01

Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) yesterday vetoed legislation that would have regulated smoking in the privacy of people's homes, reversing course after a rash of worldwide attention and a public opinion backlash.

Duncan took the action after a key County Council member who voted for the legislation took a public stand against it yesterday, a defection that means supporters no longer have the votes to override the veto.

Council President Blair G. Ewing (D-At Large) acknowledged that political reality, expressing disappointment but saying the erosion of political support had effectively killed the legislation.

Council member Michael L. Subin (D-At Large), an opponent, said, "We've become the laughingstock of the world."

The provision, which the council passed last week as part of a package of indoor air-quality standards, represented one of the most restrictive anti-smoking measures in the nation. Had it become law, the legislation would have set fines of up to $750 for people who smoke in their homes if the smoke crossed property lines and offended neighbors.

Last week, Duncan unequivocally promised to support the measure. Yesterday, he said he had changed his mind after realizing that the anti-smoking provision "went way too far" and had received little public input before passage.

"Based on initial discussions with my staff, I believed that this bill could become law and that we could manage the tobacco smoke issues through a combination of education and prudent use of enforcement resources," Duncan said in his veto message. "Upon further consideration, however, it has become clear that the tobacco smoke provisions will be nothing more than a tool to be used in squabbles between neighbors, and that significant resources will be required to address these complaints."

Council member Howard A. Denis (R-Potomac-Bethesda) had urged Duncan to veto the bill, announcing yesterday that he could no longer support legislation that the public "overwhelmingly" opposed.

The legislation was initially designed to give environmental regulators an enforcement tool to deal with indoor air-pollution complaints involving such irritants as mold, excessive dust, pesticides, paint and carpet glue odors, or gases such as carbon monoxide.

Denis said he voted in favor of the bill, despite the decision by other council members to add tobacco smoke to the list of regulated pollutants, because he believed it was important to address indoor air-quality health issues.

But since then, Denis said, the legislation generated widespread ridicule. Conservative commentator -- and Montgomery County resident -- George Will compared the council to the Taliban on ABC's nationally televised show "This Week." Journalists deluged the council with requests for interviews, and the Moscow Times even weighed in with a column.

"I got put in the same bag as the Taliban," Denis said. "The public has spoken. The reputation of the county is literally at stake here."

Denis's switch was critical because his vote had provided the veto-proof majority.

The version that the Duncan administration originally drafted excepted tobacco smoke from the new regulations, which define indoor pollutants as agents that are "likely to pose a health hazard to humans, plants or animals or unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of residential or non-residential property."

But the council rejected that exception, arguing that secondhand smoke should be treated the same as any other air pollutant.

That prompted tobacco companies to threaten a legal challenge, the American Civil Liberties Union to express concern about the impact on property rights and opponents on the council to charge that the law would unfairly target the poor because it would probably have no impact on people who live in single-family homes on large lots.

Ewing said the council is likely to pass an air-quality bill that is virtually identical to Duncan's original proposal. But he blasted Duncan for doing an about-face.

"I think the public will be disappointed," Ewing said. "Tobacco smoke is a toxic air pollutant. . . . So to have an indoor air-pollution bill that doesn't include tobacco is absurd on the face of it."

The council has supported a number of tobacco regulations, including a ban on restaurant smoking that is tied up in court and a ban on outdoor smoking in Friendship Heights that did not survive a legal challenge.

"It's the same old saga -- there's a significant vocal minority who do not want to see us regulate a lethal product," said council member Steven A. Silverman (D-At Large), a supporter. "What you are not hearing are the people who say this is a good thing, and if it saves a few lives, great."

Residents and nonresidents flooded the council with letters.

Some, like Shana Trostel, of Rockville, praised the council for taking steps to "protect those who suffer from exposure to other people's tobacco smoke." Trostel, who suffers from asthma, wrote that she cannot use her deck or open her windows because of her neighbor's smoke.

But most letters blasted the legislation as paternalistic.

"While I fully support restricting smoking in public places, I am aghast at the prospect of such ridiculous antics arising from this council," wrote Joseph Wilmot, of Poolesville.

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2001

Answers

I could go on and on about this situation.

The County Council was nuts not to see global ridicule coming. After all, the Friendship Heights ban on outdoor smoking was ridiculed all around the nation.

In Montgomery County, the supporters of a smoking ban or huge tax on tobacco products always start out by talking about protecting the children. For example, there is now a huge tax on tobacco products including pipe tobacco, where the estimated enforcement and collection costs are two thirds! of estimated revenue (the remaining third is earmarked for anti-smoking programs in the school system). As if kids go around smoking pipes. But then you also run into rhetoric about protecting smokers from themselves.

This was certainly true in Friendship Heights, where the leader of that campaign is an MD. (Speaking of concern for children, he is now in very deep trouble, accused of trying to molest a young boy.)

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2001