Maryland County Curbs Smoking at Home

The Montgomery County, Md., Council on Tuesday approved one of the most restrictive anti-smoking measures in the nation, setting stiff fines for people who smoke in their own homes if it offends their neighbors.

Under the county’s new indoor air quality standards, tobacco smoke will be treated in the same manner as other potentially harmful pollutants, such as asbestos, radon, molds or pesticides. If the smoke manages to waft into a neighbor’s home--whether through a door, a vent or an open window--that neighbor will now be able to complain to the county’s Department of Environmental Protection.

Smokers and in some cases landlords or condominium associations that fail to properly ventilate buildings would face fines of up to $750 per violation if they failed to take steps to mitigate the problem.

County Executive Douglas Duncan promised Tuesday to sign the measure into law, which supporters said will protect people from health dangers.

“This does not say that you cannot smoke in your house,” said council member Isiah Leggett. “What it does say is that your smoke cannot cross property lines.”

But tobacco companies are already threatening a possible legal challenge, the American Civil Liberties Union has expressed concern about the law’s effect on property rights and opponents on the council are charging that it unfairly targets the poor.

In cities and counties across the country, lawmakers over the last decade have banned smoking in bars, restaurants, workplaces and even such outdoor public areas as parks and sports arenas.

More recently, the anti-smoking movement has taken on the cause of apartment dwellers. Smoke-free apartment registries have popped up in cities across the country, and some tenants have successfully sued under general nuisance laws that prohibit loud noise and other activities that constitute an unreasonable threat to the quiet enjoyment of property.

But there are few, if any, ordinances that directly address the issue of smoke spreading from one home to another. West Hollywood, a city known for its tough anti-smoking laws, considered a measure similar to Montgomery’s in 2000 but did not adopt it.

“This codifies what we believe has generally been the law, but we’re only just now getting around to enforcing,” said John Banzhaf, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health and a public law professor at George Washington University. “This is a major step forward because it will allow people to make a simple complaint to a designated agency rather than having to hire a lawyer and go to court.”

That’s if the tobacco companies don’t go to court to have the law overturned, an option two of them said they will study.

“I’ve never heard of legislation like this anywhere in the country,” said Steve Watson, vice president of Lorillard Tobacco Co.

“We think it looks like an extreme and unnecessary measure that would be burdensome for property owners,” said Lisa Eddington, spokeswoman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. “We will be evaluating it.”

The legislation, which represents the county’s first attempt to regulate indoor air quality, was initially designed to give environmental regulators an enforcement tool to deal with complaints involving things like mold, excessive dust, paint and carpet glue odors or gases, such as carbon monoxide. Children in day care, the thinking went, should not be forcibly exposed to fumes from an auto body shop next door.

Duncan 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 nonresidential property.”

But a council committee chose to include tobacco smoke, a decision that six of the nine council members supported Tuesday after a heated debate.