Retail Tobacco Businesses and Establishment of a Premium Cigar Lounge Alcoholic Beverages License (Maryland Premium Cigar Lounge Act of 2026)
HB 766 creates a new Class C-PCL (premium cigar lounge) alcoholic beverages license for certain tobacconists. A local licensing board could issue the license to a retail tobacco business that sells premium cigars and pipe tobacco for on-premises and off-premises use, subject to county population limits on the number of licenses available. The license would allow customers to consume alcoholic beverages on the premises from 10 a.m. to 1 a.m. the following day, so long as the alcohol is brought by the customer, the customer also purchases and consumes a product sold by the business, and a trained employee is present.
The bill also creates a special exemption from the Clean Indoor Air Act for licensed premium cigar lounges. In exchange, the premises must meet ventilation and exhaust requirements, post signage that smoking is allowed, and have employees acknowledge secondhand smoke exposure. The business must also meet a revenue test: at least 70% of average daily receipts must come from premium cigars, pipe tobacco, and related accessories, and the license holder must submit annual compliance reports to the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cannabis Commission and local board. The annual license fee would be $100.
HB 766 changes existing tobacco retail licensing law by directing circuit court clerks not to issue a tobacconist license if the proposed business location is adjacent to a licensed health care facility or licensed child care facility. It also amends the Clean Indoor Air Act to clarify that certain retail tobacco businesses may be exempt, and it requires the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cannabis Commission to maintain a registry of exempt retail tobacco businesses. The bill further tightens the definition of a retail tobacco business for exemption purposes by requiring non-tobacco sales to be no more than 30% of gross annual revenue.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears neutral to mildly supportive, but limited, because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included. The bill’s structure suggests an attempt to balance business expansion for cigar lounges with public health safeguards, especially around smoke exposure, ventilation, and proximity to health care and child care facilities. The main points of contention likely involve indoor smoking exemptions, secondhand smoke concerns, and whether the bill appropriately limits tobacco-focused businesses near sensitive locations while creating a new alcohol service privilege for cigar lounges.
HB 766 would add a new license category to the Alcoholic Beverages and Cannabis Article and modify the Business Regulation and Health-General Articles. It would give local licensing boards authority to issue premium cigar lounge licenses, impose operating and revenue conditions on licensed tobacconists, bar tobacconist licenses near health care and child care facilities, and create a registry and reporting framework administered by the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cannabis Commission. It would also carve out a new exemption from Maryland’s Clean Indoor Air Act for qualifying premium cigar lounges, changing the scope of indoor smoking restrictions for a narrow class of retail tobacco businesses.
The available legislative record does not include committee testimony or votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure directly. Based on the bill text, the proposal appears designed to support a specialized tobacco retail and lounge business model while incorporating public-health-related restrictions, suggesting a pragmatic and potentially mixed reception. Support would likely come from tobacco retailers and hospitality interests, while opposition would likely come from public health advocates and child care or health care stakeholders concerned about smoke exposure and indoor air quality.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s exemption from the Clean Indoor Air Act, the allowance for on-premises alcohol consumption in a smoking-permitted venue, and the potential public health effects of secondhand smoke. Another likely dispute is the prohibition on issuing tobacconist licenses adjacent to health care or child care facilities, which reflects concern about sensitive uses but may still be seen as insufficient by opponents or overly restrictive by business interests. The 70% tobacco-sales threshold, annual reporting requirements, and county-based cap on licenses may also be debated as either necessary safeguards or burdensome limits.