For the owner of McLeans Restaurant on West Broad Street, a state ban on smoking in restaurants represents a bailout of the environmental kind.
"I'm all for it," said Dionne Kelleher, hours before the House of Delegates passed a watered-down version of a proposed smoking ban.
"I've been working in this environment for 20-something years breathing second-hand smoke, and I don't know what that's going to do to me."
The original McLeans, which shares its name with several local eateries, is a popular Richmond breakfast spot that features down-home staples such as country ham, grits and red-eye gravy.
Kelleher started working there on weekends as a 15-year-old. As its owner, she has made do in her cozy establishment with air purifiers and a separate smoking section.
Yesterday, her employees held a spirited debate on the merits of a smoking ban.
One argued that a ban is discriminatory and doesn't square with a state whose growth mirrored that of the tobacco leaf. Another said the restaurant would lose customers. Yet another said a smoke-free McLeans would attract nearby workers who stay away because of the smoke.
State legislation would free Kelleher of a decision.
"I wouldn't do it on my own," she said. "That would be a bad business decision for the type of restaurant I am. But on a personal basis, I'll be glad not to breathe the second-hand smoke."
The legislation could be the breath of fresh air she was looking for.
But yesterday, the House packed more exceptions into a compromise hammered out between Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, who had agreed on a ban except in private clubs and in designated smoking rooms that are separated and independently ventilated.
House Republicans added exemptions for any permanent outdoor patio area of a restaurant or any portion of a restaurant used only for private functions. An amendment also allowed smoking whenever minors are not allowed -- as if adults are somehow immune to the smoke's ill effects.
"At this moment, they should just kill the bill and get it over with," said Anne Morrow Donley, a tobacco-control activist from Richmond.
The General Assembly is not done with the measure. But yesterday's action suggests that legislators are blowing smoke.
As it is, many restaurants are poorly ventilated. A meal in some places means a trip to the dry cleaners. But you can't dry-clean your lungs of the effects of toxic, cancer-causing chemicals.
It's doubtful any establishment with a loyal clientele would be unduly affected by a real smoking ban. As a nonsmoker, I'm puzzled by people who use smoking access as a deal-breaker in their eating and dining decisions.
Or put it this way: I patronize smoke-filled establishments because I like their convenience, their draft beer selection, their ambience or their chicken wings.
Shouldn't the same apply to smokers?
Contact Michael Paul Williams at
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement