Will smoking ban affect dining choice?

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