LOGIN | REGISTER AS A USER


Article/Archives | Advanced Search

Style Weekly - Cover StoriesStyle Weekly - News & FeaturesStyle Weekly - ArtStyle Weekly - MusicStyle Weekly - MoviesStyle Weekly - Food & DrinkStyle Weekly - CalendarStyle Weekly - OpinionStyle Weekly - Classifieds
TWITTER  |  FACEBOOK  |  RSS HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  ABOUT US  |  ADVERTISE

Bookmark and Share

 
, Posted On: 12/1/2009

Smoked Out


As the new restaurant smoking ban takes effect, local restaurants mix it up. Some may absorb the $25 fine and keep on toking.
by Rich Griset
Smoker Mike Todd, a regular at Bandito’s Burrito Lounge, will replace his favorite bar with his own couch now the smoking ban is in full effect.
 

This week marks the end of Mike Todd’s loyalty to Bandito’s Burrito Lounge, a restaurant in the Fan where he could often be found nursing a beer and smoking a cigarette. “I didn’t think smoking was a big issue until lately,” Todd said last week, bedecked in a black-and-gold Pittsburgh Steelers sweatshirt and matching cap. “I’ve been doing it so long I’m afraid if I quit it’ll kill me.”

What he isn’t afraid to do is drink and smoke at home, which is what he plans to do more often in the wake of the state’s new smoking ban, which went into effect Dec. 1. Under the new law, restaurants must either ban smoking altogether or provide a separate, enclosed smoking area in the restaurant with its own ventilation system.

Bandito’s owner Sean McClain, like many restaurant owners in the Richmond area, isn’t sure what to make of the new law just yet. He’s banning smoking outright instead of incurring the costs of constructing a separate smoking room. What he does next will depend on how many Mike Todds he loses.

It also depends on how the law is enforced. McClain, like many restaurant owners in the Richmond area, is weighing the possibility of simply ignoring the law, and paying the relatively miniscule fine that comes with violating the ban: $25.

The fine is small potatoes when compared to smoking bans in some states. In New York, fines begin at a minimum of $200, and an establishment’s business license can be revoked if three violations occur within a year.

In Virginia, the repercussions for violating the law appear to be minimal.

“The law isn’t everything we hoped for,” says Cathleen Grezisiek, the senior director of government relations for the American Heart Association. “There are some concerns about the law enforcement provisions. … We do fear that a $25 fine will not be an adequate deterrent.”

A.J. Hostetler, a public relations coordinator for the Virginia Department of Health, says the department only has the authority to write up smoking as a violation during routine health inspections.

“Our role is to ensure compliance with the smoking ban,” Hostetler said. “[We] don’t have statutory authority to issue summonses.”

That will be up to local law enforcement agencies. The law does not specify any branch of law enforcement that will uphold the ban, does not strictly outline the number of penalties a restaurant could be cited for, and places no restrictions on the number of $25 penalties a restaurant owner can incur. In addition to restaurant owners, individual patrons can be fined $25 if they continue to smoke after receiving a warning. 

How strictly the law is enforced, Hostetler says, is up to local police. 

Richmond Police Department spokesman Gene Lepley says that the department is currently reviewing the law with the Attorney General’s Office to determine how exactly to enforce the ban. Ditto for Chesterfield County department, which hasn’t determined exactly how the new law will be enforced, says a county spokesman.

Virginia State Police spokeswoman Corinne Geller says the state trooper or police officer called to the scene will have the final say. “It’s really up to the discretion of the responder,” she says.

The uncertainty is enough to drive some restaurateurs batty. Bandito’s owner McClain says the ban is a business killer. “Me and a lot of people are just disgusted by the whole thing,” he says. “The penalty is a $25 fine. Really? So I let people smoke if it’s 10 o’clock and people are starting to come in to drink and all I have to do is pay $25? Then what’s the point anyway? Who’s not going to pay $25 to have business?”

McClain says that he and others will be hit especially hard since smoking is still allowed in some establishments and worries that smokers may be drawn away from his restaurant to smoker-friendly ones.

“For certain places that don’t depend on a bar’s business, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. It’s going to hurt places like mine worse,” McClain says. “It would be fine if it were an absolute law. It’s complete and utter ridiculousness that it’s not an absolute law.”

McClain says he has the ability to cordon off a smoking area in his restaurant with a separate ventilation system, but most establishments would have to remodel in order to comply with the new law.

At Havana ’59, smoking is now banned on the first floor and allowed on the second floor. Manager Je Depew said that the top floor of the Shockoe Bottom Cuban restaurant will be designated as a “cigar and smoking lounge,” and that the switch probably won’t affect business.

Can Can Brasserie in Carytown made the transition early.

“When they adopted [the ban] in April, we went ahead and switched,” says owner Chris Ripp, who has seen a 10 percent drop in business at the bar as a result. 

Mike Byrne, owner of Richbrau Brewing Co. in Shockoe Slip, says that the restaurant’s first floor is now nonsmoking, and he’s considering whether to open up the second floor of his restaurant to smoking patrons. But he’s going the populist route. 

“If the customers decide that just by their sheer reaction to it that they don’t mind being nonsmoking in the entire place, then that’s what we’ll do,” Byrne says. “If it turns out that we have a section that we want for smoking, we have that option.”

Staff writer Alex Gray contributed to this story.


Articles/Archives:
  • Clean Water Regs Could Cost Richmond $30 Million
  • Audit Questions School Safety, Security, Waste
  • Musicians Fight Back on Noise Ordinance
  • Politics Brakes for High-Speed Police Chases
  • Lost in Translation

Comment:
Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:35:23 AM by lifelong non-smoker
I'll be more likely to go to Can Can and other places where there is no smoking. I don't want any more carcinogens in my life than already exist from car exhaust and other modern life. I resent smelling like stinky cigarette smoke just because I walked by someone smoking, and being captive in a room full of smokers is HELL for me. There are no health benefits to tobacco smoke and MANY known diseases in smokers and even non-smokers exposed to smoke. I appreciate this law and hope that the lawmakers see that having poorly enforced laws doesn't help anyone, and will cause resentment from the other businesses trying to make the switch to non-smoking in their establishment. Change is painful, but not as painful as LUNG CANCER.
Monday, December 07, 2009 7:41:04 PM by Sam Carstairs
Public masturbation doesn't harm anyone either. Unless you get it on an innocent bystander while he's enjoying a cheeseburger then it's a public health-hazard, and some regulation is called for.

Just sayin'.
Monday, December 07, 2009 12:26:22 PM by anon 2
Actually, suggesting that 10% of Can Can's business withered away due to the smoking ban is not disingenuous. In times of economic depression, sin stocks go up. That's because people want to go out and drink and smoke. Even with this horrible economy. It should be left up to the individual business owner what he wants to do with his business. And I'm a liberal... geez.
Sunday, December 06, 2009 1:08:59 PM by anonymous
I think the ban on smoking in restaurants is very conceivable. However, if we were to allow actual BARS in Richmond, without the 40% food sales regulation, smoking should be aloud there. Bars don't allow children, and if you don't want to be around smoking, don't go. Just a thought.
Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:48:25 AM by Anonymous
Not sure why there is discussion here, it is the law. Seems ok to me that if one wants to smoke they step outside. I read an article where in Ireland a whole new grouping began once they had a smoking ban in Pubs. People that gathered outside to smoke socialized, met, started dating etc. As an ex-smoker I welcome this law, I hated passive smoke even when I was a user. The $25 fine is a joke.
Feedo
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:38:37 PM by anon
Suggesting that Can Can Brasserie's 10% decline in business is the result of its' ban on smoking is disingenuous and fails to take into consideration that its' decline in bar revenue occurred during the worst economic recession of the last sixty five years. Banning smoking in bars and restaurants in other states has not been shown to have had a detrimental financial impact on those establishments, and I doubt that it will here either.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 4:08:31 PM by FanGuy
Rick, we already outlaw drinking and driving.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:58:36 PM by Rick James
To that I would say a guy who smokes a pack of cigarettes at a bar doesn't go out and run over a bunch of kids.

Let's outlaw drinking in bars.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:52:41 PM by FanGuy
C.A., I fully support compliance. But alas, I'm not likely to lift a finger on that issue either. Good luck though.

Rick James, your obesity does not endanger my health. BUT, watch out, your obesity does cause my taxes to go up due to the health problems it causes, so you may be seeing more restrictions on fattys in the future.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:31:59 PM by Carol A.O. Wolf
Hey, FanGuy, glad to see you are such a law-abiding citizen at heart. Perhaps you could be inspired to support the families that have been fighting to get Richmond Public Schools and the city to bring the schools into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:33:18 PM by Rick James
Can we work on a law banning patchouli? I’d rather sit next to a smoker than a nasty smelly hippie.

How about banning fat people? Obesity causes more deaths than smoking.
At least smoking generates taxes.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:18:40 PM by TV Hater
I'd be happier if they got the darned TVs out of Banditos. I went to their location after they moved from Cary St. Never againyou have a dumb TV in every corner.

I'd prefer a risk of lung cancer to the brain cancer of the boob toob.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:56:15 PM by FanGuy
Ok, let's be honest, I'm not going to lift a finger on this. But I hope the ABC pulls their liquor license.

But really, this isn't much different from the activists who seek to enforce the ADA's public accommodation laws.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:57:36 AM by Nicole
FanGuy, your infuriation and rage at such a minuscule thing is hilarious. Who cares? Are you the superhero who protects the masses from dangerous "lawbreakers?" WOW, still LOL!
Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:34:51 PM by FanGuy
I hope the businesses that ignore the law fail miserably and I'll do what I can legally do to see that they fail. The law may objectionable, ill-conceived, or unfair, but ignoring it should not be an option that is tolerated.

Comment Box
 
Choose an identity
Registered Blogger Other
 
Username 
Password 
No Registered Blogger account? Sign up here.
CAPTCHA Validation
Retype the code from the picture
CAPTCHA Code Image
Speak the code Change the code