Local restaurants, customers get ready for anti-smoking law
John Crane/Register & Bee
Kathy Shelton, of Gretna, (left) smokes while her friend, Cindy King, also of Gretna, looks on Saturday at Mama Rosas Italian restaurant in Gretna. Virginia’s anti-smoking law takes effect Tuesday.
Pittsylvania County restaurateurs are bracing themselves for the anti-smoking law that takes effect Tuesday across the commonwealth.
Restaurant owners in Gretna and Chatham seemed ready for the change in a state with 400 years of tobacco heritage.
Diego Cardamuro, manager at Mama Rosas Italian restaurant in Gretna, said he welcomes the new law.
“All the places that go non-smoking do more business,” said Cardamuro, a smoker. He said he has no problem going outside to smoke.
The eatery has had a small smoking area and only about 10 percent of the restaurant’s customers smoke, he said Saturday afternoon as dinner patrons trickled in.
Mama Rosas already had a non-smoking policy from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Sundays, when churchgoers pour into the dining area.
“Everybody wants non-smoking at that time,” Cardamuro said.
However, two customers had strong words against the upcoming ban in restaurants. The law will prohibit smoking except where smokers are seated in rooms with ventilation systems separate from those for nonsmokers.
“That is taking our freedoms away,” said Gretna resident Kathy Shelton, while puffing on a cigarette.
Shelton said she will continue to frequent Mama Rosas after the ban goes into place. People view smokers as second-class citizens, but nothing is said about consuming alcoholic beverages, which can cause fatal car accidents, Shelton said.
Shelton’s friend, Cindy King, of Gretna, summed up her view of the law succinctly: “I think it’s stupid.”
Politicians should stop worrying about smoking and focus on the soldiers overseas fighting for our freedoms, King said.
Over at Crossroads restaurant in Gretna, owner and Callands-Gretna Supervisor Fred Ingram said customers are upset about the law, but he respects it.
“I have a coffee club of senior citizens that enjoy their coffee and cigarettes and they are not happy about the ban at all,” Ingram said.
Personally, Ingram said he has mixed emotions about the ban.
“I hate to be told by the government what I can and what I can’t do,” he said. “But I respect the government and the General Assembly and I will do my best to make sure the law is obeyed.”
Ingram’s’ wife, co-owner Carol Ingram, said she is glad the law was passed.
“I hate to be so negative in the middle of tobacco country, but I think it’s for the best,” she said.
Patsy Swain, a food server who has worked at Crossroads for 16 years, also supports the prohibition.
“I know how hard it’s going to be for them, but it’s better for everybody health-wise,” Swain said.
Adel Ahmed, owner of Pino’s Italian Restaurant and Pizzeria in Chatham, said about 20 percent of his patrons smoke. The new law will not impact his business much because it doesn’t have a bar, said Ahmed, a nonsmoker who does not like cigarette smoke.
The ban will make little difference at El Cazador Mexican restaurant in Chatham, where only about 5 percent of patrons smoke, said owner Benigno Argueta. “I don’t see a lot of people that smoke in here,” Argueta said.
Sal Carannante, manager at Frank’s Pizza in Tightsqueeze, said the change may be a little tough where about 25 percent of customers smoke. He said he plans to have a separate area for smoking.
However, whether a dining establishment allows smoking makes little difference from patrons’ points of view, Carannante said.
“You choose a restaurant for its food and service,” he said.
Customer Sylvia Hawkins, a smoker, said she respects nonsmokers’ perspective on the issue, but smokers should still be allowed to puff away in restaurants.
“I can understand the opposition to smoking,” Hawkins said, “and I can understand how people who do not smoke do not wish to dine with the offensiveness of smoking.”
However, “there ought to be a place available for people who do smoke,” she added.
Her husband, former state senator Charles Hawkins, said the government should stay out the matter and let the free market decide which restaurants allow smoking.
“I think the market would work if you’d just leave it alone,” said Hawkins, who’s also chair of the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Revitalization Commission.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
va40gal. So you are saying that the government should not have any say in how a restaurant is run? If they wish to kill people with unhealthy food, that is OK? There are some areas I want my govt. to help me with, and one of those is that if I go to a place to eat and pay for my meal, I want to be fairly assured I’m not going to be sick - from either food poisoning OR second-hand smoke. It IS about smoking. Get over it - it’s the law.
‘Nuff said. Peace.
I am very sorry that you people cannot see the BIG picture. This is not about SMOKING. This is about the power of the owner of a business deciding HOW they want to run their business and the MAJORITY of the patrons!!! Sad times in America, very sad. Get get nonsmokers, your rights are getting ready to be tampered with too. Enjoy your victory now.
Rockit. Serving food that was unhealthy was also legal at one time - before the FDA and local santitation inspectors. The civilized society realized that unhealthy food resulted in sickness and death. The same applies to cigarette smoking. Eating unhealthy food is still legal, but not in restaurants.
‘Nuff said. Peace.
Now Rockit…. aving those screaming little brats is legal for EVERYONE as well. So either, we have to deal with other peoples problems or we have to get up and leave. I’m going to start asking the management staff to remove the screamers now that I’m not going to be annoying anyone with my smoke. It should be all fair now, I’m not annoying you, so you don’t annoy me.
JP you are comparing apples with oranges. The type of restaurant one creates (the style, the menu, the location, the customer base) is an economic decision. To allow smoking, to offer a wet bar, to require reservations all go hand-in-hand with the economics of the restaurant industry. Has nothing to do with the safety of anybody.
Your examples of speed limits, bank robbers, and deer tags have nothing to do with the smoking issue because of one small minor detail you conveniently avoided: smoking is legal. It may not be smart and it certainly isn’t healthy. But it is legal. Exceeding the speed limit is illegal for EVERYONE. Robbing a bank is illegal for EVERYONE. Exceeding a bag limit when hunting game is illegal for EVERYONE. You simply cannot compare the legal activity of smoking with the illegal activities of the examples you offered.
Whether a restaurant chooses to allow a perfectly legal activity like smoking is just as business related as to whether or not to offer a wet bar. It should be up to the restaurant, not the government to make these kind of decisions. That once again the government as seen to stick its nose into the private affairs of its citizens is not a good thing.
Next time I see one of these non-smoking holier-than-thous come in a restuarant with a crying carpet crawler, I’m gonna insist, absolutely insist they take that brat and their business elsewhere. That’s fair, don’t you think? I mean, if we’re gonna play this “I can’t be annoyed” game, I shouldn’t have to tolerate a screaming baby when I dine out, right?
Rockit. All laws are made that way - “choosing one group of people over another.“ The state sided with the majority, which is the way things are in a representative government, and the majority didn’t want their nice night out at the restaurant ruined by someone spitting out their smoke and polluting the air in a confined area. It is also a health issue, my friend, but your laissez-faire attitude toward government, that borders on the side of obsessiveness, leans more to anarchy than to a civilized society.
We have speed limits that favor one group of people over another - some like to go fast; a majority of the people want to be safe. We have laws against robbing banks - some like to take other peoples’ money; a majority of the people want to make sure their money is safe. Though we have hunting laws that allow for a certain number of deer to be killed by an individual during a particular season, we don’t have a law that allows for a certain number of other humans to be killed by an individual during a particular season because a majority want to hunt and eat venison and a majority don’t want humans to be hunted. Oh, my friend, without the state making laws that favor some people over others, there would be anarchy, perhaps a type of living condition you would enjoy - not me, and not a majority of Americans.
‘Nuff said. Peace.
I think this whole argument is silly. I don’t smoke so frankly it doesn’t matter to me whether a restaurant allows smoking or not. I think it should be up to the restaurant though, not the government. All the state did by adopting this law is choose one group of people over another and whenever the government gets into the business of picking winners and losers, whether it’s with this stupid law or in the case of taking over GM at the expense of other automakers, it’s not good for capitalism.
I would think if this is such a big deal, there would have been at least a couple of these anti-smoking fanatics who would have opened up their own restaurant and catered to the non-smoking crowd. What’s next, are you going to seek a new state law demanding your favorite restaurant serve Coke products instead of Pepsi? How about a law that requires restaurants to offer a vegetarian menu for those who don’t like the meat and potatoes entrees?
I would prefer not to eat around someone who is smoking. But, I agree with one of the other posters in that I find a screaming baby much more annoying than a little harmless smoke. I would much rather see a law allowing me to drop-kick that little tike right out the side entrance versus one trying to restrain a perfectly legal activity.
But, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Dear Smokers,
This a wonderful day for non-smokers! I enjoy going out to restaurants but I’ve always been disgusted by your cigarette smoke. Even after leaving a smoky room, I can still smell the foul stench in my hair and on my clothes.
Lawmakers aren’t taking away your right to smoke. They are giving US the right to clean air. Feel free to light up in your home, car, or outside. Just stay far away from me and my dinner.
Lilly
Secondhand smoke is very offensive to most people who don’t smoke and should be banned in all public places.
I think gov’t is going too far with this, and other laws as well. It is none of their business. I don’t smoke, never have, but I get tired of all this anti-this, anti-that.
This should have been left to the free market category. Let the OWNERS of the restaurants decide whether to allow smoking or not. If enough customers continue to visit and spend money, then those that do should be able too. If business falls off, then put a no-smoking policy in. Let the people, the market, decide.
Besides, the gov’t doesn’t OWN these restaurants. If they want to implement a ban in taxpayer establishments, then fine. But why should the gov’t dictate anything about PRIVATELY OWNED restaurants? The gov’t has overstepped their bounds, a very big overstep.

Advertisement