Rhode Island restaurants soon to be smoke-free

By: Rachel Cartwright
Posted In: News

The regulars of Brick Alley Restaurant, in Newport, Rhode Island, couldn’t figure out what was missing. The busy bustle of waiters in a sea of hungry patrons, the red brick walls and heavy dark wood decor-everything was the same. But where was the smoke?

Following the trend of restaurants in larger cities like New York and

Los Angeles, the Brick Alley Pub on 140 Thames St. went smoke-free on June 27, 2003. The decision, according to dining room manager Jackie Booth, was not a difficult one. “The owners, Ralph and Pat Plumb, made the decision for the employees, not the customers. We have several non-smokers who work here who have bronchitis, and they shouldn’t have to work in a smoky environment,” Booth said.

In fact, many restaurants in Newport have begun to make the transition to non-smoking establishments. One street over from the Brick Alley Pub, restaurant Sushi Go, on 215 Goddard Row, has always been a non-smoking restaurant. Owner Jefferson Dube, an ex-smoker who smoked for 15 years since the age of 10, picked up on the trend of restaurants becoming non-smoking only, and followed it. “In the past couple of years, people’s lifestyles have become healthier. More customers want a smoke free environment than a smoking one,” he said.

States such as Delaware, California, and more recently New York share the same belief that restaurant patrons increasingly dislike smoky restaurants. New York’s policy went into effect March 26, 2003, and outlawed smoking in public places and businesses including most bars and restaurants. Establishments found in violation can be fined up to $1,000.

And some Newport restaurants believe that it is only a matter of time before Newport passes similar ordinances.

“My guess is maybe in the next year,” Booth said.

In fact, within the last month, the General Assembly of Rhode Island has discussed the issue of a smoking ban and seems ready to pass a ban for restaurants and all public places. According to an article that appeared April 13 in the Providence Journal, the measure would take affect next March. The bill does have exceptions: the Lincoln and Newport casinos.

Though restaurants are still allowed smoking sections, those that haven’t gone completely smoke-free still feel the pressure to offer options to patrons. Lucia’s Italian Restaurant on 186 Thames St. has two completely separated dining areas, one for smokers, and one for non-smokers.

“I’m not a smoker,” owner Lucia Tacchi said. “It bothers me when I’m in a non-smoking section of a restaurant and two tables away someone’s smoking. Unless you have a new ventilation system, the two sections interfere. It’s fine when people smoke, but it should be separated.”

Secondhand smoke is becoming a big issue for restaurants and bars, especially when it comes to deciding the layout of a property. The Environmental Protection Agency states that 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in non-smokers are attributed to secondhand smoke. The EPA has implicated secondhand smoke as a directly connected factor of lung cancer.

“It’s important to protect people because they get sick just from being near smoking. It’s a truth-a fact. It’s not right that people cannot choose, that they have to stay home,” said Tacchi.

But some restaurants believe that the choice should be left up to the business to decide whether to be non-smoking, not the city or state to legislate. Restaurant owner Dube couldn’t afford to have two sections because his restaurant is so small.

He was faced with either having an all smoking or a non-smoking establishment, and with cities across the nation banning smoking in eating establishments, he felt it wise to choose a smoke-free restaurant.

Dube believes that it is unfair for ordinances to force that decision on restaurants.

“It’s a double-edged sword, basically. It’s tough because it costs money to install ventilation systems. It costs money to separate dining areas. Restaurants lose money in alcohol sales. Whatever it is, it costs money,” Dube said.

The businesses that would be most hard hit would be bars and pubs. For many people, drinking goes hand in hand with smoking. Patrick Higgins, who works for Aidan’s Pub on 1 Broadway St., believes it’s hypocritical to outlaw smoking in bars because it’s unhealthy, but not drinking.

“I really don’t think it’s their business. It’s pretty ironic to me to be able to drink but not smoke because both are so horrible for you. I want to have the choice,” Higgins said.

Aidan’s, unlike most pubs and bars, does have a non-smoking section. However, there are no barriers between the side by side areas.

“We do have a ventilation system,” Higgins said as he lit up at the bar.

“Yeah, but it’s such a poor ventilation system even non-smokers get their one and a half packs a day!” Interrupted patron Brian Curry jokingly.

But secondhand smoke isn’t a laughing matter, at least to the American Lung Association (ALA). They published research that found cigarettes contain approximately 4,000 chemicals that non-smokers can inhale from being in the same area as smokers. Two hundred of those chemicals are considered poisons, and 43 of those are linked to causing cancer.

Secondhand smoke also aggravates respiratory conditions. According to ALA research, it can cause ear infection, bronchitis, and pneumonia, among other respiratory complications.

Booth likes to focus on the health benefits one of her co-workers gained after Brick Alley went smoke-free, rather than look at what could have happened.

“One of the bartenders had chronic bronchitis, and after (the change) she’s improved. I don’t think it’s fair, with everything you read about smoke these days. She shouldn’t have to quit her job,” Booth said.

Some people believe making restaurants smoke-free will only drive away smokers, and not draw in non-smokers.

“I have friends in New York City who own bars that have lost a lot of business,” said Higgins. “People like to smoke when they drink. Speaking from the experience of an ex-alcoholic for 25 years, I still like to smoke with a cup of coffee. I can’t do that in New York.”

On the other side of the issue, Booth said that the Brick Alley’s new non-smoking policy hasn’t negatively affected business.

“When we started, we lost a few regular customers who said that they would never come back,” Booth said. “But they came back. I know for a fact that for every two we’ve lost we’ve picked up six.”

As a consumer and a smoker of 35 years, Booth doesn’t mind not being able to smoke in establishments that have banned it.

“I’m not at all resentful. What I am resentful of are the tobacco companies who didn’t inform me or my parents of the harmful side effects. I’ve tried quitting a couple of times, but it’s hard to quit,” Booth said.

Some restaurants in Newport view banning smoking as a customer service, not as an obligation. Although a non-smoker who hates the smell of smoke, Tacchi admits that no one forces her to go to private businesses that don’t prohibit smoking.

“I would avoid restaurants that have heavy smoke. This is a reason I don’t go into pubs,” Tacchi said.

There is a distinction between private establishments and public places. Although having gone non-smoking, some restaurants in Newport believe there should be choice; choice of the business to decide to go non-smoking, and choice of the individual to enter that restaurant.

“I think it should be up to the owner to decide,” said Booth. “As long as you have a choice. I can choose to enter Brick Alley, but I can’t ‘choose’ to enter City Hall. There’s no other city hall.”