Two months after enacting one of the most comprehensive smoking bans in the area, the Conroe City Council has removed bars from the new ordinance because of the economic impact it was having on business owners.
“I lost $15,000 in March,” said David Luttrell of Malone’s Pub. “It was like someone pulled a switch. I lost $15,000 in April. I had to lay off four employees and seven bands. It has also affected my suppliers and vendors too.”
After hearing similar stories from other bar owners, the council reversed its position Thursday to allow smoking in bar, which are defined as “pubs, ice houses, beer joints and saloons.”
The city attorney strongly recommended against a council move to define bars as those that get 75 percent of their sales from alcohol, saying it may open the door for restaurants to be exempt from the smoking laws.
“I strongly advise against the percentage based approach,” said City Attorney Marcus Winberry. “There would be extremely close calls to make on whether a business fits on one side or the other, and that figure could vary monthly. It also would muddy the water on whether the business is a bar or restaurant.”
Conroe’s comprehensive smoking ban took effect on March 1 and prohibits smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces in the community, as well as public outdoor spaces. Smoking was permitted on outdoor patios of bars and in retail tobaccos stores, private clubs, theatrical performances and bingo halls with separate areas for non-smokes.
Many of the city’s 100 bar owners have fought the new law since the beginning, saying it would put them out of business. They initially mounted a petition drive to repeal the law or require a public referendum on the issue, which failed because it lacked the number of registered voters from Conroe.
They also have appeared before council in February pleading for relief.
In contrast, Chrissie West of Breathe Free Conroe was the sole supporter at the May 5 council work session to continue the smoking ban in bars.
“In a depressed economy, there is not enough information to see the direct impact on businesses,” West said. “I will not be an educated informed decision. You need an objective, unbiased study over one year.”
West argued that employees need to be protected wherever they work.
Ironically, the decision comes just two days before the city elections, when the majority of the seats are up to election. Only Councilman Jim Gentry is running for reelection.
Jim Hallers, owner of Tailgators Pub and Grill, said his liquor sales are off 20 top 25 percent since the smoking ban. Before the new law, he boast $2.2 million in annual sales and 43 employees. Michael Stewart, owner of Johnny B. Daltons, said his sales have been cut by half and business has moved to nearby Harris County.
“I see 15 to 20 of my customers sitting in a bar in Willis,” Stewart said. “Please let us save our business.
Councilman Jay Ross Martin, who will be replaced in his Place 5 seat because of term limits, voted to reverse the smoking ban in bars. He said the law is impacting the ability of waitresses to earn a living and driving business to nearby communities
“I never intended to hurt anyone’s business,” Martin said.
The amendment to the ordinance that allows smoking in bars passed the council unanimously.
Conroe’s Smoking Ban
A new ordinance, which bans smoking in public places, private business and outdoor public spaces, including within 20 feet of a public doors and windows, took effect on March 1. The city council removed bars from the ban at its meeting on May 6.
For a complete list of places where the smoking ban remains in effect, visit the city’s ordinances, Chapter 26, Article 7 at www.cityofconroe.org
Source: City of Conroe
Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Houston Chronicle.
Comments
Bans are DESIGNED to close bars!
Smoking bans are DESIGNED to close pubs, kills two birds with one stone. It drives the need for the sheeple to purchase big pharma's products. REAL studies apart from big pharma's have proven that danger from second hand smoke is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. Alcohol is next on the agenda. Big pharma is all about behavior control, not finding cures. They aren't shy about it, it's right on their tax exempt foundation's website. In fact,you can buy their book on Amazon for $80.00: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Series, Tobacco Control Policy. http://www.amazon.com/Tobacco-Control-Johnson-Foundation-Anthology/dp/07...
Can bar owners do anything they want?
Are smokers so brain-dead that they really think the government has no right to decide what happens within a bar? That would mean bars could let rats and roaches run wild, sell rancid food, not pay employees, let minors drink, and no government agency could say anything about it. Thankfully, we have building codes, health codes, and laws that protect employees and patrons. We the people decide what is and is not permitted, and that includes smoking.
tobacco prohibition
1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).
1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.
1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.
1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."
1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.
1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em
Restricting where you can smoke is neither the nanny state nor unconstitutional. Adults have a constitutional right to vote but the state determines when and where we vote and only allows us to do so once year. Shouting "bomb" on a plane or "fire" in a theater are illegal, and should be. Limits on public exercise of rights do not mean we are becoming a socialist state, they mean we have to be civil in public.
Second-hand smoke
The controversy of second hand smoke could be ended quickly by a simple act of legislation. Anyone presenting information represented as science or health reliant information, which is later found to be false or misleading, would be rewarded with a mandatory ten year jail sentence.
I can guarantee the bandwagon of smoker hatred would end overnight and the profiteers would be making deals in self preservation convicting each other. Similar to the last time their ilk rose to prominence and Doctors were hanged at Nuremberg. The laws of Autonomy created in the wake, are largely being minimized by the bigots and zealots of Public Healthism, they are laws we found at the expense of millions who died without them. No one has the right to make health choices for others and no one has a right to demand rights to the detriment of others, especially with the convenience of a lie, as we find in the “toxic effect of second hand smoke”.
Government power the real health hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling from sea to sea
has nothing to do with protecting people from the "threat of second-hand
smoke" but are themselves symptoms of a far more grievous threat: a
cancer that has been spreading for decades throughout the body politic,
reaching even the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the
only real hazard involved - the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace but rather, if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?
Should anti-smoking activists satisfy themselves with educating people
about the potential danger and allow them to make their own decisions,
or should they seize the power of government and force people to make
the “right” decision?
It seems they've made their choice. Loudly billed as measures that only
affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants,
bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices - places whose owners are free to set
anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't
like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers outdoors.
The decision to smoke or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, should be made by
each individual according to his own values and assessment of the risks.
This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of
their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or love, whether
to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
All these decisions involve risks; some may have harmful consequences or
invite disapproval from others. But the individual must be free to make these
decisions because his life belongs to him, not to others, and only his own
judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are
a minority, practicing a habit often considered annoying and unpleasant to
the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of
government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than few stray whiffs of
tobacco smoke while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The
anti-smoking crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those tiny wisps while
they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives.
It is arguable that my rights ends where yours begin. Correct?
It is arguable that my rights ends where yours begin. Correct? My right to smoke will end when it infringes upon your right to not breath in my cigarette smoke. On the other hand, your right to occupy an area that is smokeless, which is public or is private, and provides the owners consent to allow smoking, ends when I choose to exercise my right to satisfy my chemical dependency. Obviously we both have rights that infringe upon each others rights. The solution is not to allow individuals to smoke everywhere. If that were the case, then non-smokers would be unable to escape the cigarette smoke and exercise there rights to breath air that is not tainted with cigarette smoke. Banning smoking altogether, not making it illegal, that would be a different situation, just removing it from everyplace except ones personal dwellings is also not a viable solution. That would deny those whose choose to partake in a legal chemical dependency their rights. The obvious solution is to compromise, which the city of Conroe has done. Their new ordinance bans smoking in public places, private business and outdoor public spaces, which includes smoking within 20 feet of a public door or window. The provision to the ordinance to allow for smoking in establishments that are defined as bars seems a reasonable compromise. If one chooses that they do not want to be exposed to the cigarette fumes in the defined bar, the options are plentiful. There are dancing facility's that are not labeled bars. Additionally, if a bar venue is desired, there are many restaurants that have full service bars, often separated from the dining area, possessing its own unique atmosphere. If you are wondering, no I do not smoke. I do not like coming home smelling like an ashtray anymore than anyone else, but if I choose to visit an establishment that allows smoking so be it. "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Voltaire, Essay on Tolerance.
You have a sound argument, but smoking is NOT a RIGHT...it not
You have a sound argument, but smoking is NOT a RIGHT...it not protected by the constitution...It is a choice..That is why smoking bans are not overturned by courts just spineless politicians...
"Its okay cause the real bands will come to Austin to play and
"Its okay cause the real bands will come to Austin to play and not be subject to all the losers second hand smoke."
Just make sure you turn the volume down so you don't get arrested for violating Austin's Sound Ordinance.
Good
I was in Pecos, Texas recently. Pecos does not have a smoking ban. Incredibly, the owner of the establishment had posted a No Smoking sign on the restaurant door. The owner did this without the permission of the Government. I was shocked. Then I realized that any owner of a bar in Conroe can ban smoking any time they want by just posting a sign. It's so scary that private property owners can make their own decisions.
Just my opinion
The state of Texas should just make it illegal to smoke in all public indoor places. This would not give smokers the option to go to other cities in the state that allow smoking..Yes some smokers may boycott, but eventually they will come back...I love being able to go to a bar and not have to take a shower when I get home..All smokers have a right to smoke OUTSIDE...Smokers CHOOSE to smoke I HAVE to breath...I have a RIGHT to enjoy any public establishment, without having my lungs get hurt by another person, because they CHOOSE to destroy their own...Someday most people will realize how idiotic and stupid smoking is and stop...I really don't understand the point of smoking it is such a nasty habit...
So your solution is to trample on property rights statewide?
You are suggesting that private property rights be violated throughout the state of Texas? I always thought Texas was better than that! I expect such a thing in California or New York. But I would think that Texans would stand up for their property rights.
More government control is NOT the answer. You are free to choose whether or not to enter an establishment that allows smoking. If you don't like it, you don't have to go in.
Just because you like a non-smoking atmosphere doesn't mean that you or anyone else should be able to tell a property owner that he can't let people smoke in his privately owned building.
Ban
I've banned non-smokers from my life. Problem solved.
RE: BAN
what makes you think non-smoking people didn't ban you from their lives?!? You're so redic...
Smoking in bars!
Okay folks seriously, nothing more ridonkulous than not allowing smoking in a bar. People go to bars to get away from the rules and the norm and to unwind... aka drink and smoke amongst their peers where they are not judged. He//, that's what bars are for! What next? Not allowing alcohol at bars? If you want to make bars safer, then remove the one luxury that will truly save lives... The parking lot!
Re: Smoking in bars!
LOL - here's another moron... Not every drinker SMOKES...
Actually Nicotine is a stimulant so if you really want unwind I
Actually Nicotine is a stimulant so if you really want unwind I suggest not smoking..
Obama will be happy
Now they can keep all the smokers in their lame bars, and once this fantastic healthcare takes effect, they will have even more people to treat and take care of. Just like Obama, Cornhole Conroe is a loser. I see now why I drive all the way into Houston and NOT contribute to their rundown dives. Will gladly give my money somewhere else. Like most, I agree. I don't smoke, and don't care to have YOURS forced upon me, no matter where I go.
Great job Conroe and Montgomery County...NOT.
Stupid people.
To the last two replies: The OP never says anything about
To the last two replies:
The OP never says anything about driving home from Houston bars. I know it's a stretch, but did you ever stop and think that maybe they STAY the night?
RE: Obama - RE: Driving to Houston
I have to agree with "Obama will be happy" This simply shows how IGNORANT CONROE is and the COUNTY!!!
As for "Driving to Houston and drinking and driving back home" Are you just plain ignorant?!?! What makes you think you're less likely to get into an accident driving home from a Conroe bar to your Conroe home??? Drinking and driving is a bad choice!!! Regardless of how far or close you live from home... duh?!?
Conroe's true tallent is showing on that one...
Drive into Houston to drink...and drive home.
Drive all the way into Houston to drink at a bar...then drive home AFTER drinking in a bar.
Very wise.
I think a cigarette is less dangerous than someone driving a car with a few smokeless drinks in 'em.
Oh wait...we're not talking about YOUR health at risk, are we? Just other peoples.
Of course, silly me.
Smoking in bars!
Okay folks seriously, nothing more ridonkulous than not allowing smoking in a bar. People go to bars to get away from the rules and the norm and to unwind... aka drink and smoke amongst their peers where they are not judged. He//, that's what bars are for! What next? Not allowing alcohol at bars? If you want to make bars safer, then remove the one luxury that will truly save lives... The parking lot!
Smokers suck
Seriously,
If your drug habit is so bad you can't spend a few hours at a bar without smoking, you have issues. Smoking is clearly unhealthy, for the smoker and the non-smokers. It's expensive, irritating and quite frankly, repulsive. Quit being a bunch of whiners and learn to control your habit so the rest of society can enjoy themselves.
Did anyone think that the economy in general may be the issue here?
yaaa.. they tried that here in alaska.. it didnt float to well
yaaa.. they tried that here in alaska.. it didnt float to well with all the commercial fisherman..
and still , if those of you dont like smoke , then get out.. simple as that...
besides.. there are way more dangerous things out there that'll give ya cancer.. research it and see , even my kids know this...
Private property rights
I don't like government sticking their nose and trying to control private businesses. If an activity is not illegal, why require some businesses to ban it?
That's like telling someone who doesn't drink they have the right to go into any establishment that sells liquor and DEMAND they not sell liquor.
If you don't like smoking, don't go into an establishment that permits it. It isn't YOUR establishment...and the owner does NOT have to kowtow to YOU.
************
As for the lung cancer thing...I'm not positive that smoking causes it. My 92 year old great aunt smoked cigarettes, cigarillos...and lived to be 92 years old. Cigarettes had nothing to do with her death. My mom is 65 years old..smokes 2 packs a day. Her lungs, at her last scan were as pink and healthy as a baby's bottom. Hell, George Burns made it to 100.
It might be a contributing factor, but I'm not convinced it 'causes' it.
Guess what
....I don't smoke.
But I don't go around forcing my personal choices and opinions on others...and I don't try to bully and/or manipulate people's livelihoods due to an unproven theory.
Denial
De-nile is Not a river in Egypt. We all know of a few excetions to the rule. And the truth is most smokers die of cardiac problems caused by smoking than the cancer. So keep on smoking this will leave more money in social security and Medicare.
In response to: Those of us who don't smoke shouldn't have to be
In response to:
Those of us who don't smoke shouldn't have to be subjected to second hand smoke. If you want to smoke, go somewhere else! No one should be forced to have to smell or breath your fumes!
____________________________________________
Every where is non smoking now - so now smokers must go outside in the extreme heat, the brutal cold, and even in the rain. And You at least have a choice, you can chose to go to an establishment that does not allow smoking - there are thousands of them, just look around. If you chose to go into an establishment that allows smoking, that is your choice... so get off your high horse.
Really?
Really? You don't think SMOKING is a choice? Yes, non-smokers have a choice as to where to go but smokers have a choice as to whether or not to smoke. You CHOOSE to smoke, so maybe you should be forced into the extreme heat or cold to do it. I don't make a conscious decision to breathe and therefore shouldn't have to be subjected to your nastiness due to my involuntary survival instinct. Should non-smokers never be able to go into an I-HOP, BWW, many Mexican restaurants, etc because of the choices that addictive personality types make? Simply because you choose to stink and make yourself ill does not mean that those around you should be subjected to such things.
RE: In response to: Those of us who dont smoke....
... "Smokers must go outside in the EXTREME heat, the brutal COLD and even in the rain"...
You're freaking redic! You're not any different from a crack head addicted to crack!!! Get HELP!!! You're addiction is everyone elses problem!!!
Boo hoo. Smokers have to go outside. You don't HAVE to smoke.
Boo hoo. Smokers have to go outside. You don't HAVE to smoke. There is a thing called QUITTING. Your addiction is not other people's problem. So get off YOUR high horse.
"so now smokers must go outside in the extreme heat, the brutal
"so now smokers must go outside in the extreme heat, the brutal cold, and even in the rain"
Wah Wah Wah..here's an idea. STOP smaking and you wouldn't have to subject yourself to such terrible elements to get a smoke. Seriously....that is the best argument you can come up with???
Dollars, sales tax
City of Conroe can keep the smoking ban at the cost of lost sales tax revenue.
Nothing is free
smoking
I have to drive from 610 & Ella all the way out to 1960 past Willowbrook just so I can go relax in a bar and YES smoke. Get a life people its a BAR...people smoke in bars ! There are plenty of non-smoking places seek your relief in those places! I have to drive 25 miles and hope I don't drink to much and kill someone on the way home ! haha, no really I would get a cab.
RE: Smoking
Stay home... Drink & Smoke there...
Quick trigger finger
Wow, 2 whole months without smoking and the Council backtracked? Everywhere smoking bans have been installed there has been an initial hit to bars' incomes, but the incomes ALWAYS get back to pre-ban numbers. The Council has the backbone of a sponge.
Crazy
What a backwoods lame place Conroe must be. Its okay cause the real bands will come to Austin to play and not be subject to all the losers second hand smoke.
I don't smoke so yes it annoys me and I usually will not go to
I don't smoke so yes it annoys me and I usually will not go to bars because of the smoke. At times however, I will go and eat bean tacos and go to the bars and fart. If I have to breathe your smoke, you will have to tolerate the smell of my farts...
Smokers don't seem to like the smell very much but it is my right.
Go ahead and fart...
Thanks to severe sinus problems while I grew up, I have very little to zero sense of smell, so fart all you want. I don't care.
Bet you will though, if you fart too close to a lit cigarette.
Vanity
Anyone who would want to change the behavior of the majority of patrons at an establishment for their own comfort is incredibly vain.
If someone OWNS an establishment can't set rules because a person with NO stake in their business is squealing about being uncomfortable, there is a complete imbalance in power.
It is not your right as a customer to dictate the rules you follow at any establishment. The bars set the rules, not babies who need to be coddled.
Your Choice
If I don't like the smell of liquor maybe everyone should stop drinking at the club for me. Not!
I love to dance. But dancing takes place mostly in bars.
I love to dance. But dancing takes place mostly in bars. People smoke in bars. So I go dancing, to get exercise, which is better for me than going and sitting on my behind and eating food that is too rich and bad for me. But while I'm dancing, I breathe harder, because I'm exercising, so I inhale more of YOUR SMOKE!
Smokers suck -- literally.
Dancing takes place mostly in bars?
1. Go to Google.
2. Type in "dance halls, Houston"
3. Call them to find out which ones don't allow smoking inside.
4. Learn to do things for yourself.
Plenty of Choices
There are plenty of places you can dance and not breathe smoke.
I wonder if you are drinking while you're there. I also wonder if you hate construction workers for contributing to your hearing loss, or chefs for making you obese.
Your choice
If you don't like smoke than don't go where people smoke.If you smoke go where they can smoke.The owner should have to post a sign that says this is a smoking or not smoking bar.
Great idea
I've always thought that would be the perfect way to stimulate new revenue and cater to the non-smokers. Open a venue and put a sign out saying NON SMOKER (club/restaurant/etc).
Course, I bet a smoker would go in there and DEMAND he/she be allowed to smoke because darn it, that's just discriminatory and bigoted!
This article
Don't smoke or go to bars but government got not call in these matters. If you don't like the smoke stay home or go to church.
Montgomery County is in East Texas ...
after all. Just a backwards low-rent sort of place. Always has been, always will be. It's bred in.
The owner of the property should get to decide
This whole issue can be solved using the concepts of freedom and private property rights.
-
Bars and restaurants are not owned by the public. They are privately owned property. Just as you get to decide whether or not smoking is allowed in your home, so it should be for any other property. The owner of the business should be the one who decides if smoking is allowed.
-
Each one of us is free to choose whether or not we wish to patronize those places of business. Those who say that they are forced to breathe others' smoke are wrong. Nobody forces you to walk into any bar or restaurant. It is a choice that you make. If you do not like the atmosphere inside that place, then you are free to stay out.
Freedom to do anything I want?
So, should I be free to fire my Winchester 12-gauge in the bar? After all, I have the Constitutional right to bear arms.
What about sex? I know it's not in the Constitution, but, shouldn't I be free to have sex anywhere, any time, with anyone who consents?
Post new comment