The development of a viable solution in order to ban smoking from bars and restaurants requires a greater understanding of the challenges that exist and the different approaches that might be considered. For example, a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants has occurred in many other large cities, such as New York City, with demonstrated success, in spite of the initial reaction to this decision. It is important to identify the different perspectives that are instrumental in this process, including the cost and sustainability of this approach, as well as other concerns that are relevant to the consumer population.

Your 20% discount here!

Use your promo and get a custom paper on
Smoking Bans in Bars and Restaurants

Order Now
Promocode: SAMPLES20

Smoking bans in bars and restaurants have not been proven to a significant impact on consumer spending and businesses in many communities, and in some cases, might support business growth and development (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids 1). A study that was conducted in 2009 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer supported this belief with evidence that demonstrated the value of smoking bans and the potentially positive impact on the economy (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids 1). The real benefits of this decision are on individual health and wellbeing, which are likely to be positively impacted by these decisions in the workplace setting (Bernhard). These efforts reflect the importance of specific decisions that must be made by the Georgia legislature to examine the costs versus the benefits of this decision and how it would impact Georgia bars and restaurants in different ways (Bernhard). Nonetheless, the potential sustainability of this concept is favorable because it protects individuals from any number of chronic diseases and more serious complications over time (Bernhard).

The implementation of this concept may be difficult at first due to significant resistance from many smokers and their belief that these bans infringe upon their rights to do as they choose. However, this is not the case and reflects the overall importance of different factors that play a role in shaping positive health outcomes for Georgia residents. These efforts must ultimately consider how to convince smokers that this ban is a good idea and is not a direct reflection on them. At the same time, this proposal must demonstrate that the greater good of the state and its people is at stake and that without this type of ban, the health of Georgia residents continues to be put at risk. Therefore, it is necessary to proceed with the ban and to recognize its importance in achieving healthier outcomes for Georgians.

A ban on smoking campaign would require donations from private sources and nonprofit organizations in order to provide the general public with sufficient information regarding this decision. It is important to distinguish between these principles in order to have a greater voice of reason and an opportunity to convey the dangers of smoking to all residents of Georgia. These efforts will also provide a basis for further exploration of the idea and the challenges that are likely to occur from opponents of this concept. As a result, it is important for the residents of Georgia who want this campaign off the ground to recognize the battle that they face and to be prepared to manage any types of controversy that might erupt. It is important for the residents of Georgia to stand behind this idea with a clear and practical approach that will encourage them to take the steps that are necessary to improve the potential outcomes of this decision on the greater good of the people of Georgia, including the preservation of their health and wellbeing for the foreseeable future.

  • Bernhard, Blythe. “Smoking ban would not hurt state’s bars and restaurants, report says.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 December 2013:
  • Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “Smoke-free laws do not harm business at restaurants and bars.” 9 December 2013: