quote:

Originally posted by Spam I think it's stupid that all of these laws are put in place without allowing a seperate, smoker's room. I'm all for removing smoking from public spaces like resteraunts, bars etc. I hate second-hand smoke more than I hate most things, but I also feel that forcing smokers to go outside or stay home is very unfair, when a seperately ventilated smoking room is the perfect compromise. When did compromise become a dirty word for governments? Why, when faced with an issue, is it either option A, or option B, when it could be option AB, or option BA? Why have smoking rooms been banned as well when other, perfectly reasonable options are available, that still allow smokers their indoor smoke? And the argument that I know is coming "But what about the employees who need to work in the smoking room!" is complete bullshit. We have a law in Ontario whereby an employee has the right to refuse unsafe work. I think lungfulls of cancer-smoke is a pretty acceptable reason not to work the smoker-pit. Then again, from my experience in resteraunts and bars, most servers are smokers themselves, and would love to work the smoker-pit for tips. But, barring that, another option could be making smoking-rooms self-serve, so you'd have to order your food from, say, the bar, and pick it up yourself when it's ready. This is the way it was setup at the Pearson Airport. The smoking-room was nothing but tables, chairs and a couple TVs, while the bar was outside. And it worked perfectly. Yes, smoking is bad for you. Yes, smoking harms others. That's why we had smoking rooms to begin with, so that non-smokers didn't have to deal with the smoke. The law should have banned smoking in all indoor places, unless a smoking room was available.

I concur.