In article ,
funkyoldcortina wrote:
On 30/08/11 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.


In that situation it is essential, as those dangerous gases are part of
the work being done.

As they could also be, in a pub, etc.

If I were an employer (and I'm not) why should I spend hard-to-come-by
funds on facilities for smokers, when them smoking contributes in no
way at all to the success of the organisation?

Exactly the same applies to tea breaks, etc. Just as well you're not an
employer.

If I was to give money away it would be better to donate it to charity,
where it would be beneficial to worthwhile causes.

Great. You'd have done well as an employer a couple of centuries ago.

And if those smokers can't do a decent days work without needing to go
outside for cigarettes for more breaktime than a non-smoker needs, then
they're not fit for the job and I would replace them with someone who is.

See above. And above.

No objection whatsoever if someone wants to smoke. But like any other
addiction when it starts to affect people around them or prevents them
from doing their job then it has gone too far and they need to wise up.

See above. And above. And above.

Like any addict, though, they can't accept any of this. Their minds are
closed to all reason. Woe betide anyone who gets in the way or suggests
the addict is wrong. They find anyway possible to justify to themselves
and others that to be addicted is normal and is their right.

Studied addiction, have you? Perhaps you should.

--
*Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.