If you mean the removal of designated smoking chambers, I don't particularly care if they exist or not. If a landowner is willing to pay for their existence so smokers can be boxed in there to smoke in atmospheric isolation, good. If he isn't willing to pay for it, instead desiring to use that land for other purposes, also good. Must there be a law mandating such a chamber outside every apartment building and public space? If so, who pays for this? What happens when they become overcrowded? What happens if the ventilation systems fail? This is all a band-aid solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.
One would not reasonably expect people to put on ear plugs to avoid loud neighbors' excessive music, and thus one shouldn't expect the non-smoker to make exceptions to his life to accommodate smokers. No, it should be the onus of the problem causer to accommodate the victim of his actions rather than vice-versa, by the very definition of being considerate which is rather the whole point of law in the first place.
How about the simple idea based on the concept of affecting others with your actions: If the activity of smoking bothers someone due to second- or third-hand odors, then that activity should be prohibited, just like making loud noises (disturbing the peace), etc. All within reason, of course. Now if someone could only come up with one good reason to smoke, I'd turn my attention to the sky for flying pigs.