For my more frequent readers, you might be intrigued to hear there is a bit of a debate going on in the comments section of a thread from a MONTH ago. I had posted right after elections about one unhappy local businessman's reaction to the public smoking ban here in Ohio. Some anonymous visitor has taken on himself (herself?) to use it as an opportunity to let me know what, in his opinion, is wrong with the voting system today. At first it started out that since 20% of Ohioans smoke (not entirely sure where they got that figure but I've heard similar estimates) that therefore, 20% of public places should allow smoking. As you can see, there isn't a lot of logic to this person's arguments, but for some silly reason I let myself get sucked in. After I got another comment today, I realized this person isn't mad at me, they're mad at the world, and mad at the way democracy works. Check it out, you might get a kick out of it. I closed the commenting because A.) if you're going to go on a rant, at least have the balls to put your name on it, and B.) my blog isn't about the failures and successes of the system.
On another note about the smoking ban, it starts to take effect on Dec. 7. That's a mere three days away, and to be perfectly honest, I'm tickled pink. I've had my own little countdown going til the day when I don't have to ask to be seated in non-smoking! And to be perfectly honest, I don't know how the law works as far as bars go, but since I won't be going in any bars til at least next May, it won't affect me anyway. My hunch is, though, due to the rather stringent language of the bill, bars probably won't be allowing smokers either.
On a *third* note about smoking, we recently discovered that Scott's, a major lawn-care company located in Marysville, Ohio actually successfully enforced a company policy requiring their employees to quit smoking completely. If your brain is working today, you'll realize when I say enforced, that means they fired an employee who they caught smoking off-hours. Now, I'm all for people taking charge of their own health, and not doing things that are proven detrimental to your health, like smoking, binge drinking, overeating, drugs, etc. But there's got to be a line somewhere in how involved a company can get in the employee's personal life. I could understand if Scott's decided to not pay for the health insurance of smoking employees. Let them pay for their own health insurance, if they're going to willingly partake in a known health hazard. But firing them? I can't say as I agree with that! What's next? I have heard some other arguments, like "if they can fire you for doing drugs, why not smoking?" Well, smoking cigarettes isn't illegal, yet. I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, but I certainly don't think someone should be fired for doing something entirely legal on their own personal time, no matter how stupid. The fired employee, Scott Rodriguez, is apparently suing the company for violating a state privacy law. Given that the company enacted the policy a while ago, I find it curious that their lawyers found nothing wrong with the policy at the time. So I wonder how successful Mr. Rodriguez will be in suing?