Our blog covered this little April Fools joke as well:
http://www.alamn.org/media/2005/04/april-fools.html

You know, Bob, it's generally considered to be a blogging faux pas to plug your own posts in some other blogger's comments. Particularly when the post in question could be construed as gloating. Do it again and you'll find yourself on the wrong end of my banning finger. Consider yourself warned.

I can hardly think you'd find this an offensive action since your organization has done its absolute best to try and silence any and all differing viewpoints on this issue. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

Now, I'm going to fire up a Marlboro and I sincerely hope the smoke finds its way to your doorstep.

Okay, point taken. I'm relatively new to this and I am still leaning blog culture, etiquette and lingo. No offense intended.

I'm not about to gloat -- I'm a former smoker, a former bartender and waiter who has worked for tips before. I understand the fear about the smoking ban in some circles. I have friends and family who still smoke (no, I don't nag them).

Today I also understand what secondhand smoke is doing to people on the job in Minnesota, and I'm doing what I can to help.

When I looked at local blogs, I saw so much negativity, misleading information and downright lies on the subject of smoking bans I felt the American Lung Association of Minnesota needed to counter this unbalanced view. And hence, a blog was born, the only one of its kind in the US, as far as I can see. As you noticed, we talk about all sorts of lung-related news, not just smoking.

I don't accept your charge that my organization silences opposing views. First of all, ALAMN didn't (and can't) pass a smoking ban anywhere in Minnesota. Local governments have done that -- and every one has given equal time for opponents to make their case. Pro-smoke lawyers, professional lobbyists and big-time industry trade organizations all argued hours for maintaining the status quo. In many cases, our leaders rejected their unproven claims and voted to protect the health of ALL Minnesota workers, including those with blue collars.

There are some interesting stories online about Lexington, KY, one year after their ban began. They are worth a look...

Has anyone actually ever caught cancer from secondhand smoke? No, they haven't. You can't prove it, and you know it. The data is faulty. I've seen it. Your side of the argument made very specious leaps of the imagination and the media and government bought it, hook like and sinker. As far as "bad information" being disseminated throughout the blogosphere, what about the bad information that's been spread in the world? I saw an ad on a bus today that claimed secondhand smoke kills more people than every other disease combined. And no, I'm not joking. Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? More deaths are attributed to second hand smoke than cancer, heart disease, diabetes, kidney failure, etc.? I don't think so. That's an outright fib. Conveniently, the information wasn't attributed to anyone, and there was no notice of who the ad was paid for anywhere on the ad. Talk about spreading propaganda. As far as unbalanced views are concerned, who has the mainstream media, the medical associations, and the government behind them? It's surely not the smokers, so please don't bother telling me that the argument was "unbalanced." That's pure and utter BS and you know it.

I can understand that some people don't like smoke. I'm a considerate smoker. I don't light up in other people's houses, around children, or in my own home if I know one of my guests doesn't like it. I bend over backwards to make sure someone isn't offended by my smoke, because, ultimately, it comes down to "offense." I have to listen to the snarky "cough-cough" crap people spew in my direction if I'm on the street and they happen to pass through my smoke. Most people don't think they're going to catch cancer from smoke; they don't like it because it smells bad. If this wasn't true, why are there so many provisos in all of the bans about there not being any smoking within x number of feet where food is served? Plenty of bars and restaurants have chipped out for very expensive ventilation systems before the ban because they realized it was good common sense to do this. Now, all the money they spent on those is down the drain. But if people are concerned about the unproven risks of secondhand smoke, there are plenty of non-smoking restaurants and bars available for them to frequent. There was absolutely no need for the entire metro to go non-smoking. No need whatsoever. The free market was the solution to the problem, but big government had to get involved.

Personally, if you think you're sticking up for the "blue collar" worker, you're kidding yourself. The ban is going to hurt servers and bartenders, not to mention businesses. Why just ask the guy who waited on me today. I sat at an empty bar in a larger restaurant. Usually that bar would have been packed and there would have been three bartenders on duty. There was one. He was losing money hand over fist because he did not have enough people sitting down at the bar to eat, which is where the smokers usually go. There was no need for that now, was there? Who's losing money in that situation? Why, gee, it's the average joe bartender, who lives off tips. Congratulations! In your effort to protect them, you have just decreased their average wage! Well done! You should be really proud of yourself!