I'm sure I might get a comment somewhere saying "You say in your tax post that smoking is a money issue. But in your reply to the House member, you make smoking sound like a health issue."
For those activists who spend most of their days sending out letters to politicians, mayors, and reps of the major anti groups, I could see this interpretation being made.
I never agreed with tobacco being a health issue in my letter reply. When the House member said how my state has a right to protect nonsmokers, I didn't wanna tell him "You're full of sheet. SHS is NOT dangerous!" He probably would've laughed hard at me and even send a personal attack in friendly words.
But if I give him ideas on how to make both sides happy (as I did in my reply), then he'll be forced to read my reply in language he understands. I even hinted to him if tobacco IS a health issue, why don't the IL folks make tobacco sales illegal? But I said it in a language he understands....the theme of protecting nonsmokers. The way I see it, if I'm gonna send future replies to responses to my future letters, I gotta be more than just nice and friendly. I gotta rebut the thoughts in a way I WANT the politician to read my darn reply at least.
Sorta similar to how some smokers respond to my thoughts. But they try talking to me in the type of language I use in my personal life (so I can understasnd the message they're trying to make). It's actually cute hearing smokers online using occassional "city words" when replying to my thoughts.