In the September 2007 critique of Alamar and Glantz, I argued that smoking in restaurants (and bars) does not constitute an externality and that Alamar and Glantz’s use of cross-sectional data to derive a price/sales ratio did not show us a meaningful picture of what happened before and after the California smoking ban. Here I show that Alamar and Glantz’ reply mainly failed to engage my main points. I end with a challenge.