Professor Henderson has simply repeated the same two points he made in his earlier critique (Henderson 2007) of our article "Smoke-free Ordinances Increase Restaurant Profit and Value" (Alamar and Glantz 2004). He argues 1.) that secondhand smoke is not an externality, therefore no government intervention is required to protect workers and customers in restaurants and bars, and 2.) the empirical results in the paper are not conclusive because the data are cross-sectional. Henderson also issues a challenge for us to advocate for the repeal of the California law on smoke-free restaurants. While we enjoy a good debate and do not mind adding another publication to our CVs, we do hope that Prof. Henderson will not find the burning desire to restate his position again, after we respond this last time.