Well, here we go again... Why am I not surprised that jdubhub and Les Porter are questioning my character (again)? Let's start with the former. "Yes, of course, Publius, you're right and the EPA is wrong." Actually...that's exactly right. You seem to love to cite things that just aren't true for a variety of reasons. The EPA's 1992/1993 release of their "study" was in fact severely flawed. Their flawed "study" has been recognized by the courts and they have not disputed the judge's findings on that matter. This wasn't my opinion, judubhub...so sorry. Flue-Cured Tobacco v. EPA District Court Decision Although this decision was later vacated and remanded by the Appeals Court, that later decision was not based on the merit of the EPA study; it had to do with technicalities concerning certain agency actions. The rest of your comment was just rhetoric disparaging me and referencing the debunked EPA study, so I will now move on to Les Porter's comment. "Possibly the sources of Mr. Publius's erroneous information was either old tobacco industry influenced publications or newer climate denialists poison farms publications. In any event, I surely hope he can cite the tripe he used, to earn a reinstatement for his potential position before the board of 'certifiers.'" Wow - what a fascinating display of faulty reasoning! In my old critical thinking classes, we used to call that the "poisoning the well" fallacy. I guess it doesn't matter what I cite now because it's all just rubbish. Oh, and I love the "denialist" argument. It makes you appear so brilliant when you compare people who disagree with you to Holocaust deniers. You have such class. Despite your attempt to ridicule me, like jdubhub before you, here are some of my references: Covance Laboratories: Passive Smokers Inhale Six Cigarettes a Year Congressional Research Service: ETS and Lung Cancer Risk World Health Organization study finds no statistically significant link to ETS and cancer Lies About Second-hand Smoke - Translated from Dutch Now, for both of you...listen carefully to what I am saying. You missed the point I was making (again). Smoking doesn’t “cause” cancer; it just increases your chances of getting it. That’s why everyone who smokes does not have cancer and everyone who has lung cancer is not a smoker. The amount of smoke from smokers that is released into the air (outside) quickly dissipates and poses no threat to a passerby. If you're that concerned and happen to see a smoker outside, then try to avoid their smoke when you pass. The fact of the matter is, there are many "causes" of cancer. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what factors cause which cancers...we only know what contributes to increased chances of developing it. No one factor causes cancer. I agree that an enclosed workplace should not allow smoking indoors (not including bars and restaurants). But I find it quite ironic that the two of you are constantly whining about the government being too powerful and too controlling over Americans and intruding on their rights, yet you have no problem with the government telling individuals what they can do (concerning personal habits) and demanding that private businesses enact certain policies inside their own doors. And you constantly whine about how corrupt the government and it's agencies are, yet you take everything the EPA has to say as the "Gospel truth" (as jdubhub would say). In addition, the two of you are always complaining about rights, yet you fail to grasp the concept that you neither have a "right" to frequent a privately-owned business, nor do you have a "right" to work there. So, if you don't like the fact that they allow smoking, don't go there. Jdubhub - you claim to be a libertarian on these issues. It would appear that you're not. Show me where libertarians claim to have a right to go into a privately owned business or where they believe the government ought to tell business owners what rules they should have inside their own doors. I find this faulty logic and reasoning very revealing about the two of you...especially when you claim that I'm the one who always thinks he's right. The two of you ought to be embarrassed about your repeated conduct and blatant contradictions. Between jdubhub's attempts to make me out to be some extreme, right-wing know-it-all (yet you said you mostly agree with my positions) and Les' attempts to label me as a "denier" (which is not only despicable because of the negative connotation, but it is actually an inaccurate analysis of my position), I don't think the two of you have any authoritative legitimacy to speak of. And you certainly don't take the proverbial "high road" - so I'm not sure how your rhetoric is much different from what you accuse me of doing. Maybe instead of attacking me every chance you get, you could try to understand my position from my point of view and have an actual discussion. Maybe your opinion isn't always as right as you believe it to be. Maybe my opinion isn't always as wrong as you believe it to be. In case you haven't noticed lately, I'm not the one who causes these comments to degenerate into personal insults. The two of you have done a wonderful job of that all by yourselves. Congratulations on another job well done. *If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.