STRANGER: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a smoker. In spite of that, I oppose any attempt to expand the antismoking regulations currently in place ["Smoke Out," March 6]. As far as I am concerned, the only possible legitimate reason for the government to enact such a ban would be public health. The other reasons are just whining that your world isn't perfect. Unfortunately, anyone who reads with a critical eye the studies on the negative effects of secondhand smoke is forced to conclude the risks are vastly overstated. The statistic Jennifer Maerz cites (50,000 deaths/year to secondhand smoke) was based on pure statistical correlation. In other words: "We believe there is a link between Diseases X, Y, and Z and smoking. Fifty thousand people who did not themselves smoke but met or exceeded a certain baseline level of exposure to secondhand smoke died of Diseases X, Y, or Z. Therefore, smoking caused those deaths." The study made no effort to correct for or even observe other factors that may have been more significant, such as genetic predisposition or other environmental exposures.

Assertions that exposure to secondhand smoke increases by 25 percent the risk of lung cancer are similarly flawed. A study showed that the occurrence of lung cancer in nonsmokers without exposure to secondhand smoke was 10 in 1,000,000, while the occurrence in nonsmokers with exposure was 12.5 in 1,000,000. In other words, for every 10,000,000 nonsmokers exposed, 125 will develop lung cancer. That's called statistically insignificant, and fails to show a correlation, let alone causation. So let each establishment make up its own mind, and if you don't like its rules, go elsewhere.

Ross, via e-mail

STRANGER: I find it funny that your best arguments for not having a smoking ban claim that the smoke-filled bars will turn lame if they go smoke-free, only cool people smoke, and your chances of getting laid will bottom out if those chain-smoking sluts have to go outside for their fix. What are you, in eighth grade?

Given the evidence about the health risks to you and others, you're lucky you are allowed to smoke at all, and since smokers are now outnumbered three to one, your addictions are no longer relevant, and your pathetic, tar-coarsened whines continue to be ignored.

C. J., via e-mail

STRANGER: I was recently in San Francisco and one of the lasting memories I took back was how smoky the streets are. I couldn't walk two feet without someone blowing smoke in my face from the doorway of a nonsmoking business.

In banning smoking in restaurants and bars, California has forced all of its smokers out on the public streets. Now you can inhale mass amounts of secondhand smoke all day long. Before the ban on smoking, you had to make a conscious decision to go into a bar or request the smoking section of a restaurant in order to breathe these levels of smoke.

To me this bill is similar to banning trash cans and forcing us to dump trash on our streets. Oh yeah, children are not allowed in bars but they are allowed downtown.

Tyesha Kobel, via e-mail

STRANGER: The article "Smoke Out" misses the most important aspect of the issue here: individual rights. Dan Savage almost got it; it's true that bars don't belong to smokers, necessarily. What he and the others seem to have missed is that bars belong to their owners. Contrary to the assertions of several of the writers of that piece, bars are not public property. If customers don't like the smoke, they should tell that to the owners. If bartenders and waitresses don't like it, they should talk to their bosses. If the owner doesn't change his mind, that's too bad. Find another bar, find another job--or open up your own smoke-free bar--and let the free market (i.e., the voluntary choices of consumers) decide. This proposed law is damaging not just because of its effects on business, but because they represent a blatant and unconstitutional infringement on individual rights--the rights of the bar owners, who are so often forgotten during these debates.

Isaac DiIanni, via e-mail

STRANGER: Thanks for letting Jennifer Maerz weigh in as part of your "Smoke Out" discussion. I hope she won't take this the wrong way, but she sounds like the one adult on your staff.

Mark Horowitz, via e-mail

STRANGER: I was surprised that the anti-smoking-ban argument was mostly that bars aren't health clubs. I like to drink, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to kill myself. In moderation, drinking alcohol can actually be healthy for you. Maybe some smokers only go to bars because they are engaging in self-loathing, self-destructive behavior, but that doesn't mean all of us do.

David Tatelman, via e-mail

BRADLEY STEINBACHER: Thank you for your review of Tears of the Sun ["Zenith of Dishonesty," March 6]. I have been screaming at the television for weeks every time I see the commercial, trying to explain to others in the room with me how fucked up it is to pretend to ever believe that we would do such a valiant thing. The movie is an insult to our sense of history and intelligence.

Steve Hutchison, via e-mail