[William]

I have never argued that anything that is harmfull to a small % of the population must be prohibited. What I say it's that I understand the position of the authorities that wish to protect that small % of the population. that is in fact their job.
As for your other examples, pork, cigarettes, alcohol, etc... it is in fact very close to poker. Not prohibited but serious warnings about their consumption are issued regularly.

I do make a living from poker (despite what some other clever-that-have-no-clue posters say) but I am fully aware that my winnings have sometimes serious impacts to other players lives.
I don't wish to change that, but I certainly understand those that do want to change it.

Therefor an article about how good poker is for society, especially written by somebody that has earned so much from poker, is in my humble (well, maybe not so humble...) opinion very close to hypocresy (sorry if mispelled). Certainly Mr. Sklansky knows about the downside (addiction, etc...) of poker but choses nontheless to only write about hypotetical but unrealistic benefits to the large population.