Why not ban alcohol too?

Albert Spiteri (Ban Smoking, February 8) failed to comment on the gist of my letter which, in brief, simply accentuated the undeniable fact that prohibiting cigarettes would be rather inane.

I'll add to that and state that in the long run it would not solve anything at all; this is clearly portrayed by the current drug situation, where we are witnessing a tragedy whose attempted solution is, paradoxically, a war (the so-called "war on drugs".)

This suppression has created a black market that today is a multi-million (perhaps billion) pound business, rapidly producing more and more criminals rather than gradually stopping them. The exact same thing would occur if cigarettes were to be prohibited and the latter would be on a much larger scale, for palpable reasons

Despite careful wording, Mr Spiteri again implicitly stated that smokers are uncivilised, which I personally find extremely rude and offensive, despite not being a smoker myself.

I fail to understand how he perceives smoking as "anti-social" and "a public enemy", yet never really mentions anything regarding my comparison to the other legal drug, alcohol, which, due to its temporary mind-altering capabilities, could be considered more of an "anti-social" act.

Additionally, thousands if not millions of people die yearly due to alcohol, a percentage of which do so in car accidents that involve huge numbers of innocent people. So I ask Mr Spiteri: Why not ban alcohol too?

I'll lose the sarcasm utilised in my previous letter to clarify what I had said: Banning cigarettes merely because they're a health hazard to oneself and/or bothersome to others is as ridiculous as banning alcohol or unhealthy food on the same grounds.

We are a free country; everyone should be allowed to destroy their own body however they wish, so long as they don't concurrently put anyone at risk in any way whatsoever.