Up in smoke ... a man having a cigarette and a pint of beer. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA
A growing clamour is emerging for pubs and clubs to offer customers smaller measures of alcohol to save them from themselves and help cut problem drinking. One Lib Dem MP has introduced a bill to force them to offer 125ml glasses. But is all this really the business of government?
I only ask because a heated debate on the nanny state arose at a recent family bash. The general gist was: I'm sick of being told not to smoke, drink or even to ride a bicycle without a helmet. Even the five-a-day healthy eating campaign came in for a hammering. This came from middle-aged men (the youngsters around were more sympathetic to public health campaigners).
So, is there a danger that policies and campaigns designed to improve public health could provoke a backlash? Arch-critic Dr Crippen, an NHS doctor, is in no doubt things have gone to far. He wrote:
I know that far too many people drink too much. I know that far too many people smoke too much. I do care. I am happy to provide advice on these and many other issues if asked. [But] if the government legislates to tell me what size of glass I am allowed to use, they may find they lose my vote... I did not go into medicine to tell you how to run your life. I am frustrated by the government's attempts to turn me into a medical Stalinist.
However, it is not just alcohol that is in legislators' sights. A while ago, the Conservative leader, David Cameron, attacked "irresponsible" marketing techniques which he said were being used to sell chocolate and fuel Britain's obesity problem. He said:
As Britain faces an obesity crisis, why does WH Smith promote half-price chocolate oranges at its checkouts instead of real oranges?
And a ban on the sale of cigarettes to anyone who does not pay for a government smoking permit has been proposed by Health England, a ministerial advisory board, as well as a ban on selling cigarettes through vending machines.
Ken Frost, on his blog Nanny Knows Best, says the government is misguided as children are "instinctively drawn to anything naughty or illegal". Besides, he suggests, all this health advice and prohibition is missing a crucial point.
It's not the length of life that counts, but the quality. We are ignoring the fundamental problem that extending people's lifespans, without taking into account the quality of those extended lifespans, is storing up trouble for the future and wrong.
But the nanny state does have some supporters. Indeed blogger Josh says the government is right to act at times - at least to protect people from each other. He said:
If I hear one more person talking about the 'nanny state' when any new government regulation is proposed, I may scream. Look, when the government is trying to protect me from myself, I think there's a legitimate case to be made that it should butt out. But when it's trying to protect me from you, that argument doesn't hold up. So banning smoking in public areas is fine with me.
