It'd be interesting to know how many people have only one glass of beer or wine each day. And I also worry about the argument along the lines of "everything is addictive". Smokers argue that "everything can give you cancer". It's simply rationalisation. Say what you like, the human body is not designed to accommodate poison be it alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs. Actually, once tolerance of alcohol sets in (ie: one or two beers doesn't work anymore), people often have a desire to have more and more. As I said, every alcoholic started off with only a few drinks. And anyone can become an alcoholic.

It is true that being an adult means being allowed to make choices including stupid ones. But up to a point. Adults are not allowed to drive beyond the speed limit even when nobody else is on the road. They are not allowed to take ecstasy even if it is only once or twice a year. Why can't people take ecstasy if they want to? Why is the Nanny State interfering with a considered adult choice?

I don't belief alcohol can or should be made illegal overnight. We have seen the appalling effects of prohibition in 1920s America. However, tobacco usage in Australia is falling due to slow strangulation - restrictions on where people may smoke, increased prices and anti-smoking campaigns have played a role. Likewise, a drug like alcohol which is already legal should be slowly strangled and, hopefully, become a weird, anti-social activity like snuff taking or something similar.

If we didn't have any alcohol or drugs, people would still probably spin in circles on their front lawn until they fell over and then we'd have people wanting to make laws against that. Like it or not, it's what people want to do.

DavidJS>"Likewise, a drug like alcohol............"

I can now see the strategy of the authoritarians, socialists already: Label alcohol a Drug and then it becomes part of the Drug War. Well I'm getting sick of this devious agenda. And we all wonder why our politicians are pushing this upon us. There is a large sector of Australians who can't help calling for more bans and even more taxes (eg. freediver) for everything.

"...should be slowly strangled and, hopefully, become a weird, anti-social activity like snuff taking or something similar."

Hopefully being a sappy puritan of any type will soon be recognised as a wierd anti-social acitivity.

'Once you establish that x or y is no longer socially acceptable and needs to be curbed, the next thing is to set up a department to watch over the implementation of those curbs. And to report every so often, using barely-credible and highly selective statistics, to prove they are having an effect.'

Hahaha Pericles. That's gold. Too true.

To my mind, a large element of mankind will always have a desire for drugs of some kind. They are all poison, but they also do have benefits, and can easily be justified on the grounds of living a full life, experiencing everything. Cats eat grass because it will make them spew up a fur ball. Humans get drunk to forget themselves and their predicament for a passage of time.

Some drugs expand the mind too, and those that have not taken them cant possibly understand the benefits of this, or relate to some of the wonderful experiences that can be had.

I have also survived better in natural situations where my mind has been altered (nitrogen narcosis and altitude sickness) from my abilities learned on drugs taking to me to similar states.

If you accept you will never eradicate drugs, or believe like me they are a natural part of life, it would be good to decide on the drug giving the best high, for the least affect on health and the functioning of society.

as bugsy says, 'If we didn't have any alcohol or drugs, people would still probably spin in circles on their front lawn until they fell over and then we'd have people wanting to make laws against that.'

Alcohol probably isn't the best drug we have available, it is better than some, worse than others. We should aim towards a perfect drug, a soma, that the government can dish out to allow the masses to accept their plight and work on for the good of society.

PS: I don't drink binge, so I'm not a binge drinker. For those who have, what does binge taste like?

I'll happily wear the label of puritan if being a puritan means not wanting to be threatened, bashed or murdered by intoxicated people. Or see body organs poison through drug use (yes, isn't alcohol so much fun).

I also note a whiff of hypocrisy in Steel's last response which goes like this - a War on Drugs is not okay when it's a war on my drug.

And it seems nobody can answer this question - why can't people take heroin, crystal meth or ecstasy without the Nanny State coming down on top of them?

DavidJS asks:

"And it seems nobody can answer this question - why can't people take heroin, crystal meth or ecstasy without the Nanny State coming down on top of them?"

Good question. It wasn't till 1951 (from memory) that heroin was made illegal in Australia. I stand to be corrected on that, but it was I think only recently.

I don't see why any drug is illegal. Their abuse (not use necessarily) is a medical problem. It should not be a legal one.

I am not a binge drinker. I am a boozer and have been for 30 years. The liver is fine. Thanks for asking.

Jack Waterford in Saturday's Canberra Times had a good article on the new puritans. He argues this is about social control and the expectation the "state" will fix things up.

The creeping Calvinism of the Rudd Government is a worry, especially when studies show that we are drinking less now than we did in the past. So it may be my generation were bigger bingers than today's young people.

But the anti-binge drinking campaign is not about saving people; it is about raising revenue - the demand for grog is fairly inelastic and may actually go up as economic circumstances worsen) and some sort of social control - keeping young people in their place and making sure they get the capitalist work ethic (ie become wage slaves for capital) quickly. It is also about Rudd labor appealing to a very conservative section of the electorate.