John Stuart Mill’s famous declaration that “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,” has come in for a battering of late. Two reports issued on the same day last week bemoaned this country’s apparent inability to grasp the concept of drinking in moderation, exhorting the government to clamp down on alcohol abuse – and, in so doing, sparking a new, bitterly controversial chapter in the age-old row over the “nanny state.”

Regardless of political leaning or vested interest, none can deny that there is cause for concern. Liver cirrhosis rates have risen by a phenomenal 95 per cent in just seven years, making us the world’s only developed nation with a rising rate of liver disease, while excessive alcohol consumption causes 22,000 premature deaths each year in the UK. Statistics tell us to expect 13 children to be hospitalised today thanks to dangerous levels of intoxication.

So what’s the answer? Simple, according to the newly-formed Alcohol Health Alliance (AHA), which advocates a three-pronged policy of increased funding for treatment and prevention programmes, tighter regulation of the drinks industry and, crucially, an increase in taxes on alcohol by as much as 25 per cent.

But the mention of taxation provoked predictable howls of anguish from drinks industry lobby groups: the AHA’s proposals would “restrict personal freedoms and limit consumer choice”, said an open letter from the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA). As well as the AHA’s mission statement, Tuesday saw us treated to a 225-page report on public health from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which also urged the government to take steps to alleviate the problems caused by alcohol. Committee chairman Lord Krebs summarised: “People often reject the idea of a ‘nanny state,’ but the Government has a duty to look after the health of everyone – and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices.”

Lord Krebs’ attempt to reassure libertarians may have sparked more panic than the report itself: talk of “guiding or restricting” choice can sound evasively euphemistic, eerily echoing China's ruthless “harmonising” of dissenters. He has a point, of course: a modern government which took no steps to safeguard public health would indeed be in dereliction of its duty. But according to Mill’s “classical harm principle,” discussed at length in the Nuffield report, the state has no justification for interfering in behaviour which affects only the agent himself.

If this is the central bone of contention in this debate, then the BBPA’s outrage at the idea of “restricting personal freedoms” seems a touch belated: as Health Minister Dawn Primarolo points out, UK alcohol taxation already stands at “something like the second-highest level in Europe.” Further hikes in taxes will serve only to tighten a restriction that is already in place; for all the bright ideas being bandied about, an end to Britain’s growing drink problem seems as far off as ever.