Some normal arguments are presented.
The example given of someone having an alcoholic drink then driving home is a perfect example of how things get messed up between perceived as "offensive" and what is the "right way to treat and care" for others.

It shouldn't matter if someone chooses to have an alcoholic drink with their meal, or even if they want to get blind rotten drunk. But they should be able to make that choice for themselves, not because it's a rule or law. What they do once they start drinking is something they then need to become responsible for. Driving after drinking is utterly stupid. The worst alcoholic in the world knows that.

So that's where the law should draw the line, not take away people's opportunity to choose. That's how you end up with a "Nanny State." Think of the USA, or a lot of Europe, or Australia. Increasingly behaviour choices are being stripped from us all, until we become slaves to the corporations, religions, or even a political point of view. We can then no longer function as mature, thinking human beings. We become dependant on others to make the rules for us, especially if they "sweeten the deal" with money, houses etc.

Is anyone picking up what I'm putting down?