To hear the Christian Right, one would think that a totalitarian government was in power, busting down doors to punish errant fundamentalist parents for giving their little ones a tap on the hand. Recently, in the UK New Statesman, there was an intriguing article dealing with how far governments should go in regulating human behaviour, although the behaviours chosen were binge drinking (and associated acts of violence fuelled by it), eating junk food and obesity. Now, the latter are unlikely to be criminalised any time soon, but are subjected to strong social sanctions, unless of course, one is of the ursine fraternity (or sisterhood?) and likes their lovers furry in the appropriate place. The former is a fraught subject of contemporary debate, and tends to be one of those issues where old-fashioned conservative Christian temperance campaigners rub shoulders with contemporary alcohol and drug evidence-driven social scientists. Personally, I'd have much rather that they had increased the drinking age from eighteen upwards. Younger and libertarian LGBTs probably disagree with me on that one. In New Zealand, at present, the Christian Right tends to be arguing that the state should not have forbidden parents the "right" to "discipline" children, leading to suspicions from some of the anti-belting/childrens rights lobbyists that they want the law deliberately ambiguous so their coreligionists can get away with using excessive force against children within their families. Against this, some childrens rights groups express concern that if this is allowed to continue, then they will produce the next generation of violent criminals. Over time, though, organised religion has lost its power to enforce involuntary obedience to its sectarian and illiberal political and social agendas. After the nineteenth century, social service professionals came to replace them, and evidence-based medical and scientific research became the new key to grounding claims for an ethical and humane conduct of everyday life and social policy. In the case of LGBT communities, women's reproductive rights advocates, supporters of the decriminalisation of sex work and children's rights, this has proven useful when faced with howling religious reactionaries. However, note the above instances from the United Kingdom, which is ahead of us insofar as inclusive adoption reform goes at present, and where the debate centres on how much government should take the place of community social sanctions. In the latest available issue of the (US) Advocate, I spotted an advertisement for 'organic' cigarettes. Should we actually be promoting the use of cancer sticks in our publications? No, I am not advocating the prohibition of tobacco, because all that would do would be to add a mystique of glamour and forbidden fruit to these wretched addictive substances. However, community sanctions and restrictive regulation are not the same as prohibition. In reality, liberty should not be absolute if it means that the rights of tangible others are infringed, or these others experience harm. But there are degrees of regulation that fall between absolute freedom to do something, and absolute prohibition. Wherever you draw the line on whatever issue is up to you, and whatever source of information or ideology that you hold authoritative. Recommended: Richard Reeves: "The Naughty Nation" New Statesman 14.02.08: http://www.newstatesman.com/200802140026 Craig Young - 5th March 2008