Despite its good intentions, the Public Health Ministry's prohibition-like measure of raising the legal age to buy alcohol smacks of a "nanny knows best" mindset that has no place in a modern, liberal society like ours. Treating citizens like small children who need to be protected from social ills and vices that all grown-ups should be assumed to be perfectly capable of dealing with on their own is a dangerous assumption.

Individual freedom and personal responsibility are meaningful only when each person is allowed to decide for himself or herself what to do and what not to do in their autonomous existence. Surely, deciding how much alcohol - or any other liquid - to put into one's body should remain a personal decision. All freedom-loving people, including non-drinkers, should oppose such unreasonable restrictions on alcohol consumption.

Besides, it is just plain silly that Thai citizens who become eligible voters at the age of 18, capable of deciding who should govern the country and thereby determining the country's destiny, should be told to wait until they reach 25 to buy themselves a drink. This is an insult to the intelligence of people in this country by busybody do-gooders who do not have the common sense to not cross the line.

It is a generally accepted fact that, while intake of excessive quantities of alcohol can cause a multitude of problems to drinkers themselves and to other people, moderate consumption of alcohol is relatively harmless.

It may well be true that more than half of the road accidents that kill some 15,000 people and injure hundreds of thousands of others each year involve people driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs. But the problem of drunk driving persists because of lax law enforcement.

Cases of drunk drivers convicted of causing death actually being jailed for the offence are few and far between. The great majority of them are merely given suspended sentences, put on probation, ordered to pay compensation to the victim's family and made to do "community service", such as sweeping the streets or picking up rubbish in public places.

Government after government has failed to reverse this depressing and senseless trend because there is no political will to deal with the problem.

Only if and when society makes people pay strictly and consistently for their crimes will the drunk drivers out there be persuaded to clean up their act. Any criminal proceedings must be backed by reformed tort laws to enable injured parties or families of victims to seek punitive compensation from intoxicated or reckless drivers. Only when drivers come to realise that such reckless behaviour is a criminal offence as serious as murder that could entail a requirement to pay a "ruinous" form of compensation will they understand the need for responsible drinking.

But substituting strict and consistent law enforcement against drunk driving with such ridiculous restrictions on alcohol consumption is not going to reduce the harm caused by alcohol.

As for the cost to the state, the government should consider making people covered by state health insurance schemes, such as that of the National Security Office and the Civil Servants' Medical Benefits/Welfare Scheme, either pay their own medical bills or make substantial co-payment if they sustain injuries related to intoxication or when they are diagnosed with diseases related to alcohol abuse.

Restrictions will only work when they conform to prevailing public attitudes of what is reasonable regarding alcohol use. The current legal drinking age of 18 is considered reasonable by the great majority of people in this country and should be retained.