The following piece of mine appears in today's Times:

So now I know. It’s taken me until this weekend to discover the real reason that I’m two stones heavier than I should be. There I was, thinking it was because for most of my adult life I ate too much and took no exercise.

What a relief to discover — from the Public Health Minister, no less — that it’s not my responsibility. When I stuffed that extra piece of rye bread in my mouth this morning, I wasn’t to blame. The man with whom I need to remonstrate is the chap who sold me the loaf and didn’t point out that if I eat too much of it I’ll get fat. As for the waiter who let me eat two pieces of cheesecake when I went out for my 14th birthday and never once told me to be careful; there’s a 28-year grudge I ought to bear.

According to reports yesterday, Caroline Flint, the aforementioned Minister, has threatened the drinks industry that if it does not agree to put a warning label on every bottle of wine saying “Know your limits”, and then demanding that women should “Avoid alcohol if you are pregnant or trying to conceive”, then she will consider legislating to force them.

We have, of course, been here before. Cigarette packets now contain the message “Smoking kills”. And quite so, just as excessive drinking is dangerous.

But danger is inherent in almost every aspect of human existence. Running out into the middle of the road without looking, talking into a mobile phone in the street, having valuables in view; all can be dangerous if a car suddenly appears, if a mugger is following or if a thief is on the lookout. No one, surely, suggests that we need messages to warn us against such behaviour.

Have you been to the cinema recently? Alongside the glossy multimillion-pound ads for cars, for mobile phones and for all sorts of valuables are glossy multimillion-pound ad campaigns warning us against . . . running out into the middle of the road without looking, talking into a mobile phone in the street, having valuables in view. Ads we pay for as taxpayers, the sole purpose of which is to instruct idiots not to behave like idiots.

Ms Flint is merely carrying on in the same vein. If she really expects drinkers who are unaware of the deleterious consequences of their excessive drinking to pick up a bottle, notice the warning label and see the error of their ways, then she has a touching, albeit deeply misguided, view of idiots and their idiotic behaviour.

To function properly, a society requires its members to be responsible for their actions. For all the apparently frivolous stupidity of this latest proposal, its implications are profound, emanating in a philosophy that holds not only that government knows best but that it can — indeed, must — take responsibility for the behaviour of its citizens.