The philosophical argument here is "To what extent is it the government's job to regulate substances?" The author seems to think that if it causes harm, it should be under the government's purview to curtail. The second-to-last paragraph demonstrates this position. We already have laws about driving while intoxicated and public drunkenness (among others such as carrying a firearm while intoxicated) which preserve individual freedom while punishing externalities.
The author's suggestion that we once again need to start molding what is "acceptable" leisure is simply backwards. Western liberalism is fairly good at solving these problems.
The author's suggestion that we once again need to start molding what is "acceptable" leisure is simply backwards. Western liberalism is fairly good at solving these problems.