A large part of the problem is that we have a hereditary caste of permanent legislators. Here in Brussels the European Parliament has complained that the Commission is not feeding it enough legislative proposals to keep it busy, while the UK's parliament has managed to create over one new crime per working day for the last decade.

As Mr Worstall says, politicians (and bureaucrats) believe that they must be busy legislating to justify their existence. They have no incentive to change this behaviour, so a way is needed to curb their enthusiasm.

The ancient Greek solution, where the sponsor of a failed proposal was instantly garotted, might be too much for our squeamish times, but the model of the Texas legislature, which meets only once every two years, has its merits.

Detached Observer, Brussels,

I call it ridiculous hype when people jump on the "banning everything" bandwagon - they usually trot out meaningless nonsense like "nanny state" and "Political correctness" as if that is an argument for anything. Call me strange but people are in the main stupid and selfish and need to be helped to make the right choices. The "I know my rights" type person jumps up and down at this point but generally they never, ever consider anyone else when insisting that their rights are being infringed - there is always a cost especially when the actions are anti-social. Smokers have rights apparently - rights that the non-smoking majority should simply accept - sorry, this is crazy.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

To quote Michael Stern, a food writer here in the States (Gourmet), " When cake is outlawed, only outlaws will have cake."

Jim Rains, New Milford, USA

"but even if they were as advertised they still would not trump the rights of consenting adults to do as they wish on private property"

From Smokefree.co.uk - "On July 1st 2007, England introduced a new law to make virtually all enclosed public places and workplaces in England smokefree"

Isn't the very point of this law that it doesn't trump the right of consenting adults to do as they wish on private property, while accepting that their right to do so in a public domain (where it is liable to impact upon others) is far more open to challenge?

Kristian Carter, Leeds, UK

If your politicians offend you, pluck them out!
Labour OUT!

Richard, Worcester, England

I think there's another dimension to this, and this is that the bansturbators also believe that what they are doing is right, not only because their instincts tell them it is right, but also because they are able to convince themselves that, instinctively, everyone else thinks it right, too. Even though there are refuseniks who have allowed logic and rationality, with all their flaws, to override their naturally perfect instincts. So it is possible to reduce the validity of decision-making to ones own instincts, in the unquestioned belief that these are infallible, and, moreover, that they are identical to the instincts of all other people.

To be scientific, this is all total cobblers of course, but how do you tell this to a society in which these ideas have become the orthodoxy?

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

"is it really necessary that old men should be stopped from singing folk songs to each other in a room above a pub?"

What if the pub were to have a party wall next to your bedroom?

JonB, Glasgow, UK

Oh but isn't it heaven to go into a smoke free pub for a drink and a meal? And don't tell me they had no smoking areas before because I never encountered a smoke free no smoking area in my life.
One man's food is another man's poison.

D Cage, Highworth, Wilts

Tim, can you offer us an additional word to go with the last, to describe those insufferable people who happily themselves unaffected by a particular ban persist in gloating at those who are?
I refer of course to those (almost exclusively "reformed" smokers) who not only ran a vocal countdown to July 1st, but now continue to make fatuous remarks every time I or one of my fellow pariahs leaves the assembled company for the unenclosed outdoor patio.
Could you also make it as offensive as possible please?
I've thought of a possible new parlour game - Banticipation - in which contestants are invited to guess what's going to be next.

Mike Medina, St. Albans, England

I have a business plan. I'll make a product that is incredibly addictive and market it widely - once someone has used it a couple of times they will have to keep on using it about once an hour to prevent unpleasant withdrawal symptoms kicking in. Once I have a customer base addicted, I'll be in clover because dimwits will argue that to impede my business would be to interfere with the personal choices of my customers.

Jamie Gilmour, Bolton, UK

Have the dangers of passive smoking really been overstated? Or is it just something smokers say or convince themselves of to salve their consciences?

Rhys, Aberystwyth,

A good piece, but what to do? However you look at it, a ban is simply a headline term for rules and regulations.

It is a result of the public sector being more than 41% of our GDP. Every state employee, in whatever form or level, thrives on 'bans'. Each new statute is used to justify more staff, more hierarchy, bigger wage and pension bills and so on.

The politicians who claim to be "in charge" never really have to cut their coats according to the cloth available or to allocate resources in a responsible manner. Robert Mugabe is their patron saint.

We need a simplified tax system that limits the public sector to, say, 10% of GDP. In that way the government gets their tithe, but are forced to think about how best to use it. Basturbation and trivia would have to suffer and the reality of choice would be evident. The banning brigade would be flagged as "not wanted on voyage" pretty quickly.

As a matter of interest, in what year did the public sector share of GDP pass the 10% mark?

Ray, Dartmouth,

How about a new word 'healthsay'?
Healthsay over-rides any alternative belief, fact or logic. Despite any scientific basis healthsay has the power to destroy community, economic endeavour, social interaction and truth.
Healthsay empowers a well funded minority to drive the vulnerable from established social venues, cafes, bingo halls and pubs. It denies comfort and contentment to society when alternatives are not only available but acceptable to the whole nation.
Healthsay has the power to build empires where ineffective and dangerous cures devour national resources to benefit the pharmaceuticals that fund them.
How long before healthsay announces that there is less smoke in places where people no longer smoke yet find no funding to investigate the condition of those whose lives have been turned upside down, those who are driven back into their homes and a life of isolation or those who seek cameraderie in unfinished sheds outside.
Healthsay kills life.

ChriB, Truro, UK

Mike Medina: Banticipation...that's an excellent parlour game, I agree. Well done indeed.

Tim Worstal, Messines,

What do you call them? BANNISTAS.

GRUNDLE, Bridgnorth, Salop

Might I be so modest to suggest the neologism "ASH-ism" for people whose idea of a good time is banning other people's?

Neil, Berkshire, UK

"What do you call it when people ban everything?"

It's called Government under New Labour.

Edwin Thornber, Bucharest, Romania

The nanny state is insidious, sinister, and New Labour. We speak of the Surveillance State, the Police State, the Totalitarian State, and while these terms are all a bit OTT, there is some truth in all of them as applied to the Britain of Blair's ten-year legacy. Who could have imagined that talking CCTV cameras would be largely accepted with hardly a murmur from the public? Who will guess that passivity passing as tolerance will also make us accept the nightmare of ID cards? I'm looking forward to the day when I will be able to contact a government website to see a list of slogans permitted on T-shirts. Of course, I'll need to enter my ID card number in order to be allowed access.

The latest case of bansturbation is from the CRE, demanding that an ancient Tintin book be banned. It'll be book-burning next.

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

Brilliant: pithy and funny, right to the point. None of this endless stream of do-goodery will beenfit anyone. Who will sweep it away for us though?

TIm, London,

You call it New Labour (New Puritans - lets ship 'em off to the USA so they can join their forefathers).

3000+ new criminal offences in 3000+ days of parliamentary sessions. Says it all. New Labour New Puritans.

Jeremy Poynton, Fromeville, 51st State