Personally I'm all for youth today not having the staying power you describe. Binge drinking is a scourge that needs to be eradicated. The harm it does to health, the deaths and tragedy involved, certainly don't make it worthwhile.
As for your belief the ALP are responsible for the nanny state, lest we forget Howards move with the mining boom money into bringing about the middle class welfare state that has destroyed the tax base. Explain to me why anyone deserves a "benefit" from the Govt if they can pay the rent, put food on the table, buy clothes at K-mart. It's the Government pandering to the pretence that someone else can help or is to blame that is letting down this country.
Aren't you actually describing simple vote buying here? All governments do it. Most recent example is the Gillard government automatically paying into people's accounts the Schoolkids' Bonus. This is money that was always available but families had to apply for it. Many of them couldn't be bothered apparently. So, presumably in order to hold on to Labor votes, the government felt obliged to make it an automatic payment, telling the recipients it was to help them with educating their children. Of course, they could go and spend it all on fast food for all the government cares.
I see the Nanny State more as removing individual decision making from people via enacting more and more laws about what we all may or may not do. You refer to binge drinking which I agree is unhealthy. (I also think, however, it's usually a pretty brief rite of passage for some teenagers, few of whom persist with such stupid behaviour.)
So - thinking perhaps of the lovely extra tax revenue - the government slapped a large penalty on those premixed drinks known as alcopops, apparently concluding that they were solely responsible for binge drinking.
No one knows why they came to this conclusion, or whether perhaps it was just the obvious thing to say to explain the tax.
Anyway, the kids aren't to be deterred. They just bought bottles of spirits and mixed their own, in most cases ending up consuming more alcohol than if they'd drunk the premixed stuff. Net effect on binge drinking = nil.
Then I heard on the news a couple of days ago that someone was prosecuted for being in possession of a few fireworks. Apparently it is now illegal to have your own crackers. Instead, local governments spend crazy amounts of money on big spectacular displays where the population is obliged to travel often long distances to view this wonder.
When I was a kid we always had fireworks on the appropriate occasions and were taught how to handle them responsibly by our parents.
Bicycle helmets: another rule of the Nanny State. Perhaps makes some sense for a cyclist on a main highway, but to insist those recreational riders quietly tootling along a dedicated bike path is paternalistic and unnecessary.
Plenty more examples, all of which are designed to reduce the impetus for individuals taking responsibility for themselves and, as you say, any negative consequences.
gg's latest post has just reminded me of another measure by the Nanny State, one which leaves me just incredulous, i.e. that it will soon become an offence to offend someone. **** unbelievable!