Working class under attack from health paternalism?

Well, it's an intriguing take on the matter: Working class are under attack from health paternalism | Patrick Basham and John Luik | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk: "Working-class culture is under assault by political elites seeking to denormalise a way of life."
I'm very sympathetic to the notion that the nation/state might be stigmatising a set of pleasurable behaviours on the basis that they are associated with a certain class. But I'm not entirely convinced that this particular kite will fly. The main 'evidence based' aspect of it, which should be the clincher is the unjustified and unsupported assertion that (unspecified) assaults on (unspecified) WC pleasures are often based on (unspecified) junk science. I'm left wondering what is being referred to; the only things I can think of that might constitute this "war" on WC pleasures are smoking and cardiovascular health matters (involving promoting exercise, less fat and salt consumption etc). These are not based on junk science.

So, it doesn't stack up. And there are other problems too.
First off: which working class are we being invited to consider here? I know working class households who would not really identify or be happy with the version which I think may be being defended in this article. I'm suspicious of the hegemonic normalising of a particular version of working class and I'm suspicious of the ideology at work in using class warfare motifs in defence of 'lifestyle choices' which are not, arguably, in the best interests of those taking them. In fact, follow the money: who will benefit from people continuing to smoke and eat badly ...

Secondly, doesn't the author recall that culture is a dynamic and evolving thing? The working classes' cultures now are different in various ways to those of, say, 30 years ago. Some of those differences are 'natural' responses to changes in material culture, some of it has been engineered or at least encouraged by advertising. We should remember too the insights of research and study that the 'dis-empowered' are still able to make their pleasures in resistance to and playing off dominant and hegemonic forces. They can and do make up their own minds; they can and do respond to what they perceive as being in their interests or otherwise. 'Denormalise a way of life'? Ways of life are constantly denormalising and renormalising. Why shouldn't the common good, the health of individuals and the insights of research and evidence be fed into the complex dynamical system which is a live (sub)culture?

Thirdly, do we not have a duty-of-care to encourage people to look after their own health? We, as a nation, already do this in terms of various citizenship initiatives at schools (and have done since I were a lad) not to mention all sorts of education campaigns such as (to choose ones that are now relatively well accepted) wearing seat belts in cars and helmets on motor cycles. Not to mention that if certain sections of a community routinely take risks with their health and then the consequences are treated and cost the rest of us money, then do 'we' not have a right and a duty to point out that this is the case and is not fair? Is it not a fair idea to try to save money, time and effort for the benefit of the common good?