In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev, launched an ill-fated anti-alcohol campaign in the then Soviet Union. The anti-alcohol campaign had some beneficial public health consequences: Crime fell and life expectancy rose. But the campaign was a political and economic disaster. Gorbachev forgot that the addiction of the state to alcohol revenue was even more incurable than the addiction of some citizens to alcohol itself. The budgetary losses created an economic crisis. Historians suspect that more than the loss of the Soviet Empire, it was this campaign that delegitimised Gorbachev. An old Soviet joke went like this: A disaffected and angry citizen, fed up of standing in lines for vodka, decided to go assassinate Gorbachev. He soon came back and ruefully reported that the lines to assassinate Gorbachev were even longer than the lines for Vodka. As the lockdown eased in India, and social distancing went for a toss at alcohol outlets, we were reminded of how difficult an issue alcohol is to rationally discuss in India. The stampede was caused by the ineptness with which the opening was handled in most cities. Alcohol has also migrated from being a question of personal freedom and choice to an issue in broader cultural wars, an odd site on which we measure progressivism in India. It is also a window on how liberalism has been misunderstood. Liberals should, rightly, be suspicious of prohibition on moral and practical grounds. Government grossly exceeds its legitimate power when it interferes with the rights of individuals to lead their lives as they please, and fashion their selves after their own ideals, interests and preferences. And certainly, moralism or puritanism on alcohol cannot be the basis of state policy. That moralism has no basis, and it violates the dignity and freedom of individuals.

[Excerpt from an Opinion by Bhanu Pratap Mehta, The Indian Express, May 7, 2020]

Which of the following statements weakens the argument that Moralism on Alcohol cannot be the basis of State Policy?

The correct answer is All of the above.

Step-by-Step Explanation:

1. Understanding the Core Argument:
The argument presented in the passage asserts that moralism or puritanism regarding alcohol consumption should not serve as the foundation of state policy because state intervention in personal choices violates individual dignity, rights, and freedom to live as one pleases.

2. Analyzing How to Weaken the Argument:
To weaken this argument, a statement must show that absolute individual freedom regarding alcohol (or similar personal choices) cannot be maintained without state oversight or societal boundaries, particularly when such freedom leads to significant social harm, severe consequences, or degradation of social order.

3. Evaluating the Given Options:

• First Option: "The State should not interfere with people‘s right to drink; but there will be a backlash if drinking takes forms that inflict great social harms."
  This directly counters the argument by demonstrating that state non-interference reaches a boundary when individual drinking inflicts severe social harms, thereby justifying state policy interventions.
• Second Option: "Freedom should not be divorced from Moderation."
  This weakens the premise of unconstrained personal freedom by emphasizing that freedom requires limits/moderation, implying that state or social policy guiding moderation can be legitimate.
• Third Option: "The State should not interfere in matters of sexuality or intimacy. But norms of freedom will impose serious costs and will not survive if the expressions of sexuality are consistently degrading or violent..."
  This provides an analogous principle showing that absolute non-interference in personal matters fails when it causes degradation or severe harm, supporting the need for ethical/moral state frameworks under extreme circumstances.

Conclusion:
Since all three options present valid counter-points or underlying principles that weaken the claim of absolute non-interference based on personal freedom, option All of the above. is the correct choice.