Doctorocracy

A doctorocracy would work like this:

1. Some thing is studied, and it is decided that it is injurious to our health or well-being.
2. The thing is banned, or taxed heavily.
   
3. A new thing is identified, and we return to step 1.

The BMA often provide us with illustrative worked examples, such as wanting to tax unhealthy food, or making wearing a helmet on a bike compulsory.

I can understand doctors wanting us to be educated about issues affecting our health (although they might worry about the stress this might cause us, if we spend too much time worrying about unhealthiness), but I don't know how if they care too much about the result of using their professional voice to call for things to be banned or made compulsory. Such things can only be achieved with the implicit threat of force from the state, which will be certainly be injurious to a freedom loving individual, whether physically, or from the stress of being up against the state's inexhaustible potential to make sure people comply.