I hear you about the ER.

But I think the issue revolves, in this case, around what sorts of things constitute paternal laws (or nanny state regulation) and what sorts of things need to be regulated for the general good.

We have all sorts of laws that restrict marketing. Labeling laws are a good example. We should be allowed to know what we eat.

Well: I guess I see the food zoning issue this way: we regulate booze and cigarettes because they are harmful if misused. We didn't BAN them. WE didn't remove choice: we require that they be regulated.

ANd there are other things that we do ban, outright. Some, because they are poisons.

Some edible things, like fast food, are merely harmful if misused: we want to regulate them.

Some edible things, like colored foods and chemically heavy foods, and foods that are mostly high fructose corn syrup, are downright poisonous: I have suggested we ban them.