Given the "successes" of various prohibitions and wars on drugs all around the world, I don't think this is going to work, at least not with major unintended consequences (hello sugar-smuggling gangs with machetes!). People are really good at trafficking banned substances.

Treating addiction as a disease would probably be less violent and less likely to produce major human rights violations.

There is a middle road of simply taxing highly processed foodstuff more without banning it outright, but that also creates perverse incentives for governments which now have a source of income that they don't want to jeopardize.

Regulating food works relatively well in Europe, despite all its flaws. Like making sure that what we are sold as "food" is actually, you know, food and not something that tastes and smells like food.

I am an European too, and while I agree that overall quality of food in Europe is fairly good, we have been hit by the obesity pandemics pretty hard - which indicates that whatever we do is not a solution.

> Addiction needs a drug. Drug needs dealers.

> Thankfully, dealing drugs is forbidden.

This is an example of equivocation: Insofar as there is a definition of "drug" for which "Thankfully, dealing drugs is forbidden" is (well, minus the subjective judgement "thankfully") categorically true, it is not one for which either "Addiction needs a drug" or "Drug needs dealers" is also categorically true.