Do you have the right to eat what you want?

To most people, even posing such a question would seem ridiculous, as we take such freedoms for granted. Yet the idea that there should be free choice in foods is under relentless assault by neo-Prohibitionist busybodies who believe that the government should prohibit food deemed unhealthy:

The forces of neo-Prohibitionism are afoot everywhere, seeking to minimize not just our choices when it comes to food and drink, but our very pleasure. In San Francisco, health officials have cracked down on high-end bars that make their own bitters. In New York, raw eggs have been banned from use in cocktails such as sloe gin fizzes. When will it ever stop?

I find myself wondering whether government-enforced dietary restrictions constitute "morality" and whether such moral considerations matter enough to form the basis of laws. We seem to take it for granted that prohibition of substances such as alcohol and drugs is grounded in morality, but why? Isn't the primary underlying argument that these substances are bad for the health, and thus the immorality lies in self-harm? The idea is that if you are so immoral as to harm yourself, society has the right to send you to prison for it. In the name of "morality."

Frankly, I see very little difference between the immorality of one form of self harm as opposed to another. An alcoholic or a drug addict may shave more years off his life more quickly than a food addict, but eating the wrong foods for too long can also have devastating, often fatal, health consequences.

What about moral tradition? Are not people who overeat called "gluttons"? Is not gluttony one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

Church leaders from the Middle Ages (e.g., St. Gregory the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas) took a more expansive view of gluttony, arguing that it also consists in an anticipation of meals, the eating of delicacies, and costly foods, seeking after sauces and seasonings, and eating too eagerly.

Naturally, libertarians can be expected to resolutely oppose the policing of food. So can most conservatives -- especially those who call themselves small government conservatives.

What I've never been able to understand, though, is how using the power of the state to punish self-harm constitutes conservatism. I have yet to see a conservative explanation as to why imprisoning people for taking unapproved drugs is a legitimate exercise of the state function, but not prohibiting unhealthy foods. If the former jibes with conservative theory, then why not the latter? And if according to conservative theory, the government has the legal right (and a moral duty) to prohibit drugs and foods (and other high risk activities), then why should it not also not have the same moral and legal right to manage health care?

It all flows from the idea that the government is there to prevent individual self harm.