I know where you are coming from, but to intelligent folks, I think the comparison is in poor taste. No pun intented.
Hypothetically speaking, anything is possible, of course. So you may have a point about the food police. But I don't see the comparisons between illicit drugs and fatty foods/heart disease, at least not the way you're looking at it. There is a small group of people, who are trying to overplay their hand and win a big payout in the courts. In their defense, the approach these people are taking, is about dishonest advertsing tactics. Lying about the content of fat in fast foods, could ring true to a jury. At least on the surface, these possible court cases have more validity, then the law suits brought against cigarette manufacturers did.
I understand the Constitution and the national drug control policy of the US. The national drug control policy isn't unconstitutional.
Exactly how is it constitutional? The Constitution certainly gives the federal government control over the importation of drugs (under Article I, Sec. 8), but I hardly see how that applies to things like the Controlled Substances Act. If federal drug policy is allowed to stand, there is no end to what powers they can take away from the states. In my opinion, that is more detrimental to society than drugs.
The above article points to the Netherlands as an example of the problems of rampant drug use and the conclusions of the author are probably correct, but such problems should be addressed at the state level. Are you comfortable with what the federal government has already done with tobacco? Where do we draw the line in regards to government expansion?