I completely agree. The government has absolutely no business regulating the amount of caffeine I drink. I don't however, see any problem with requiring companies to print what they put in their products and abide by those standards. In fact, the PF&D and Clean Meat Acts were embraced by the industry as a way to prove they were putting out decent product, so that people wouldn't be confused by shysters that were adulterating milk, medicine and meat products and then lying to consumers. Here's an article on how industry saw regulation as a way to restore competitiveness (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646146/pdf/amjph00277-0020.pdf
) That's beside the point, however.
The point I was trying to make, and I think you'll agree, is that Prohibition has nothing to do with public safety. Every instance of prohibition of alcohol or narcotics was a result of reactionary social pressures, and were explicitly sold as a way to maintain or restore a moral society. It shouldn't be any surprise that prohibition movements happen when they do. In the 1830s you have the Temperance movements start up in response to industrialization. The saloon culture was a by-product of changing family norms thanks to the rise of the factory system, not a collapse into lawlessness (See Shopkeeper's Millennium
by Paul Johnson).
Thus you have the imposition of draconian standards on alcohol consumption, something that was a part of daily life prior to the 1830s in an explicit attempt to control part of society. Ditto that during official prohibition in the 1910s and 20s, again a response to sweeping social changes brought on in the post war period. It's no surprise that it's this same period that sees systematic crack-downs on gay culture in New York (see Gay New York
by Chauncy.) Ditto in the 1950s when narcotic use was explicitly tied to communism, along with any form of deviant sexual behavior. Ditto in the 1970s when the war on drugs was launched as part of a reaction to the waning counter-culture of the 60s. In every case, the prohibitionists were responding to shifts in society in the most moronic way possible, limiting consumption of something that was at best a side-affect what they were attempting to fix. In every case its about restoring some form of mythic moral reality to society rather than protect individuals' health. As you pointed out in the video, these people, like creationists are only interested in science insofar as they can cherry pick it to support their case.
Talking about this issue purely from a regulatory stand-point strips it of its context. This is about stupid fundamentalists (though not always in the religious sense). People attempting to deny consenting adults their rights, because they're too moronic to see that drugs and alcohol have nothing to do with the social changes they're seeing around them.