Nope. But I don’t know enough about either issue to really comment.

Generally, my feeling is that if there is some scientifically provable (repeatable, real science; not sciencism) reason that something is harmful to human health then I can see space for regulation.

To me that’s one of the core roles of government, set clear rules of the game for a society based on provable reality.

Banning because something might be a bad idea or because you disagree with someone else’s judgement of what’s valuable or not isn’t ok.