Whoever agrees with the philosophical idea of “Sin taxes” deserves whatever fascist world they end up creating. The idea that I owe someone because I decide to indulge in something unhealthy for me implies that other people own me.
They can also be popular with the electorate ("first they came for the smokers, and I didn't complain because I was not a smoker..") because people make moral judgments which is what you are complaining about, but that's not the reason economists favor them when it comes to advising politicians on tax policy.
To then whine that fighting back is 'facist' or to suggest that you're so smart you are magically not influenced by any of this is an embarassment. Companies are permitted to operate in society by the collective will of the people, not by divine right. And the people collectively see that a company is taking the piss, they can change the arrangement to improve it. Saying "company, your behaviour is hurting people's collective health, you need to pay some more taxes to cover it" is one way of doing that. If the company then passes the tax increase to you in the form of higer prices, instead of lower profits, that's up to them.
The very framing of it as "sin tax" as if it's a personal failing and not a deliberate corporate abuse of our biological desires and limits, is a kind of victim blaming that anyone "immune to advertising" oughtn't be falling for.
Get over it and stop following libertarian religious sects, their teachings are only going to make you feel miserable and turn you into the annoying libertarian everybody dreads to meet in a party.
If the state is paying for and controlling your access to healthcare, it seems obvious that restricting unhealthy food or behavior as preventative healthcare would go hand in hand.
Even a drug addict who practices unsafe sex and riding motorcycles to do mountain climbing and ski down the slope deserves Healthcare when something bad happens to them, exactly as much as the fitness yoga guru.
We do have those restrictions. Consider the UK's Bradford Sweet Poisoning of the 1858 when the standard of putting gypsum as cheap filler in sweets instead of more expensive sugar lead to an accident of using arsenic instead, and lead to regulations on danerous behaviour by chemists and on the adulterations of foodstuffs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1858_Bradford_sweets_poisoning
Trans fats have been regulated, e.g. in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat_regulation#Canada
The UK has a sugary drink tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax#United_Kingdo...
And of course there are regulations on insect contamination, mould and fungal contamination, on use by dates, on permitted/banned additives and preservatives, on quality of packaging material, on preparation and handling of eggs; the most egregious "unhealthy food" that causes serious sickness and death quickly has been restricted. What's left is a lot of "compounds over a lifetime of it" kinds of things.
And, of course, public smoking bans are an unhealthy behaviour restriction, so are drug bans.
None have different tax rates for staple foods than for packaged snacks or fast food? None have regulations about labeling of food for health claims or disclaimers?
Because all of those things are common throughout all the European countries I'm familiar with, but maybe your list didn't include any European countries