I thought GP was being ridiculous and hyperbolic when I first read their comment yesterday, but on second thought it's more technically correct than not. Regulating what substances people can use to affect their own bodies is totalitarian, as it presupposes state/societal ownership of individuals' bodies. Mass surveillance plus parallel construction most certainly constitutes secret supervision. And any attempt to reform the system is met with a strong lobby from police and prison guards, who have long ago succumbed to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy. It's not the stereotypical power-trickles-down-from-a-small-cabal-to-control-society, but rather the analog in the framework of inverted totalitarianism.

Of course there are different degrees, and throwing out these characterizations in a thread about even more totalitarian societies would be inappropriate whataboutism. But as domestic societal critique they do have some truth.