Of course there is no incentive to hurt the poor, the debate is over what is the correct way of helping them.

Saving a few bucks on a big mac meal, in exchange for their health and crime, may not be the best way forward.

From a non-us perspective it's a bit odd that a CEO has to point out that violent crime is happening too much, that it's bad and that something should be done about it. That's the gov's job?

Is alcohol and marijuana prohibition "clamping down on little people"? I'd say yes.

Clearly there are shades of grey here that need to be worked out and there's no substitute for a first principles analysis of each case on its own merits.

If you are worried about the unintended consequences of prohibition, then there are many other avenues without that downside, such as taxing fast food and using that revenue to subsidize healthy food, or mandatory packaging labels, or public health education efforts.