As I have said before, the appropriate way to deal with activities the government wants to discourage ids to TAX it, not outlaw it. Just like we do with cigarettes. Specifically we can tax large containers of soda versus small ones (just like Bloomberg only planned on banning large containers).
There was no reason whatsoever to ban it. It was, as the judge said, capricious. It did not actually prevent you fro drinking more soda, it just made it less convenient. Or, as my friends say "a dick move'.
It was done without regard to reason, without regard to freedom, and without regard to others.
At heart, his 'inconvenience' technique is a poor attempt at mind control. I am not against attempts at mind control, but I am against POOR attempts at mind control. If the government wants to brainwash me, they have to put forth some effort!
Taxes are a much better method of behavior modification than portion control.
- The reason the stores like to sell the big portions rather than small is the minimum transaction cost (you pay the same rent and server salary whether they sell 10 ounces or 30 ounces, but you can charge more for 30 ounces). So they just switch to "2 for 1" and sell two 16 ounce cups - maybe even glued together), negating your ban with no gain whatsoever. Taxes however lower sales.
- Even if the taxes fail to lower sales, it gives the government money, which it desperately needs.
- Bans anger people more than taxes. We live with taxes, they make us mutter, not sue.
- Taxes can easily be set to auto adjust for inflation. Ban's don't adjust for anything.
Why didn't Bloomberg tax it away? Mainly because he is wealthy and therefore did not consider a tax as effective. He knows how to get around it, and can easily afford the tax. Also, the GOP is anti-tax, and while Bloomberg is not a Republican, he is affected by partisan politics.
The judge made the right decision to overthrow Bloomberg's capricious law. Maybe now Bloomberg will get off his dictatorial butt and realize he should just tax large Soda containers as opposed to banning them..