Well I believe you have a poor opinion on gun ownership, and on personal freedom. How about instead of banning soda, soda companies are forced to use healthier methods and ingredients for their products? Or spend money to raise awareness about the health risks of soda consumption?
There is nothing wrong with restricting freedom and using regulation to control people from harming themselves to an extent, however when making such a drastic decision so against American values a leader must carefully deliberate all and the best courses of action. Here, Bloomberg did not.
Policy makers make such lazy decisions like this: Soda is attributed to obesity, obesity is bad, therefore by banning soda everyone will not be obese. Nothing about this policy seems thoroughly thought through.
You think forcing companies to use healthier ingredients isn't going to see similar backlash? Who the hell do you think is funding these stupid "beverage choice" ads, which are, hilariously enough, most prominently plastered on the side of soda delivery trucks? You want to see money dumped into raising awareness about health risks of soda consumptions? Sure. Simply type in NYC obesity ads and you too can witness the avalanche of anti-soda ads that's been plastered all over the city and has been for years. What is the response of you and every other person in this thread when other similar limp-wristed advocacy doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and stay quiet, continuing providing zero solutions and never to post about the subject again? No thanks.
No see, this right here is why this back and forth about some stupid perceived infringement on freedom and other slippery slope horseshit is so goddamn aggravating. The government/board of health aren't the ones making lazy decisions and not thinking the policy through, you lot are. Bloomberg, through all the goods and bads of his administration, has been moving towards an increasingly data-driven policy format; this is to no small extent driven by the proliferation of the technology startup world that's been growing in this city. I'm not some insider on the formulation of this particular policy but anyone with half a wit about them can interpret what the policy is trying to induce: a default bias of smaller servings and the introduction of friction into the buying process of larger portions of sodas. There's a fucking reason why the only options "banned" are certain sizes in certain venues; because they're trying to encourage soda drinkers, particularly kids and young adults, to default to a certain size of drink and put more effort into acquiring more soda at a certain sitting. No one, not the government, not the soda companies, gives a flying fuck about your stupid ass "freedom" to drink soda.
You think it won't work? What the hell do you think the idea of introducing purchase friction in the context of consumer psychology applied to everything from retail placement to rebate offers have been fucking doing all of these years? It's the same goddamn mentality that causes things right in front of your face to be purchased more often and rebates to generate high amounts of profit and revenue from consumers not cashing them in. If you want to yammer about your stupid exclamations of lost freedom, do feel free to continue. But kindly understand that both the governments and the soda companies are operating with clear understanding of exactly what I said above and quite frankly your stupid slippery slopes and "freedoms" mean little to nothing here other than the background noise that's being harnessed for tools for PR.