First, choose a label: libertarian seems suitable for this purpose. Just the right hint of danger with enough definitional uncertainty to be useful. Then add a couple of qualifiers: purist and ideology are always good to create that atmosphere of unease, especially when combined with something like 'hideous'.

Then accuse your opponent of missing the point. Surely, the restriction proposed is not unreasonable and might help to 'prod' people in the 'right direction'. So begins the long slow slide away from liberty. Small step by small, not apparently unreasonable step.

All to solve a problem that in the main applies to a small perecntage of the population. We in the West live longer and healthier than ever before. Obesity of itself is not a large problem. It only becomes so when you add 'overweight' to reach the unquantifiable 'overweight and obese'. So what we have here is a solution in search of a problem, solvable by just one more ever so small restriction on my right to make a decision.

"Regulating portion size, not taxing or banning product, might be the key to the fight against obesity."

The excess calories theory has been disproven. Participants on a low-carb calorie unrestricted diet lost more weight than their calorie restricted counterparts:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=297&issue=9&page=969

Bloomberg is barking up the wrong tree. Sugar consumption isn't behind the obesity epidemic.

"Many studies have found that sucrose is less fattening than starch or glucose, that is, that more calories can be consumed without gaining weight....In another experiment, rats were fed either sucrose or Coca-Cola and Purina chow, and were allowed to eat as much as they wanted (Bukowiecki, et al, 1983). They consumed 50% more calories without gaining extra weight, relative to the standard diet. Ruzzin, et al. (2005) observed rats given a 10.5% or 35% sucrose solution, or water, and observed that the sucrose increased their energy consumption by about 15% without increasing weight gain.
http://carbsanitydiscussion.blogspot.com.au/#nabble-td4947792

The starches and the seed oils (the most recent addition to the western diet) are behind the obesity epidemic:

"If starch or glucose is eaten at the same time as polyunsaturated fats, which inhibit its oxidation, it will produce more fat. Many animal experiments show this, even when they are intending to show the dangers of fructose and sucrose.

For example (Thresher, et al., 2000), rats were fed diets with 68% carbohydrate, 12% fat (corn oil), and 20% protein. In one group the carbohydrate was starch (cornstarch and maltodextrin, with a glucose equivalence of 10%), and in other groups it was either 68% sucrose, or 34% fructose and 34% glucose, or 34% fructose and 34% starch. (An interesting oddity, fasting triglycerides were highest in the fructose+starch group.)The weight of their fat pads was greatest in the fructose+starch group, and least in the sucrose group. The starch group's fat was intermediate in weight between those of the sucrose and the fructose+glucose groups."

http://carbsanitydiscussion.blogspot.com.au/#nabble-td4947792

"Many people are claiming that fructose consumption has increased greatly in the last 30 or 40 years, and that this is responsible for the epidemic of obesity and diabetes. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, the 2007 calorie consumption as flour and cereal products increased 3% from 1970, while added sugar calories decreased 1%. Calories from meats, eggs, and nuts decreased 4%, from dairy foods decreased 3%, and calories from added fats increased 7%. The percentage of calories from fruits and vegetables stayed the same. The average person consumed 603 calories per day more in 2007 than in 1970. If changes in the national diet are responsible for the increase of obesity, diabetes, and the diseases associated with them, then it would seem that the increased consumption of fat and starch is responsible, and that would be consistent with the known effects of starches and polyunsaturated fats. "

http://carbsanitydiscussion.blogspot.com.au/#nabble-td4947792

Senior Victorian - all that sophistry, be it yours or mine, doesn't change the fact that you're raging against a decision to ban softdrinks that as I mentioned are as large as your head.

Not ban softdrinks altogether. So you can still choose.

And you can complain about restrictions on choice all you wish, but members of any functioning society have to accept that some choices will be curtailed.

New York voted for Bloomberg. This was the decision that was made. If they don't like it, they can vote him out.

That's just how it works. Deal with it.