You're response is somewhat off base. I do appreciate the effort. Obviously those of us who live in a modern society have acquiesced to its conveniences. Conveniences which we frankly take for granted. Some we have a choice in, some not. That has little to do with my point. More to my point is that when government, for whatever reason steps in and limits or takes away choices we do have then a level of freedom is lost. When it is done under the guise of "for your own good" the message is that government has decided the people are not capable of making the choice that said government want them to make. Good or bad isn't my point. The point is government is deciding for you. The result is less personal choice not more. Today it might be pop. What might it be tomorrow? If we need to be told what is good for us and what isn't then perhaps we are more suited to serve than be free to choose.
I take your point. I also about the need for citizens of any Democracy to be both engaged in and alert to the potential impact of decisions being made by their government. IMO not enough people do this. However I also think its pretty easy to 'risk assess' proposed change to legislation as well. A proposed change in soda serves is a low risk no brainer health issue. Proposed changes to internet oversight/access regulations for example would be another matter entirely, far more worthy of scrutiny and where warranted criticism. As I noted previously if soda serving sizes is the only aspect of Bloomberg's policy platform that someone can find to criticize then they are literally clutching at straws.
I assume that means you oppose Bloomy the nanny state poster boy who would authoritatively ban acting in an unhealthy manner...