From The New York Times:
You can read the rest at the link.Originally Posted by NY Times
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I think the "controversy" about this was overblown; I think it says a lot about our society and its entitlement that people were acting like it was a huge attack on their freedoms not to be able to buy sugary drinks over 16 ounces. (And I say this as a massive soda junkie myself, albeit one who prefers diet.) On the other hand, the judge is right that it was a pretty useless way to "tackle the causes of obesity" or whatever other intended public health effects, with the numerous loopholes thrown in like allowing refills and multiple drinks and such.
So I don't think it was particularly effective at what Bloomberg intended by it. It will be interesting to see how this affects him, considering this was one of his BIG pet projects of his current term.
(ETA: And I'm particularly skeptical of the "beverages with a high milk content would be exempt" part. That would seem to exclude milkshakes/malts as well as a lot of those really sugary, high-calorie coffee drinks, like Frappuccinos. Most of which are far, far worse for you than your average sugary soda.)