If your chief response is "the ban didn't involve Big Gulps," you've utterly failed to understand the point of the protest against a nanny state that believes it has the right to tell you how much of a legal food you can purchase.

If you need to fall back on the "a judge struck it down" defense after that, you miss the point that it was only struck down on procedural grounds (was done by fiat, was not done equally as a result) and that the point remains that there are people who think this is good policy.