Governments should seek that overall population would be deciding their choices based on scientific studies and articles.
People are free to do as they please, right? However, we also see what happens with freedoms, because most people want to do what they enjoy, not what is good for themselves or others. So, is it survival of the fittest (fit being those who can take care of themselves) and screw everyone who fails, or is it stop most people from failing to the detriment of those who can look after themselves?
A thought choice, indeed. But I don't like that obligations are imposed by governments. Off course that, for example, the obligation of the use of the car seat-belt is important not only for the person that uses it, but also for the security of all the other involved when in car crash scenario. This last week, I passed some time with my daughter-in-law, and I saw her parents deciding and explaining to her "some rules". When you explain the youngster ones that, for example, having a soda at lunch or dinner is not good for your wealth, in detriment of only saying "no", is far more educative for the child. Explanation is always better then prohibition by it self.
I "understand" that the Australian government want to protect those who aren't "able" of deciding by themselves what is the best for them. A very controversy topic, indeed...