Should Taxes Be Raised on Sugary Beverages?

I understand the concern about obesity in this country and I also know people's obesity is the reason a lot of government revenue is spent to medicate, hospitalize, and rehabilitate people who have diseases caused or exacerbated by their obesity. But it's unrealistic to think that big government can tax people into making them eat right, exercise, and toe the line so as to lose weight or avoid weight gain in the first place.

If people are inclined to be obese, and if sugar is their drug of choice, they will still drink Koolaid, high fructose juices, and tablespoons full of sugar if they are craving sweets. Where does it end? Are we going to start taxing sugar in general? And if we do, how will that affect the consumer at the cash register? Aren't we in enough trouble already in this unstable economy?

For years the government has tried to legislate behavior by taxing products that are considered to be human vices. Cigarettes and alcohol are prime examples. What has it accomplished? Have people stopped smoking because of taxation or has there been a decrease in smoking because people have rethought the wisdom of smoking on the basis of health concerns? Have they stopped consuming alcohol? Do we have fewer alcoholics because the government has taxed those beverages at a higher percentage than sugary soft drinks?

Think of all the things we enjoy doing, some of which may not be the best thing we can do for ourselves or our families. We drink coffee and many times it isn't because we love the taste. Sometimes it's just because the caffeine gives us the added energy we need to get through the day. But some medical experts have said that caffeine in large amounts is detrimental to our health. Should the government add a high tax on coffee because of the evidence indicating that caffeine may not be good for us?

I am tired of big government interfering in so many aspects of our lives. For years now we have seen disclaimers and warnings on packaging, all of which raises the price of the products on which these disclaimers and warnings appear. But, in my opinion, the reason those warnings and disclaimers have been placed on packaging is not to protect the consumer, as they contend, but to protect the manufacturers of those products.

For example, tobacco companies don't want to be sued when someone who smokes heavily dies of heart disease or lung cancer so they add those warnings mandated by the government as a way of protecting themselves from litigation. As for the disclaimers we see, they do not protect the consumer either. Some of them are absurd because they tell us things that anyone with half a brain would know. But the manufacturers are not willing to take the chance that some person will consume something that is not for human consumption and sue them because the warning did not appear on the package.

In the final analysis, and again, just my opinion, trying to legislate behavior is an impossible task. As long as we are human beings who have freedom of choice, it won't matter what the government does to try to make us behave in a healthy way. We will always do things that are not necessarily in our best interest. It's just the nature of being human and having choices.