‘ It’s no great claim that the widespread obesity in this country, and its related complications, are all either directly or indirectly related to the characteristically unhealthy eating habits among Americans. And with all of these medical expenses increasing the health care burden that much more ‘- for the sake of sugary soft drinks ‘- the United States government is considering implementing a cola tax to discourage the over-consumption of these troublemaking beverages.
What some may call just another ‘sin tax’ to be filed among the ranks of cigarette taxes, others view as a pragmatic way to curb this country’s obvious overindulgence in high-sugar, high-risk foods. By law, the government is able to employ such taxes if there are significantly negative health and economical undercurrents attached to certain products, which in this case are Pepsi and Coke. Ideally, the tax, the income from which could go to benefit President Barack Obama’s new health care plan, could reduce the intake of harmful products, refocus America’s cravings to healthier options and prevent both illnesses and their ensuing medical costs incrementally.
But where should personal responsibility end and government influence begin? While the regulation of things like cigarettes is understandable, because cigarettes are proven to be carcinogenic and do little but harm smokers and nonsmokers alike, something like the proposed sugar drink tax may end up simply demonizing some harmless-if-used-in-moderation food items and causing unnecessary taboo out of niceties that were once not even thought twice about. And putting the financial burden on the people by increasing the prices of these items likely won’t stop the people who drink it habitually from buying it, and will only add a little more strain to the average American shopping cart.
A more reasonable alternative may be to inflict this tax, or some comparable measure, upon the manufacturers of such unhealthy foods and drinks. This would urge them to refine their products, perhaps to use more natural ingredients and less sugar, and would leave choice in the hands of Americans. The government ‘- despite its criteria of when it’s suitable to establish taxes due to health consequences ‘- shouldn’t be allowed to institute ‘sin taxes’ when the definition of ‘sin’ is subjective and indefinable.
Further, this proposed tax would simply be a band-aid for the larger problem of runaway corporations taking advantage of American consumers by vending products composed of questionable ingredients and not advertising the health effects caused by them. If the government would focus more on harnessing these corporations and less on telling its citizens how to eat, it would be acting more like a government and less like a pushy mother.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
