“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”  —John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Nearly every day at lunch I have two sandwiches (I’m starting to cut out carbs now and have a salad), a piece of fruit, perhaps a cut-up tomato or baby carrots, and a diet soda. That, I think, is a pretty healthy lunch, especially as my sandwiches contain either peanut butter, tuna, hummus, or sometimes just a ripe tomato with mayonnaise.

I usually buy the diet soda at the grocery store, and there are always sales so that I can get a two-liter bottle for about a dollar. (I favor A&W diet root beer, Diet Squirt, a grapefruit soda, or Diet Cherry 7-Up.)

Last week the price of my lunch went up, as Cook County, which includes Chicago, passed an execrable tax on all “sweetened drinks”, and it’s a big tax: a penny per ounce. That increases the price of a can of soda by 12¢, and my two liter bottles by 64¢: a 64% increase!

Most sweetened drinks are taxed, including sodas in restaurants, sweetened fruit drinks (like Sunny D), and, as the Tribune reported “ready-to-drink sweetened coffee drinks. . . [but not on-demand, custom-sweetened beverages, such as those mixed by a server or barista, or a handmade Frappuccino]”, and probably bar drinks made with soda (like the Cuba Libre: rum and Coke). Regular fruit juices and concentrates aren’t taxed. Why a Frappuccino would not be taxed but a rum and Coke would defies reason.

The ostensible rationale for this was to cut down on public consumption of sugar, and to reduce obesity. I object to this in general because it’s a paternalistic attempt of government to control the diet of its citizens. If they want to do this, why not put some taxes on candy bars, potato chips, fast food like McDonald’s, and triple the tax on cigarettes (it’s already among the highest in the U.S., for a pack of smokes costs $12-$14 in Chicago)? The soda tax, which constitutes a palpable financial harm to many, violates Mill’s dictum above.

Now you’ll be saying that “obesity imposes costs on the public, for obese people get more government health care than slimmer people, and die earlier, contributing less to society.” I find that an unconscionable paternalism, because if you follow it logically, you’d tax everything that contributes substantially to obesity, including, in the U.S., fast food at places like McDonald’s and Taco Bell—massive contributors to our weight problem.

So you might then respond, “But soda is a major contributor to obesity, too!” But if you say that, you’re going to have to do a study of the major contributors to American obesity, and then tax the culprits proportionately.

And here the important thing is this: there is virtually no evidence that diet sodas contribute to obesity, or other health problems. Yes, people have thought of reasons they could (make you seek sugar in other foods by giving you a sweet tooth, etc.), but the evidence for this is very thin, and certainly not sufficient to include diet sodas with the taxed sugary sodas. To confect such rationales means that you’re just a Pecksniff, worried that people might enjoy a diet soda, and eager to keep them from doing so without much evidence. In fact, taxing sugary sodas but not diet ones would improve people’s health by getting them to switch to the diet stuff, which by all accounts is healthier.

Here’s my solution: since one of the biggest contributors to obesity is the consumption of carbohydrates, of which sugar is one, we need a tax on bread–a CARB TAX. That could also include pasta as well, and beer (but not so much wine). I’m only kidding, of course.

The whole thing is ridiculous, for the rationale for the tax doesn’t jibe with its implementation. But, as all of us citizens of Cook County realize, this is not really why the tax is being enacted. Our county is in a severe financial crisis, as is much of Illinois, and this tax is a way to get lots of dough: as much as $561 million per year.  The county can pass such a tax because it has the excuse of controlling health, whereas a simple increase in income tax doesn’t have that excuse.

I think the government’s responsibility is to make consumers aware of health risks, but it’s on slippery ground when it tries to control people’s diets (I’m dubious, too, of cigarette and alcohol taxes). Someone’s diet should be their choice, not the government’s, and, at any rate, where does it end? I’m less concerned about things like seat belt laws because many who wear them are too young to make an informed decision, and they’re not as harmful to the pocketbook of the individual.

Here are some calories in the UNTAXED Starbuck’s barista drinks; each is for a 16 ounce serving. By comparison, a 16 ounce regular Coke has about 180 calories:

• Caramel Brulée Frappuccino – 300 calories
• Caramel Brulée Frappuccino Light – 180 calories
• Caramel Frappuccino Blended Beverage – 410 calories
• Caramel Frappuccino Light Blended Beverage – 140 calories
• Cinnamon Dolce Crème Frappuccino Blended Beverage – 350 calories
• Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino Blended Beverage – 350 calories
• Chocolate Smoothie – 300 calories
• Orange Mango Smoothie – 270 calories
• Strawberry Smoothie – 300 calories
• Peppermint Mocha – 330 calories
• Peppermint White Chocolate Mocha – 440 calories
• Pumpkin Spice Latte – 310 calories
• Salted Caramel Mocha – 330 calories
• Iced Peppermint Mocha – 260 calories
• Iced Peppermint White Chocolate Mocha – 380 calories
• Caramel Macchiato – 240 calories
• Cinnamon Dolce Latte – 260 calories
• Eggnog Latte – 460 calories
• Hot Chocolate – 290 calories
• Peppermint Hot Chocolate – 360 calories
• Salted Caramel Hot Chocolate – 360 calories
• White Hot Chocolate – 420 calories

Given that a soda tax is quite clearly a preferential tax on the poor, does the remission for Starbuck’s reflect a concern for the rich?

Welcome to the Nanny State!