If the first point of your argument against this tax is that they say "soda isn't a food," well, you lose because it ISN'T. In what way could it possibly be considered one?

Maybe this gets to the heart of this whole issue: the distinction between need and want, necessity and luxury. Maybe what we've lost since the Depression (the "last Depression"?) is a mind set that separates those things and reminds us that, no, soda isn't a food, it's a treat. I love it, and some days I do drink several cans, but yes, I know it's bad for me and I know I'm better off when I do keep it in mind that it is a treat, not something to live on. Those chemicals are gonna catch up with us, and it's not just the sugar - or rather, corn syrup. In fact, sugar may be nothing compared to what those artificial sweeteners can do. Besides, I keep reading research that shows that nobody loses weight by switching to diet soda.

So anyway... Guess I'm in the middle. Like the other person, I have no trouble with the idea of taxing luxuries to raise revenue. Fine - but if they're going to do it, do ALL soda because there is reason to believe artificial sweeteners have their own problems. I don't really have a whole lot against using taxes to influence behavior, either, as long as it's well-established that it IS better, not just someone's opinion. After all, one of the reasons soda is so cheap (as well as many processed foods) is because of subsidies given to farmers for corn, which provides us with cheap corn syrup, so taxing what they produce at a higher rate would only even it out. Or maybe we should just get rid of the subsidies. I do think it goes to far when you ban something, but outside that, it's fair game.

So only that which is strictly functional can be called food? I like gravy with my Sunday roast. It's nutritional value is negligible, but it tastes good. By your logic, it can't be considered food either. And you could add dozens, if not hundreds of other food stuffs to such list. Just because something is not actively beneficial to us, doesn't mean it cannot be considered food.

Of course soda is food. I really resent when people try to redefine commonly accepted words in order to make a political point. It's very Orwellian. If you want to argue that soda is not a healthy food, I will support you 100 percent. But arguing that soda isn't food just insults me and makes you look foolish.

I don't think it's ME doing the redifining. I guess you're doing the Orwellian thing here. Here's the definition, don't know which on-line dictionary, just the first one that came up in the search:

1. Material, usually of plant or animal origin, that contains or consists of essential body nutrients, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals, and is ingested and assimilated by an organism to produce energy, stimulate growth, and maintain life.

2. A specified kind of nourishment: breakfast food; plant food.

3. Nourishment eaten in solid form: food and drink . 4. Something that nourishes or sustains in a way suggestive of physical nourishment Where is soda to be found in any of those definitions? As you can see, nutrition does usually seem to be an essential element - which would include gravy, as gravy is made from meat, flour, herbs and other foods - and definition four specifies SOLID form, which is part of what I was thinking of as well. In addition, I asked in what way it COULD be considered a food and neither of you had an answer to that.

My paragraph break didn't hold. Obviously it's back to me where I ask where is soda in the definition.

BTW, looked at Webster, which says this:

1 a: material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy ; also : such food together with supplementary substances (as minerals, vitamins, and condiments) b: inorganic substances absorbed by plants in gaseous form or in water solution2: nutriment in solid form3: something that nourishes, sustains, or supplies <food for thought>

Even under the loosest definition, 1a, soda doesn't work (it ONLY furnishes energy and carbs, none of the rest of it).

Random House:

1 - any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc.

From reading the multiple entries, I don't think the definition of food is dependent upon all aspects being true. As soda contains at least one essential nutrient (sugar/carbs), which is used for at least one vital process (energy storage), I would argue soda qualifies as a food under any of the definitions provided.

Which leads to your first point: necessity or luxury. Of course, soda by itself is not necessary, but then again, neither is bread. They both supply the body with essential nutrients, but can be substituted with another "food" containing the same nutrients. Considering we need a balanced diet, most "foods" taken individually are not necessary. No one needs a banana or a steak or milk, we need the nutrients in them and a combination of the foods to get all the different types of nutrients.

This could be important for two reasons, first because a tax such as this makes any and all foods susceptible to the same or worse laws. As long as a "better" alternative is available, any one food can be regulated at will. Secondly if science ends up creating a "new food" which includes all the nutrients and none of the potentially harmful chemicals, laws like these will give the government the ability to mandate citizens to ingest only the "new food", as it would be the best alternative of all.

I would argue that soda is as necessary as any other individual "food": taken by itself it won't keep you alive, but in the proper dose and in conjunction with other "foods", soda can be a viable source of energy without harm to the user. One among many alternative sources of energy available to the public, so that any of the individual substitutes becomes a luxury. Why tax sodas but not energy bars?

That gets to what I see to be the heart of the matter: the status of soda. Drinking it is still perceived as a bad habit, one mostly engaged by youthful/immature people and therefore an easy subject for legislation (kids can't vote and adults are taught to "know better", even the ones that like the stuff). The science does not justify this, as coffee would be a much better substitute for action, containing the same and many more chemicals including rodent carcinogens. Although I'm not sure, I would think more people drink coffee than do soda, so the health benefits would be greater in taxing the former. Furthermore, we should question why we apply a sin tax, while we could just as well mandate the elimination of caffeine from all sodas, theoretically leading to a reduction in use. Regardless, taxing soda and not other substances is simply arbitrary and justified only by "someone's opinion" and what's politically feasible. If the sugar in soda is the problem, why aren't we simply taxing sugar?

So too is the preference for a long and healthy life "someone's opinion". I'm fine with the government providing information and protection from others in order for individual's to extend their lives as long as the individual wants. Given that longer life leads to higher costs for society, I don't see providing it against the will of the individual as an obligation for government. To force people to abstain from making certain choices, only because it is better for their own health is an opinion, not at all a moral imperative.