AMA Is A-OK with Taxing Soda

The let's-tax-soda-and-anything-else-that's-quote-unquote-bad-for-you movement just got a boost from the American Medical Association. Without fully endorsing taxes on sodas, the nation’s largest physicians group voted to adopt a policy that is open to taxing soda and other sugary drinks to pay for anti-obesity programs.

“While there is no silver bullet that will alone reverse the meteoric rise of obesity, there are many things we can do to fight this epidemic and improve the health of our nation,” AMA board member Dr. Alexander Ding said in a statement. “Improved consumer education on the adverse health effects of excessive consumption of beverages containing added sweeteners should be a key part of any multifaceted campaign to combat obesity.”

West Virginia and Arkansas already tax sodas (and nevertheless have plenty of obese people), and cities including Philadelphia and Richmond, California have considered doing so.

Is it just me or is it really cynical to use soda taxes to fund obesity education programs? Does it make sense to make education dependent on people doing the thing you're trying you're trying to teach them not to do?

"And if history is any guide," says the blog at ConsumerFreedom.com, "earmarking any future drink tax revenues won’t guarantee that the intended programs are funded or expanded. According to the Government Accountability Office, only two percent of the tobacco settlement revenues went to fund smoking cessation programs. State education lotteries also haven’t been the promised boon to public schools: In many cases existing school money was shifted back to the general fund and replaced with lottery profits."