A sin tax on soda? As an on-again off-again Coke addict who could stand to lose a few pounds, I support the idea of campaigning against junk food. Like most junk food, soda is mostly consumed because it's cheap and easily accessible. Soda consumption amounts to mountains of empty calories, and since diet sodas taste like poison, what are students to drink when tap water seems insufficient?

The tax isn’t big enough to change drinking habits, [California State Senator Deborah V. Ortiz] says, but the proceeds would fund school and public health programs to mitigate the consequences of soft-drink consumption. Recent studies show that sodas account for "huge infusions of sugar" and are replacing milk and other nutritious beverages in children’s diets, she adds. The tax money would be used partly to replace funds that schools would lose by dropping contracts with soda companies to sell pop on campus.

Whether or not a sin tax is the way to go, this seems to be an appropriate way to fund a campaign against soda sponsorship in public schools. If it isn't the government's place to say what's good for people, then why are public schools allowed to accept soda distribution contracts, often exclusive, to install vending machines on campus? Given the choice between a $1 bottle of sugary caffeinated soda available from vending machines every 50 feet and a $2 bottle of juice from the back of the cafeteria, what will most junior high students choose? (And don't tell me soda machines in schools meets a "market demand" just because kids like them and they aren't required to drink soda.) To this end, we could just ban this kind of sponsorship in public schools altogether-- no vending machines, and especially no exclusivity agreements-- but it sounds like schools can't afford not to sign those kinds of contracts.