Higher taxes have discouraged public consumption of whiskey and tobacco. Will it do the same for sugar? — Photo by Levi Brown/Trunk Archive

In the current issue of the AARP Bulletin there’s an opinion column entitled, “Tax Attack.” It supports a special on sugar and products using loads of sugar. While it’s Bloomburg-like in approach, it does make sense from an Adam Smith perspective.

“Take a moment to consider this health care prescription from Adam Smith: ‘Sugar, rum and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, [but] which are … objects of almost universal consumption and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation.’ In the two centuries since, policy-makers have followed his advice — with one glaring exception: sugar. George Washington imposed and then enforced a whiskey tax in 1791. Taxes on tobacco followed.

“Beyond new revenue, the taxes on liquor and tobacco have discouraged public consumption — both by raising the price and by financing educational efforts warning against excessive public consumption of these “unnecessaries.”

“Now it’s sugar’s turn. Look at the expanding national waistline and it’s clear that it’s well past time for a tax on the source of most of the sugar we consume — soft drinks and candy. One-third of American adults and nearly a fifth of children are obese, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Consider the consequences of the obesity epidemic — diabetes, heart disease and a host of other maladies — and the health care cost explosion they spark. By one count, the annual health care cost of obesity in America is $190 billion, with more than half of that paid by Medicare and Medicaid.

“There are, of course, other factors behind the obesity trend … . ” To continue reading this opinion, click here to be directed to the AARP Bulletin.