Fat Tax or Pop Fee; What's the Difference?

I got up this morning and turned on the T.V. Normally I don't but I thought I would check school closings. Well The Daily Buzz was on and they were doing a piece on San Francisco mayor Newsom's plan to assess a fee on soda (or pop as we call it here). The justification was that soft drinks are a major contributor to obesity and therefore the retailers should be penalized for selling it by paying a fee (and NOT a tax although the distinction escapes me). The idea of a "fat tax" has been kicked around for years. The liberal left plans to control your decisions by making what they deem unhealthy more expensive as punishment to manufacturers, retailers, and you the consumer. (The tree hugging enviroweenies use the same concept with things they deem harmful to the earth.)

Newsome says he plans to make soda makers give back. Newsom considers city fee for sellers of sugary soda has this to say about where the money will go.

In San Francisco, Newsom said a recent Health Department survey found that 24 percent of fifth-, seventh- and ninth-graders were overweight and that high-sugar drinks accounted for 10 percent of the kids' caloric intake.

All in all, he said obesity accounts for tens of millions of dollars of the city's health costs.

Now Newsom wants the soda sellers - primarily big-box retailers and chain drugstores - to chip in for his "Shape Up San Francisco" program and for media campaigns to discourage the soda habit.

So the city want to shape up and offset the cost of tens of millions of dollars by taxing soda pop. Is there a line somewhere that the nanny staters will not cross to interfere with an individual's freedom to choose? I may not have met a can of Coca-cola I didn't like but charging extra for it because it's unhealthy? Too much.