Under the contentious proposed tax on soft drinks, a can of soda might cost more than that… Under the contentious proposed tax on soft drinks, a can of soda might cost more than that crumpled dollar bill in your pocket.

The tax, which has yet to make its way through Congress, on sugary soft drinks won’t be limited to soda pop, however. Energy drinks, sports beverages, juices and iced-tea will be taxed, as well, according to The New York Times. Diet sodas are exempt from the tax despite their potentially harmful artificial sweeteners.

As Americans, we’re somewhat accustomed to governmental regulation of what goes into our bodies. Cigarettes and alcohol are far from healthy — we’ve known that for decades. To dissuade our intake of such products, the government has affixed sin taxes — special taxes levied on products viewed as objectionable — to these goods. Sugar-laced beverages might not carry the carcinogenic toxins of a smoldering cigarette, but they’re still a prime culprit responsible for America’s expanding waistline and a contributor to our millions of cases of heart disease.

Some — particularly, the soda pop industry — view this new tax as unnecessary and question its real effectiveness. The causes behind obesity are complex and diverse.

The tax sure isn’t a magic fix for swelling obesity rates. But who said it was supposed to be? The tax probably won’t be enough to deter the steadfast soda lover. Yet it might be enough to persuade an addict to cut down by a can or two a day.

Neither is the beverage tax a savior for the health care industry’s ailing revenue. But at a time when the future of health care in this nation stands at a pivotal crossroads, one thing’s for sure: Our health care system is going to need all the money it can get.

The projected rate stands at approximately one cent per fluid ounce of the beverage. A 12-can case with 12-ounce cans sells for around $3.20. The tax would add $1.44. The tax could raise $14.9 billion in its first year.

So would the new fee deter soda pop lovers? A research study on the price elasticity of soft drinks showed that for every 10 percent rise in the price, consumption decreases between 8 to 10 percent.

Given the contention this tax continues to face on the national level, it might be better for states to decide the matter independently. If nothing else, the tax might have a better chance of instatement on a state level. Some are bound to find it favorable. We wonder, though, why this tax is to be levied on sugary beverages alone? There is a smorgasbord of unhealthy foods weighing down Americans. Convenience store snacks like candy bars and cookies sure aren’t helping America’s waistline, yet one can still pay for these products with a pocketful of loose change.

Also, if this tax really aims for salubrious results, why not target those beverages rich with caffeine? The health pros and cons of coffee are a topic of debate in and of themselves. But reaching for a cola over a cup of coffee means an energy boost plus a hefty dose of sugar and calories.