> This ranges from heroin addicts somehow always finding the daily $$$ to fund their dose, to people mildly grumbling about the price of cigarettes yet buying t

> This ranges from heroin addicts somehow always finding the daily $$$ to fund their dose, to people mildly grumbling about the price of cigarettes yet buying them anyway. You should disavow yourself of this notion. Taxation on cigarettes is highly effective at reducing the rate of tobacco consumption [1]. Increasing prices of heroin is less so, because heroin is extremely addictive and therefore price inelastic. This is a very thoroughly studied area in economics, typically referred to as a Pigouvian or "sin" tax [2]. Sugar is not going to be anywhere near as price inelastic as heroin so it is likely that there will be a strong decrease in sugar consumption if such a tax was introduced. The issue at hand is whether this is _fair_. Sugar consumption is only a problem if there is misuse, not if it is consumed per se. This is fundamentally different to tobacco consumption (every ciggy you smoke is bad for you + others + healthcare system). [1]: https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13-5-impact-of-price-increases-on-tobacco-consumpt https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax