(I put this as general as I am focusing on the non-political side of this)

There was a thread recently made about a new sugar tax being made in certain counties of Illinois. At first, people think this will help people become a bit healthier, but will it truly do much?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/first-us-sugar-tax-sees-soft-drink-sales-fall-by-almost-10-study-shows This isn't the first case of a US county adding a sugar tax. In California, we saw Berkeley soda consumption decrease by 10%. However, how much of an impact did it truly make, and how will it compare with a region that has lower incomes? 

I visit Chicago often, and it's obvious that in here (and the rest of the US), soda isn't the only problem. There's also fast food, candy, ice cream, chips, and so on. We shouldn't forget how dangerous drinks are from places like Starbucks. A mocha can have 50+ grams of sugar- ONE mocha. If people are willing to accept the soda tax, will they be fine with all junk food being taxed? 

The United States has a huge health issue, and slapping on a higher price for soda won't do much. A burger and fries can easily reach 1000+ calories from a place like McDonalds. Let's be honest, many people in America eat two burgers due to unhealthy habits, kicking up the calories up to almost 2000+. As said before, mochas contain ridiculous amounts of sugar in popular coffee shops. Is a soda seriously as dangerous as everything I previously mentioned?

Michelle Obama tried reforming school lunches, exercise was pushed in many ways, and it seems like not much has changed. I think it's hypocritical for the county to place a sugar tax when processed foods and the 'health' food industry are far more dangerous.

When all is said and done, there may be decreased sales in that county, but chances are they'll get their soda elsewhere. Can't get progress if you don't do it correctly

It's not a "sugar tax", it's a sugary soft beverage tax. If it had included all goods with added sugar (and it was a national or even statewide tax) it would probably have a bigger effect.

However do people expect one single policy to change everything? Just because a tax or a policy doesn't completely solve a problem doesn't mean it can't help.

I just use the term sugar tax; I'm sure people will realize it focuses specifically on soft drinks.

Also, I never said it won't change anything. However, I believe they should've expanded the tax if they want to make a bigger impact. People consume sugar in so many ways besides soda. I'd be willing to bet that a tax on drinks from places such as Starbucks would create more significant results.

Frankly I'm surprised they're still finding things that they haven't taxed in Illinois.

Starbucks beverages are included in the tax lol...

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/hearing-thursday-on-restraining-order-to-stop-cook-county-soda-tax/

"That penny-an-ounce tax, approved in November, covers carbonated soft drinks, whether sweetened with sugar or a substitute such as aspartame. It also covers sports drinks and energy drinks. Fruit drinks will be taxed, too — but 100 percent fruit juice drinks are exempt."

Would a starbucks coffee be considered an energy drink?

Tell me about it. They'll probably be adding taxes just to breathe

I just googled Starbucks + illinois beverage tax, which provided results saying some Starbucks bevs wouuld be affected but apparently Starbucks sells some energy drinks so it might just be that. But I do know that in some of the other places that have approved a beverage tax, it will include stuff like sugary coffe drinks (such as in Seattle).

Guess we'll wait and see. I know the taxes on cigars has resulted in smoking decreasing. I wonder if people will drink less sugary drinks.

How anyone drinks stuff from Starbucks is beyond me. 50+ grams of sugar and loads of caffeine is flat-out disgusting

It'd be interesting to see if it does have an effect, positive or negative, based on official sources a couple of months from now or so.

At the moment, I think it's hard to tell. I'm all for it. Same with other sugary things. If you're gonna increase taxes on something, at least make sure it's a luxury (or is it commodity? not sure). Also, something that is harmful or that can be replaced by something else.