Putting aside a debate over regressive taxes, the problem with your comparison is that you assume the market for sugary drinks functions the same way the market for cigarettes does when, in fact, studies have not found the same type of substitution dynamic[1].
In other words, "support soda taxes because cigarette taxes!" is not an argument based on any hard data. If you're going to argue for the use of taxation to force behavior, as a starting point you should have real evidence that the specific tax in question has a high likelihood of producing the specific behavior you're trying to change. Relying on some other tax that may have influenced another behavior is simply specious.
Also, if your view is "before you can do an experiment you must have hard data to prove the experiment will work" then it sounds like you aren't getting many experiments done.
Data already exists, and you can model against it. Apparently you didn't read the study I linked to:
> The study, published online in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, found that a half-cent per ounce increase in sugar-sweetened beverage prices, which adds up to about ten cents on a typical 20-ounce bottle of soda, could reduce total calories from the 23 foods and beverages examined under the study.
> However, researchers found, the reduction in sugary beverages due to a soda tax would likely lead consumers to substitute for those beverage calories by increasing their calorie, salt and fat intake from untaxed foods and beverages.
> “Instituting a sugary beverage tax may be an appealing public policy option to curb obesity, but it’s not as easy to use taxes to curb obesity as it is with smoking,” said Chen Zhen, Ph.D., a research economist at RTI, and the paper’s lead author. “Consumers can simply substitute an untaxed high calorie food for a taxed one. And as we know, reducing calories is just one of many ways to promoting healthy eating and reducing nutrition-related chronic disease.”
Other studies[1] have come to similar conclusions, and note that much of the research predicting significant reductions in obesity are flawed because they failed to look at substitution.
If you are genuinely interested in implementing a tax ("experiment") that actually has a chance of producing the intended outcome irrespective of cost, the first study suggested that instead of taxing based on ounces, a tax based on calories would address some of the fundamental flaws in ounce-based taxes like those proposed in Prop E.
The study you linked to didn't even mention the word "sugar", so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. I'm not going to read an entire apparently unrelated study because some anonymous dude says it's relevant to an argument I'm not even making.
The news article you link to is about two attempts at this in the 1990s, looks broadly, covers places with a very different food culture than San Francisco, and treats obesity as the only relevant health issue from sugar. So I would call it interesting, but not necessarily relevant.
Moreover, you seem to ignore that this is a process. If the soda tax doesn't work, then people will try other things. But this is the thing on the ballot, and the question isn't, "Is this the best possible thing to do?" It's, "Shall we try this next?"
> The study, published online in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, found that a half-cent per ounce increase in sugar-sweetened beverage prices, which adds up to about ten cents on a typical 20-ounce bottle of soda, could reduce total calories from the 23 foods and beverages examined under the study.
> However, researchers found, the reduction in sugary beverages due to a soda tax would likely lead consumers to substitute for those beverage calories by increasing their calorie, salt and fat intake from untaxed foods and beverages.
> “Instituting a sugary beverage tax may be an appealing public policy option to curb obesity, but it’s not as easy to use taxes to curb obesity as it is with smoking,” said Chen Zhen, Ph.D., a research economist at RTI, and the paper’s lead author. “Consumers can simply substitute an untaxed high calorie food for a taxed one. And as we know, reducing calories is just one of many ways to promoting healthy eating and reducing nutrition-related chronic disease.”
Because I presume that's what you were referencing when you said, "Apparently you didn't read the study I linked to."
That study is titled "How Effective are Taxes in Reducing Tobacco Consumption?" and continues not to mention the word sugar. Probably because it is about tobacco.
I might be wrong, but I'm responding to you because I think you're genuinely confused and not trolling.
You pointed to the efficacy of cigarette taxes in clear support of the Prop E tax ("Cigarette taxes are regressive and definitely represent progress. They were a big help in reducing smoking, and in turn reducing smoking-related health problems.").
I linked to multiple studies which found there was a strong likelihood consumers would simply substitute the taxed sugary beverages with untaxed foods that are just as unhealthy, calling into question the efficacy of such a tax.
I included a link to a study about cigarette taxes in support of my argument that "the problem with your comparison is that you assume the market for sugary drinks functions the same way the market for cigarettes does when, in fact, studies have not found the same type of substitution dynamic."
To make this simple for you:
1. Studies on sugary beverage taxes find strong substitution effects.
2. Studies on cigarette taxes do not find strong substitution effects.
Given this, your suggestion that taxes on sugary beverages are likely to have a similar level of efficacy to taxes on cigarettes is not congruent with the evidence. Instead of needing to explain this to you, you could have just read what I posted before responding to it. If you did that, you probably would have noticed what the lead researcher for one of the studies stated:
> “Instituting a sugary beverage tax may be an appealing public policy option to curb obesity, but it’s not as easy to use taxes to curb obesity as it is with smoking."
Hi! Thanks for the detailed reply. I see where things got confused.
> You pointed to the efficacy of cigarette taxes in clear support of the Prop E tax
No, I didn't.
You wrote "So a tax that is regressive represents 'progress'?"
I replied to that by giving an example of a regressive tax that represents progress. That's all. Your comment struck me as annoyingly glib, constructing a false contradiction through word games. Since cigarette taxes have been so successful, I thought it was a good counterexample to the false contradiction. Everything else you write is about what you read into my statement, not what I said.
But to address your point:
I agree that a sugary beverage tax in San Francisco could lead to substitution and no net health gain. But A) the circumstances are different enough (and the original sample size is small enough) that I'm happy to try it out to see what happens, and B) if it doesn't work like the proponents hope, I think that's fine because humans often have to try the obvious thing before they will try the less obvious thing.
In other words, "support soda taxes because cigarette taxes!" is not an argument based on any hard data. If you're going to argue for the use of taxation to force behavior, as a starting point you should have real evidence that the specific tax in question has a high likelihood of producing the specific behavior you're trying to change. Relying on some other tax that may have influenced another behavior is simply specious.
[1] http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consum...