Voters in San Francisco and Berkeley will decide this month whether to place a new tax on sugary non-alcoholic beverages. Supporters, including lots of pubic health groups, say the beverages are major contributors to the epidemic of obesity in this country, especially for children. Opponents — mostly the beverage industry — argue the proposals unfairly single out beverages and would raise prices for consumers. In a nutshell, that’s the issue.

In San Francisco, where the tax levy would be two cents an ounce, the money would go to nutrition and fitness programs in the schools. In Berkeley, revenues from the proposed one-cent per ounce tax would go for similar public services. these are commendable purposes, to be sure. If these measures should pass, there likely will be increased calls for similar measures in other cities and states, which is something the beverage industry fears and has already spent more than $100 million to defeat soda-tax proposals in other locations over the last five years, according to the Wall Street Journal.

So the stakes are big here. And potentially, so are the results. Obesity is by any measure a significant health problem for Americans, and hardly just the young. Consumption of sugary beverages, while falling in recent years, remains alarmingly high. And public health officials have no doubts about connecting the dots between obesity and sugary beverage consumption.

The American Beverage Association contends that consumers are already taxed to the limit, and there is some agreement with that. They warn that in San Francisco the tax would mean a 40-cent increase to a 20-ounce can of soda. They also argue that their industry is being singled out in this issue, a claim that is considerably more dubious (the Germans argued that they weren’t the only ones killing Jews, the Soviets were, too, so why not get them?). And let’s also recall that this is the same argument put forth by the cigarette industry some years before warnings finally on packs.

As for raising prices for consumers because of the tax, well, beverage producers will want to do that to maintain their profits, which are already astoundingly good (Coca-Cola says it may miss its profit targets for shareholders this year; heavens, could mean a salary reduction for the CEO? Believe me, Coke isn’t going out of business during my or your lifetime. But a price increase will diminish consumption — San Francisco officials suggest this could happen by some 30-per cent. So the results of these votes will be significant.

We’ll see how voters feel about this, though voters in liberal-minded Berkeley and San Francisco may not accurately the sentiment in many other places in the country. Me? I don’t drink those sugar-filled beverages, but I’m concerned for those who do so in large amounts. Of course, many of them would tell me that it’s their health not mine, so butt out. Again, the same thing we heard about cigarettes. And the response then — and now — remains the same: the results of smoking and of drinking sugar beverages constitutes a major public health problem and resulting expense. That does affect me and give me a legitimate voice in this discussion. We’ll see …..