Sin taxes should cover caffeine, sugar

With all the editorials I am reading about the November election, candidates and their fiscal problems, inadequate solutions, huge budget deficits, incompetent management, etc. I've elected to do something a little different.

Instead of criticism, I'd like to propose a solution that could benefit all and harm virtually no one. I've proposed this solution since 2006 to reps all the way up to the president himself. As you might expect I've received no feedback other than the business-as-usual, "thanks for your interest" rare reply.

So here I go again. We seem to be quite reliant on "sin taxes" for sources of revenue. Gambling, alcohol, and tobacco (nicotine), each an addictive substance or process, provide the state coffers with I don't know how much money. While I realize that this strategy is somewhat controversial, I also realize that it is here, and here to stay. So, OK, since we're doing that with the two addictive drugs, alcohol and nicotine, why, are the other two highly addictive drugs getting away with murder, or least with being virtually untaxed?

The drugs I am talking about are caffeine and refined sugar. Why can't we put a nickel or dime or a quarter tax on each unit of those highly addictive, definitely not healthy, drugs? Each cup of coffee, cola, tea, etc., would end up to be quite a bundle for the state, which could then balance the budget, hopefully pay back all the retirement funds, and finance the health care payment legs, fix the roads, and even have some left over for the usual graft and corruption.

We consumers wouldn't mind paying that way, as opposed to some new property tax hike or spin-doctored referendum. I mean, if you're paying $5 for a cup of Starbucks coffee, are you going to complain about $5.05?

Frank G. Salvatini Coordinator, addictions counselor training program

College of DuPage

Glen Ellyn