Proponents say that the precedent for taxing lifestyle choices which are detrimental to health is already firmly established, with state governments having regulatory control over alcohol sales, and heavy taxation already in place on tobacco products.  Popularly known as sin-taxes, these taxes and controls usually fund state and federal programs.

But detractors believe that increasing taxes on beer, liquor, and wine crosses a line, and that the entire concept of sin-taxing sodas supports their argument.  They claim that rather than being simply a way to supplement funding for public programs, such taxes are a way for the government to mandate the lifestyle choices of citizens in an unfair way.  Furthermore, they say, such taxes would not fund the targeted programs, because they would cripple the industries producing the products on which taxes would be raised.

Wine producers have also argued that the well-documented health benefits of wine undermine the logic behind taxing detrimental products to fund health care.