Explain to me why this is discriminatory

[siggy_freud]

I would argue that curbing consumption is simply window dressing for the real goal here, which is to extract the maximum amount of money from products and services that are considered vices at the time.

NYS has had a carbonated beverage refund law since 1982, which was touted as a great way to keep bottles and cans out of landfills. It has expanded the law to include non-carbonated bottles, like spring water. I'm all in favor or keeping recyclables out of landfills, but it is important to acknowledge that there is a lot of money involved in the unclaimed deposits as well as businesses that recycle returned containers.

I don't really see it as a means to extract more money. I think they're finding that the costs of providing healthcare for people making bad diet choices is adding up. Soda is cheap, so it's an appealing buy to those in lower income brackets. Many in the same brackets are more likely to use the healthcare system, which costs money. If they can reduce the amount of consumption, it should help save money on the other end of providing care.

I don't think it's discriminatory, but I can understand that someone in a lower income bracket sees their choice of food/drink getting smaller and less-available, even if that's a healthier move to make. I don't think a can of soda and bottle of water should cost the same, so I support doing what it takes to make soda a less-appealing alternative to water from a budgetary perspective.

We should do what we can really to make all healthy foods either cheaper, or their alternatives more expensive. It's not cheap to eat healthy. It's remarkably cheap and easy to eat poorly these days.