Contention One: Civil Liberty
It is commonly affirmed that men have civil liberty to do the following rights; the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. There are no governmental incentives, directly or indirectly, to violate these rights unless the following is a conditional; (1) civil liberty on the long term destroys human existence, which has already been addressed through the first contracts, (2) civil liberty of some minority on the oppression of the majority, and (3) civil liberty that an individual uses to harm the individual liberties of others. Note that the conditionals for a “just” violation are all human related, and not related to choice. Liberty is a human concept, and abstract, but when exemplified in the manner of free countries, has always been held dear
If the opposition beliefs that one man’s body is a government’s property, that man does not posses the liberty to will what he wills, that the government should directly or indirectly control this, then the opposition has introduced to us a “slave ideology” that he needs to follow. The master-slave dialectical process starts now, and ends only when the slave exemplifies his master as a normative model of a free and just man. However, the problem with the introduction of the master-slave dialectical process into a government is that there are often two divides that prevent this from coming through; the first being the clearest, the differential types of people, and the second being the most ambiguous, that some people are in their place as either slave or master inherently due to hereditary. The Dalits of Northern India are an example of slave via hereditary, not nature; the hereditary succession of absolute dictatorships are examples of master via hereditary, not nature. The government cannot impose such master-slave dialectics onto a whole country, for that would make some de facto masters into de jure slaves. Since men cannot know whether slavery or mastery is their account, then the freedom of liberty to consume whatever is always present.
Contention Two: Threat of "Black-Market" Goods
As was tried and failed in the Danish State, these schemes, commonly called "Fat Tax" addressed the question, but yet was repealed. This was due to the fact that this would lead to a necessary "brain-drain" of merchants selling Soda and Soft Drinks. For example, the Danish "Fat-Tax" program was met with furious opposition from all those wo fit the condition of making "fat-filled" products.  This contention will be reached later. Firstly, in the cost-analysis benefits of such "taxes" there should always be the health-economic counterpart. Imagine the "War on Soda" This is a real possibility if this tax gets emplaced. For there to be a war over some material, there has to be one condition reached only; that is, high demand. 50% of the American public drink some type of Soda everyday.  Of course, there are dangers in drinking, but what the people drink, as proven in the Civil Liberty argument, is no governmental issue.
Contention Three: Potential Economic Decline
The Soda Tax will create a potential economic decline; it has been said that the Soda Industry makes 200 billion US$ yearly. Let us put that in context with the world; thats 50 Nimitz Nuclear-Class Aircraft Carriers. This is due to the huge demand of soda in the world; if the United States were to implement a tax on Soda based products, then that would neccessarily lead not only to the compromising of the Civil Liberties that the Constitution held dear, but to the loss and huge/rapid decline of the 200 billion US$ industry. This would also cause rapid unemployment, as shown in the Denmark case  and would also create a possible loss of employment for 4.5% of the employed who work directly in the soft drink industry. These losses, combined with the huge importance of the Soda industry in the American public, will inevitably lead to HUGE and UNCONTROLLABLE economic consequences.