Not this again
It must have been a slow news day in the Old North State, since the Raleigh News and Observer had Molly Hennessey-Fiske come up with Obesity: A matter of personal choice or public policy?

In North Carolina, the land of Krispy Kremes and barbecue, no "fat tax" legislation is pending, but lawmakers and health advocates note that obesity-related costs are rising. About $2.38 billion of the state's medical costs go to treat people who are obese and overweight. That is about 6 percent of the state total, just above the national average.

"If you look at the most problematic health-care issues we have -- cancer, heart disease, stroke -- those can be linked back to obesity and smoking," Sauer said. "Somebody's got to pay for it."

Note that the causation is on the vague side. And I have news for Ms. Sauer, unless there is some breakthrough I haven't heard about, we're all going to die eventually. If government is going to pay medical costs, they're going to pay for something eventually. All this stuff is just a tax dodge from the nanny staters with an added boost from trial lawyers who missed out on the tobacco settlement and are hoping for similar largesse.

And there's another fly in the ointment:

Further complicating obesity education and fat-tax proposals is the fact that America's weight is not equally distributed.

Studies show a clear link between income and weight gain. Obesity is far more prevalent among low-income Medicaid recipients than the general public, the 1998 CDC study showed.

There is also a connection between race and weight-related diseases. North Carolina has seen higher rates of Type 2 diabetes among African-Americans, particularly children, according to a study published last winter in the Journal of the American Medical Association. State health statistics show African-Americans are three times as likely to die of complications from diabetes as their white neighbors.
...
Banzhaf, the law professor, said such taxes wouldn't disproportionately hurt poor or minority consumers because the levies would discriminate only when it comes to ingredients.

"It's a tax, but it's one they can avoid," he said.

Sorry Professor, but it sounds like discrimination to me. You know - taxing those "least able to afford it" and victims of past discrimination. Hey, I know, let's have a tax credit for them!

Finally, in the obligatory opposing sidebar, Richard Wagner of the John Locke Foundation offers the expected opposing arguments and then mentions one I had been wondering about:

Contradicting long-held scientific thought, recent evidence uncovered by numerous respected researchers indicates that diets rich in fats and low in carbohydrates, such as the Atkins Diet, are healthy and perhaps preferred. So, fat taxes would be, in effect, the worst prescription that policy-makers could write.

Don't worry Richard, after the fat tax, they'll be promoting a carbs tax next.