The title posted here distorts the meaning of the second sentence of original paragraph, which says, "Higher prices are bad. Being told what to do is worse." As the article points out, being taxed is _not_ same as being forbidden.

Also, there seem to be _two_ agendas for the tax: 1)raising tax money and 2) discouraging consumption of "empty calories." I can't tell from the story whether legislators have prioritized between the two.

If it's the first... then bottled water (who virtue/worth is a whole other discussion) could be taxed as well.

If it's the second... then aspartame (or plain water) ought to be favored over sugar/corn_syrup by the tax. And that is rather like taxing cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, etc.: essentially taxing risky (or costly-to-public-welfare) behavior.