Much like the gag reflex of uber thin runway models, the tax reflex of government is enough to make you sick. After a study revealed British Columbians' penchant for junk food and the associated health problems with obesity, our fair government is flirting with the idea of taxing junk food. Why Well, it's for your own good dear taxpayer.

Here's the concept: you want to buy a chocolate bar for a snack, the government is going to collect a tax from the sale, in addition to the sales tax, then use your money to tell you why you shouldn't eat chocolate bars!

The assumption that there isn't a social, economic or dietary problem that a tax can't solve is not only expensive but its just plain bad public policy. The logic goes like this: obesity, the result of junk food consumption, costs the health care system money therefore taxing junk food will change consumption behaviours and advertising campaigns will steer consumers down the path to healthy eating. Make sense Perhaps, if there wasn't ample evidence that shows taxes do little to curb consumption patterns.

Gas taxes have done nothing to change driving habits despite the fact gas taxes have increased 500% since 1985. In fact, more people are driving more often now than in 1985. Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes have done nothing to change consumption of those "sin" goods. Smoking certainly has decreased but not because of taxes. Social attitudes have changed towards smoking as the associated health risks became better known.

But, even if government logic bore fruit and taxing junk food got people to eat healthier, there is the larger problem that such a policy is an affront to individual choice, freedom and yes, responsibility. Whatever the rate of tax levied on junk food, it will not be the equivalent to the associated health care costs of poor diet and obesity. The tax will end up being another grab from consumers with no net benefit except to swell government coffers.

Rather than inflicting another tax that will never go away, a better proposal would be to make health care premiums reflect lifestyle choices. Similar to life insurance, riskier lifestyles would have higher premiums and those that choose a healthier path would see lower rates. This approach allows individuals to retain their ability to make lifestyle choices and also ensures they are aware and responsible for the financial and health consequences of those choices.

Taxing junk food would just make it more expensive, it would do little if anything to change behaviour while at the same time entrench the notion that "government knows best."

There is a bit of irony in the government's approach to lifestyle choices, on the one hand it provides public funding for junkies to shoot up while at the same time is flirting with the idea of a 40 per cent tax on junk food (the figure mentioned by the minister responsible for healthy eating). Guess, you have to be on the right junk for the government to condone your behaviour.