In this dispatch from foodnavigator-usa.com, the soda industry is reported to complain that New York City's effort to bar food stamps' use for sugary beverages is discriminatory.

To which I say, "Of course it is! But what's your point?"

Discrimination is not, by itself, wrong. Illegal discrimination is. Immoral discrimination is. But gourmands and oenophiles are said to have discriminating palates, for example, and it's usually said admiringly.

So the question really ought to be, is this form of discrimination a good idea? The American Beverage Association's flak says, “It’s another attempt for government to tell people what they can and can’t drink. Singling out one specific item is discriminatory and unfair. Participants in the SNAP program can decide what they want to buy for themselves and their families.”

At least twice, we've already confronted this question regarding food stamps, which of course is now known as the SNAP program, which is an acronym for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Sales of alcohol and tobacco using this assistance are already barred. No doubt, those industries cried discrimination during those debates, too, but — rightfully, in my judgement — we decided collectively that we weren't going to help people buy them.

Note that we didn't say they couldn't have those things, which is an erroneous contention in the ABA's position. Actually, we said only that we weren't going to help them — or anyone — buy them. (Of course, any time you help someone to meet critical expenses, you free up whatever money they do have for other purchases, but let's leave that aside. I support nutrition assistance, even if that's one of the outcomes. Unquestionably.)

Now the question is sugary beverages, and the answer, curiously, is a slam dunk, even though many people would consider soda less noxious than alcohol or tobacco. The program is for "nutrition assistance" and there is no nutrition in soda! Maybe if we decide one day to offer "refreshment assistance" ... maybe. But there no moral justification links soda and nutrition.

Anyone outside the soda/junk food/fast food industrial complex want to disagree?