Over the past several months, this paper has printed a wealth of articles, comments and opinions regarding Measure Z, the Sugary Sweetened Beverages Tax (SSB). I’ve taken each of these opinions head-on, drawing from mountains of evidence and data in support of paying a few more pennies per ounce for sugary sweetened beverages.

You might ask yourself why Coca-Cola and Pepsi have spent nearly $1 million in our little city hoping you’ll vote against Measure Z. These big-sugar dollars have not only financed slick television ads but have also paid canvassers to go door to door hoping to sway your opinion. Let’s “Keep Santa Cruz Weird,” but let’s not be duped.

And the Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial Board seems to agree with big soda, commenting that if Measure Z is such a good tax and source of revenue, why is it not for the entire state?

That’s a reasonable question with a complicated answer. For the Legislature to vote in favor of a sugar tax, lawmakers would have to agree that sugary beverages have caused a public health epidemic, causing obesity, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disease, heart disease and tooth decay. Speaking out publicly against the harmful effect of sugary beverages would make it much harder for a politician to accept political donations from organizations such as the American Beverage Association. In the past, state Sen. Bill Monning attempted to garner support for a sugar tax, but even with his clout in Sacramento, Monning was never able to get this important issue out of the state “health” committee. How ironic.

Another commenter to the Sentinel opposed the tax, suggesting that instead of a tax, how about a warning label? Sure. Great idea. Except for the fact that sugary beverages cause actual harm. Can’t you just see a can with a label: “This product is known by the State of California to contain a lot of calories and zero nutritional value.” Or, “This product contains ingredients that cause obesity, diabetes(2), heart disease and tooth decay.” If big cola spent a million dollars just to oppose a penny sales tax, think of mega millions that would go into stopping a warning label!

Another point the opposition makes is that this tax hurts low-income families unfairly. It’s true that regressive taxes hit low-income people the hardest — so that people who make the least would pay a disproportionately higher portion of their income on a can of soda than their wealthier neighbors. But let’s get real. Lower-income families already struggle with access to health and dental care. And sadly, they will also be the ones facing a disproportionate rate of the life-threatening outcomes related to sugar consumption: diabetes(2), tooth decay, and obesity. Sugary sweetened beverages are the major source of non-nutritional calories associated with serious health outcomes. Yes, it’s very unfair and it does hurt low-income people, just not in the way opponents want you to believe.

Opponents say that the SSB tax hurts small businesses. The 7 U.S. cities that have adopted sugar tax legislation — from Berkeley to Philadelphia — report that small businesses haven’t noticed a negative economic impact. Despite the fears, consumers simply aren’t driving to another town to save a few cents on sodas. Think about the impact on small businesses when workers are constantly calling in sick, unable to work because of poor metabolic health or staying home with a young child suffering from an abscessed tooth. Studies show that when there isn’t sugary soda around, kids will drink water and milk.

Taxes aren’t always popular, but they can do some good. The truth is that when costs go up, consumption goes down. And in this case, reducing consumption of sugary beverages actually saves lives. And the much-needed revenue from Measure Z will not only support parks, city infrastructure and human services but it will lead to a healthier, more productive community.

Vote for the side that cares about your health. Santa Cruz can stay weird, just don’t be fooled by big sugar money

Carole Molloy worked at the County Office of Education for 20 years as the Early Care and Education Department Manager.