Isn't that the desired outcome? Ideally it seems like coke and pepsi would be extremely expensive and a rare treat. Meanwhile the non-sugary beverages would be the ones most people drink.
Not for me, and the way you've framed this is creepy. I don't have diabetes and I very much do not desire to have some of my favorite drinks eliminated by a nanny state trying to solve someone else's self-inflicted health issues. The top-down, metric-based, technocratic ideology doesn't even take my freedom of choice or personal stake in the matter as input.
We can't drive on the wrong side of the street. We can't sell tainted food. We can't lie in order to drum up sales.
Society has restrictions on freedom.
The sugary drinks tax follows on from a highly successful salt reduction programme.
https://publichealthengland.exposure.co/salt-reduction-progr...
Desired by the lawmakers who passed the tax. And for the benefit of the larger group. A public health crisis is taking place - and if the sugar tax lowers the amount of resources spent on treating the widespread occurrence of diabetes, it will be a net benefit for society.
Yes, at the cost of your personal freedom to have readily available sugary drinks.