I don’t get to Santa Cruz too often.

The last time I did though, I dropped by El Jardin on Capitola Road.

Yes, it is part of the same restaurant “chain” — actually a series of family owned ventures — as the one in downtown Turlock.

There are also El Jardin locations in Manteca, Columbia, Elk Grove, Modesto, Sonora, and Oakdale with roughly the same menu but each with distinctive dining atmospheres.

If you’re a fan of El Jardin, it’s a good excuse for a short or long road trip combined with browsing nearby stores.

But this isn’t about Mexican cuisine.

It’s about “punishment taxes” that some prefer you call “behavioral taxes.”

Santa Cruz recently enacted a city voter approved 2 cents per ounce tax on non-alcoholic beverages such as soda, coffees, slushy drinks, sports drinks, and sweetened teas.

In order to get slapped with the tax, they must have one or more caloric sweeteners that have 40 or more calories per 12 ounces.

I seriously doubt the tax would make me think twice about stopping by the El Jardin in Santa Cruz the next time I’m down that way.

The reason is my choice of “poison” — which by definition is anything the government, self-anointed behavioral police, or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. don’t want people to drink — these days is Diet Pepsi.

If the Secretary of Health & Human Services by some bizarre chance reads this, I know all of the dire warnings about consuming diet drinks.

Just so the record is clear, however, I have never done heroin.

Maybe some time we can debate the bigger health sin of the day over Skittles colored with vegetable dyes.

Kennedy, of course, is no fan of what sugary drinks can do when not consumed in moderation.

The general health implications such as obesity and diabetes aren’t exactly debatable.

But given there are 340 million or so Americans and the fact everything we eat and drink done in excess or in disregard of how our body unfavorably may react to it can be a poison.

Kennedy wants to prevent those getting SNAP benefits, the softer sounding version of the words “food stamps,” from using them to buy soda and junk food.

That’s basically no different than what the majority of the residents of Santa Cruz want to see, which is people not buying and consuming soda.

The big difference is Kennedy’s argument.

People who need assistance with food are allowed to buy soda and junk food with their benefits. Data shows the SNAP spending habits at the supermarket or the 7-Eleven fuels a lifestyle that has a higher rate of diabetes and obesity than the general population.

Such SNAP recipients are almost 100 percent on taxpayer financed health plans.

As such, it is insane, that taxpayers help finance bad nutritional habits that lead to health problems taxpayers have to pay to treat.

The odds of that argument flying in a world where entitlement mentality is fast overtaking what used to be the tried and true concept of who controls the money makes the rules has yet to be seen.

Enough of the raging war of how far the government via the entitlement process can go to dictate personal behavior.

Let’s go back to Santa Cruz and look at the same exact war being waged but on a different battleground.

In the City of Banana Slugs, the government uses taxes to punish people, which might cut consumption and encourage some healthier habits but will 100 percent work to put more money in the pocket of government to burn an even larger proverbial hole.

Once in a while I do admit to opting for what is apparently pure poison — a regular Pepsi — when I dine in a Mexican restaurant.

I do not usually do refills.

But if I did, a glass of Pepsi could cost 64 cents more at El Jardin in Santa Cruz.

This is not going to break the bank.

But it will flow a lot more money into the coffers of the City of Santa Cruz.

The accumulative effect, especially at a place like McDonald’s, which is already charging people for the requirement to pay all of its workers $20 an hour or basically what a starting firefighter makes with the Ripon Consolidated Fire District, is people will likely dine out less.

That said, when I have a desire for a sugary drink as a chaser to eating Mexican food in Santa Cruz but don’t want to pay a punishment tax, I’ll simply stop at a convenience store outside of Santa Cruz’ jurisdiction and buy a 16-ounce bottle of Pepsi.

Santa Cruz residents who have a Pepsi habit that rivals that of the late Hugh Hefner, would likely stock up on six packs by shopping in areas outside of the city limits.

A two-a-day habit of 16 ounce bottles of Pepsi is a daily cost of 64 cents or $19.84 for a month.

Saving $240 a year is a great incentive to spend consumer dollars elsewhere.

It also would defeat the purpose of the “punishment tax” to tax people in to doing what the voting majority of a city or government wants them to do.

At the same time, it would financially punish those that drink soda responsibly.

One might agree that the ends justify the means even though there will still be those who drink soda.

The prime example is people still smoke even though a pack of cigarettes costs more today than three cartons of cigarettes did in 1965.

The real problem with using taxes to punish or modify behavior is where does it stop?

If low-profile tires are found to be used by the majority of people engaged in illegal side shows, someone might think slapping a $20 per tire tax on such tires could change behavior.

That, of course, would also punish law-abiding purchasers of low-profile tires.

The government agencies that level and collect punishment taxes always wax eloquently about how the tax revenue will fund all sorts of new healthy spending initiatives.

The stark reality, at least in many California cities, is it will help cover unsustainable budgets with massive pension liabilities.

Santa Cruz is not the only California city with a soda tax. They are also in place in Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco.

Sooner or later we need a debate on just how far the tax system should be contorted to punish, to try and modify behavior, and encourage investments or government preferred purchases such  as electric vehicles via tax credits.

But until then, all those pennies you have around the house in jars and between seat cushions can help cover any punishment tax you might have to pay if you imbibe in the ultimate sin drink, Slurpees.