You don't need to pass the tax on to those effected for it to work. As long as people pay something like the costs they impose, they'll only do it when it's worth that cost. After that, it doesn't matter if the money goes to those effected, or the local schools, or road maintenance, or whatever.
I agree that not subsidizing sugar production would be a much better step to take here.
Wait..are you suggesting tax something because reason A in order to raise money for thing B where A has absolutely no relation to B? This is why people hate liberals. Why do we need to arbitrarily tax things? Let me guess these are things you don't like or use so you have no problem with increasing taxes on them.
No, I'm suggesting that if activity A imposes some external cost on B, you can discourage A by the "proper" amount by taxing it even if the money doesn't go to B.
Would you mind cutting out that "this is why people hate liberals" nonsense? It's incredibly obnoxious.
The answer is of course no to both... so people are being taxed because others are being infringed, but the taxes don't serve those infringed.
Also, diet soda has its' own issues... and more fat people are drinking diet soda than regular.
--
edit: Also, we don't need to tax soda, just stop subsidizing farming...