"merely" a money grab Jeremy Lott, writing in TechCentralStation, describes the Seattle espresso levy as a "sin tax," declaring,

it was only a matter of time before financial necessity collided with public health arguments about the dangers of caffeine.

Now, it's almost certain that an espresso tax will (slightly) reduce caffeine consumption. But I can find no evidence that that's the intent, nor any news coverage (besides Lott) which even mentions "dangers of caffeine." Lisa Moy, the campaign manager for the initiative, claims, "we have nothing against espresso." Listen to how she describes the motivation:

Moy said taxing espresso drinks is a guaranteed source of income in Seattle, where many residents can't get through the day without a caffeine hit. Drip coffee would not be taxed and espresso seemed the most obvious choice that would not burden any particular economic group, Moy said.

Now, I suppose it's possible that some anti-caffeine health crusader wanted to decrease espresso consumption through a 5-cent-a-cup tax and spun it as "for the children" to mask his (or her) diabolically puritan agenda. But it's much more likely that this is "merely" a money grab.