College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Editorial: Increase in booze tax may save lives, economy

By

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Updated: Monday, May 11, 2009

Even though the price of so-called liquid courage may go up, it's nothing to be afraid of.

A study by the American Journal of Public Health found that an increase in taxes on alcohol brings a significant decline to death rates from alcohol-related diseases. Shortly after the report was released, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the possibility of raising the sin tax on alcohol by five cents per drink.

And although taxes have been demonized in this year's presidential election, they have become a necessary evil. And if this necessary evil helps save lives and close the budget gap, it's something that we can feel at least a little better about paying for.

To be exact, California has an $11 billion budget deficit. The tax increase, along with other cuts and additional taxes are estimated to relieve $9.2 billion of that debt, San Francisco Chronicle reported.

In short: We're going to be shelling out cash either way.

Some argue that forcing all consumers of booze to pay for the crowd that abuses it is illogical and unfair - but, like cigarettes, alcohol affects innocent bystanders in addition to those who don't know when to have that last drink.

For instance, alcohol is a contributing factor in nearly 50 percent of all injury deaths - which overwhelmingly include homicide and rape, according to the Marin Institute, an alcohol industry watchdog group.

In 1983, Alaska increased taxes on alcohol and deaths declined by 29 percent - or 23 people per year. When they raised taxes again in 2002, the booze-fueled deaths lessened by another 11 percent - or an additional 21 people per year, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The institute also cites that there are hidden costs to overdrinking: It results in more than $100 billion in lost revenue because of both premature death and an estimated 500 million skipped workdays each year.

Apparently it pays to be responsible. Literally. Having a monetary incentive to not drink as much may be painful on your wallet, but it may be for the best.

Another argument against the fee is that, with higher taxes, consumers may switch to alternate forms of intoxication: abusing mouthwash, inhaling paint, dangerous chemicals or consuming various other drugs.

Really? Who goes from, "Let's get some beer," to, "You got any paint chips, man?" Consumption of alcohol is primarily a social lubricant. Until bars begin offering compressed air computer cleaner to huff, it's not a convincing claim. It's doubtful that the trend will catch on at parties either.

Although prescription drug use is on the rise, its gaining popularity cannot be blamed on drinking, or a lack thereof. In fact, prescription drug abusers were likely to also abuse alcohol, the National Institute of Drug Abuse reported. So the two are not mutually exclusive.

Studies have proven that sin products, such as cigarettes and alcohol, are inelastic. This means that no matter the price, you're probably going to buy it anyway.

Look at buying booze like contributing to charity. When you buy less, you could save a life. When you buy more, you're actively saving California.

Editorial Board Genny McLaren, Managing Editor Katy Sweeny, News Editor Megan Wilson, Opinion Editor Connor Ramey, Sports Editor Kenna Hunt, Entertainment Editor Nicole Williams, Features Editor Elysse Bonner, Photo Editor Walter Foley, Chief Copy Editor Elizabeth Varin, Online Editor Roody Vazquez, Video Editor

Comments

Be the first to comment on this article!







log out