Does a Dime make a Difference?

While reading The Star Tribune this past Sunday I came across an editorial that was very intriguing. It posed the ideal that an dime tax increase in alcohol would be beneficial to the state of Minnesota. The author Stephen Simon, stated that excessive alcohol consumption costs the state $4.6 billion dollars each year. By raising the tax from where it is currently beer and wine at one cent and six cents of liquor, he believes that it will provide the state with the funding that would save lives.

The article brings up some very good points: 10% of the the drinkers in MN consume 60% of the alcohol, DWI penalties do not deter citizens from driving while intoxicated and the average person drives 50-100 times before being caught. Driving while intoxicated I agree is a burden to society.

I find it hard to believe that a dime increase would cure any of the plagues that excessive alcohol consumption is associated with. True, that the tax increase would provide the state with $260 million dollars in revenue each year. But I hardly believe the case study in the article stating, increasing tax reduces the number of deaths and decreases consumption.

Increasing the tax would not decrease consumption. If people wanna have a drink they will. Having to pay a mere ten cents more would not be the deciding factor on whether or not one drinks. As for the increase in revenue it would provide the state with funding that may be able to what? Catch a few more drunk drivers each year potentially stopping a accident that might result in a death.

This tax increase is just another example of the burdens the government is putting on its citizens. Instead of this tax increase, the state should hold establishments who over serve these individuals who feel that is ok to drive under the influence more responsible. Working in a large bar I had to and have too each year take a serve safe class. This class teaches how to responsibly serve alcohol. This is where responsible serving of alcohol and thus responsible consumption should start. If establishments do not allow their patrons to drink to the level where they are a hazard to the public, drunk driving infractions would decline. This would stop people from drinking at a private residence and then driving, but we already know that DWI penalties themselves do not deter people from getting behind the wheel.

Excess alcohol consumption and people getting behind the wheel after driving will continue to be a issue that we will have to deal with. Although this tax increase may allow for more patrolling of our roads for drunk driver it does not solve the problem of businesses allowing their patrons to become so intoxicated that this situation is a issue to begin with.

The tax should not be enacted. There should be in its place more sever penalties on businesses that allow patron to drink in excess.



View the article @:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/89299567.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU