One step away from prohibition though Democrats seem not to notice. The idea is to generate money to pay for drug and alcohol treatment which Oregon claims is costing them billions of dollars. Since A.A. is free and the only alcohol treatment program proven to work this sounds a little bogus to me. It’s more likely that Oregon’s, shall we say, libertarian views on teen drug use has caught up with them in a big way as their hospitals fill up with 20-something junkies of various stripes whose hippy parents assumed they’d outgrow getting high and were shocked to discover their precious little ones blowing people for dimebags. Of course, N.A. is also free and successful but some politically connected quack has a treatment center to build so don’t plan on drinking in Oregon on your next trip.
From KGW.com:
PORTLAND, Ore. — Five Oregon state lawmakers want to impose a hefty tax on beer and have introduced a bill that brewers say would cripple them.
Four Portland legislators joined a Springfield senator to introduce Oregon House Bill 2461, which would impose a $49.61 tax on each barrel of beer produced by Oregon brewers.
The tax would raise revenue for the state at a time when budgets are running in the red. Specifically, the bill says it would fund prevention, treatment and recovery programs for those addicted to alcohol and other substances.
It also defends the tax by claiming alcoholism and “untreated substance abuse†costs the state $4.15 billion in “lost earnings†as well as more than $8 million for health care and nearly $1 billion in law enforcement-related expenditures.
HB 2641 claims Oregon ranks 49th among states in its malt beverage taxation rate, which has not been raised in 32 years.
Brewers say it’s that low tax that makes Oregon such an attractive business climate for crafting beers, though. The state’s brewery guild claims it would also amount to the single largest beer tax hike in the nation’s history.
Laurelwood Public House & Brewing Co. owner Mike De Kalb said the tax may sound like a good idea in this economic climate, but that in reality it would cost more Oregonians their jobs and would only amount to about $140 million in new tax revenue for the state.
Meanwhile, it would cost beer drinkers about $315 million as breweries are forced to pass along the tax increase.
“We’re a family-owned, local Portland business. We don’t want to see something cost taxpayers more than the revenue it would bring in,†De Kalb said. “If that tax is passed it would mean consumers would pay $315 million more (in 2009) to buy the same amount of beer they bought in 2008. A pint of beer would go from $4.50 to $6.â€
De Kalb said Oregon would potentially lose its prominence as a craft-brew destination and that some small breweries could potentially go out of business.
Who will fund all this treatment for alcohol and “other substances” (which I assume is a euphemism for meth and heroin, both of which have become increasingly popular among young people) when these breweries go bust under these taxes? The same people who will pay the unemployment benefits of all those out of work Oregonians of course, you.
Frankly I don’t have much sympathy. Beer tastes like piss and people should outgrow the need to get a buzz around high school. Anyone who tells you they enjoy the taste of beer is a liar. These same people, however, are always O.K. with taxing cigarettes heavily even though no one beats the crap out of their wives after one too many Marlboros or crashes into a minivan full of kids because they smoked too many Kools. Cigarettes’ cancer causing chemicals are present in car exhaust so people should really calm down on that whole second hand smoke kick unless they’re willing to ban cars too. Maybe they should have spoken up sooner, like when “big tobacco”was taking it on the chin.
Unfortunately, cigarettes tend to be an intrinsic part of addiction recovery. Ask any addict how they got of the drugs/sauce and they’ll tell you about many lonely nights avoiding their old haunts while chain smoking until the desire to use subsides. I’m not saying smoking is good for you, and for the record I quit about five years ago, but sin taxes are a slippery slope with many unintended consequences, like forcing addicts trying to get clean to leave their N.A. meetings to grab a smoke instead of spending the full time getting the support they need.
And when the government curtails smoking enough through social engineering they’ll go after the next “sin” which is beer. Then it’ll be pornography (like Paterson’s new plan to tax web porn in NYC) and then it’ll be my sweet Italian sausage and fried egg sandwich I ate this morning for breakfast.
These tax measures are ultimately self-defeating as Democrats seek to use them to fund programs that need increasing amounts of revenue but the taxes drive demand down as more people decide a six pack is too expensive. Revenues drop as a bloated government moves onto its next victim to drain dry for misguided and useless programs whose sole purpose is to keep some well connected charlatan’s “wellness programs” open.
I guess that’s the change we’ve all been waiting for.
I’m surprised you’re not all for this, Rob! After all, you’ve already shown this month that consuming alcohol causes cannibalism!
It doesn’t cause cannibalism, it just makes it taste better.
This reminds me of the S-CHIP legislation recently signed by Obama that will be funded by a 61 cent increase in the taxes on every pack of cigarettes. The price hikes will result in less smoking and consequently, reduced tax revenues to pay for the program. But the commitment to fund the program will already be codified, making it much easier to push through additional legislation that draws funding from god knows where. Same deal in Oregon – the state legislature has set a precedent by passing the bill, so taxpayers will still be on the hook even if revenues from the beer tax plummet.