Raising Alcohol Taxes

I just read on BBC that they want to increase taxes on alcohol. This always sounds like a good idea at first, but when analyzed, turns out to be highly misguided. At first, you think "sure, why not increase taxes to make more money on alcohol. Then they might not raise my income or property taxes." I just want to highlight a few of the flaws that I see in a strategy like this.

First, the government is out one side of their mouths saying "alcohol is bad, don't do it" but then at the same time they have a stake in alcohol sales, since they get tax money from it. We have the same question here in the US about gambling, smoking, and other legal vices. To me it undermines the credibility of the anyone that says something is bad and then profits from it.

Second, it is based on a false notion. I highly disagree that the low cost of some alcohols are what lead to drinking and in turn alcohol-related deaths. The BBC article says, "The Alliance says increasing the price of alcohol by 10% could cut all alcohol-related deaths by between 10% and 30%." But without any evidence sited that I noticed. Probably because it is a statement of opinion. The BBC article also frames this as a child-related issue, which is really just a way for the story to evoke more of a response from the neo-prohibitionists. So I'll rebut with my own opinion: "Kids drink to get drunk, and because they believe it will make them cool. Even adults have the same motivations to a certain extent. Price is one factor, but an increase of ten percent is not going to change anything, except maybe the people will have less money to spend on other things."

Now it is hard to argue against the problems that come from excessive drinking, but increasing the government's rake off the sales of booze doesn't even really indirectly address the problem. I'll broadly suggest the same things that countless of other anti-neo-prohibitionists have said: let's try setting good examples for our children at home, modeling appropriate appreciation and enjoyment of alcohol, and responsible behavior around alcohol.

No More Victory?!

I went to the packie (that's what we call a liquor store here in CT - package store)... anyway, I went there to get a great domestic pilsner. Something nice and light with a firm hop bite to it. I figured that Victory Prima Pils would be the way to go. Thier IPA's such as Hop Devil and Hop Whallop were always very pleasing to me, so their other stuff must be good too. Plus then I could pick up a pack of Golden Monkey, their Belgian Trippel.

Shocked to find that Cask 'n' Keg in Mystic no longer had Victory beers. The knowledgable beer guy working there told me that it was a distributor thing. The old Victory distributor was primarily a spirits distributor and they decided to stop carrying beer. So now we can't get Victory here until I guess victory needs to ink a deal with another distributor.

This is just more BS about the three-tier system. It is allegedly to protect consumers from underage drinking, but it is more to entrench the most powerful breweries. Since Victory is not allowed to have more than one distributor in this state, they're screwed when their distributor cuts them off. But Victory is not allowed to cut off the distributor. It is one-sided! Also, look at it this way: most folks see the distributors as either "an A-B house" or a "Miller and Coors house". That's it. No mention of any real beers that the distributor carries.

I don't know if the solution is self-distribution, or just a LOT more freedom in the way breweries, at least small ones, work with distributors. I saw something somewhere on beertown.org about laws where a brewery that was less than 5% of a distributor's sales could cut the ties to the distributor whenever they want. Sounds fair to me. A lot more fair than the way it is now.

Lower Drinking Age

I just read a story on MSN about lowering the drinking age: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249460/

It seems obvious to me that lowering the drinking age will get 18-21 year-olds drinking beer instead of liquor. The reason they drink hard liquor is because it is easier to get and more effective by volume at getting them drunk. If they could buy beer legally, then they'd be able to get some beer and drink it in a normal adult way.

OK so maybe they wouldn't drink it in an adult way, but they'd be more likely to drink beer and less so to drink spirits. As the article states, look at prohibition as an example. Did the bootleggers make beer? Hell no, they made booze. Why bother transporting beer when you could move something 5-10 times as potent in the same weight and volume.

Let's face it, making something illegal doesn't stop it. People still do drugs - all the time. Kids still smoke - unless they really understand why they shouldn't. And people will drink alcohol when they feel like it, no matter how old they are.

Legalize it, don't criticize it.