I think that anyone who is related to an addict wonders why the public health emphasis has been placed on smoking rather than drinking. I fully understand the second-hand smoke argument but over indulgence of alcohol creates greater emotional and physical problems for both the drinkers and their families than smoking ever could. I speak from experience as the daughter and the wife of alcoholics (spouse sober for almost 4 years; parent not so much).

report 6 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I think it's partly because there are, as Frank Bruni points out, many benefits to alcohol in moderation. It's hard to find those benefits in tobacco.

report 4 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Please! 32.5% of the price you pay at a restaurant for a mixed drink or shot of liquor is tax! Enough is enough! Besides, an addict is an addict. Most will do whatever they need for their addiction. A higher alcohol tax won't help them and will hurt restaurants. If you have to pay more for your cocktail than you do for your entree', which one will most people cut out?

report 10 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

pj has just touched on why I quit eating at that overpriced eatery on Cantrell: The owner's whiny notes on his receipts about big bad alcohol taxes.

report 3 likes, 3 dislikes   like  dislike

I held off posting earlier not wanting to distract the issue. But since tobacco was mentioned...
The reason public health places emphasis on smoking is because the death toll is 5 times that of alcohol. And for every one of those deaths there are 20 individuals living with at least one or more serious tobacco related disease. Like Arkansawyer notes there are safe levels of alcohol consumption. And the Surgeon General notes there is no level of safe exposure to tobacco smoke. Alcohol related maladies often are more dramatic than tobacco but tobacco is much more likely to kill you.

And then when you see that lung cancer mortality outpaces breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer deaths combined yet funding for research is out spent 15 to 1 for these diseases you really have to wonder how much emphasis is actually being placed on tobacco. As for tobacco prevention? Our policy makers have barely scratched the surface.

report 2 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

John Arkansawyer, and everybody else has a right to eat where ever they want, for what ever reason. But my point is, if you have to pay more for your cocktail than you do for your entree', which one will most people cut out?

report 2 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Why not higher alcohol taxes in Arkansas? I see the Ledge when they come into my restaurant. The bar tab is usually bigger than the food side. Just an observation...plus they usually aren't paying for it out of their pocket either. A "friend" ( read Lobbyist) pays the bill.

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Where are the taxes on religion which kills more than tobacco & alcohol combined?

How many of the wars in mankind's history will you find religion as a base cause?

Since more than 20% of the land in our cities is owned by non-taxed religious organizations how much of our taxes can be attributed to non-taxed religions?

We need to pay more attention to where taxes don't come from than raising already high taxes on things religions consider sins & vices.

report 10 likes, 6 dislikes   like  dislike

I personally have lost just as many loved ones to alcohol (wrecks/disease) as cancer caused by tobacco. I'm not saying we should outlaw either. However I have often wondered how come drinking is often glorified and promoted while smoking has become so taboo. Yes I know drinking in moderation does have some small benefits to some people. Take a look at the abuse physically, mentally, and sexually by alcohol. As someone who has worked in the school systems for many years, I have seen children abused by a drunk dad or step-dad too many times. I much rather those parents to have a nicotine addiction rather than a drinking problem.

report 4 likes, 3 dislikes   like  dislike

As I said, Independent, alcohol often has dramatic consequences but the tobacco related diseases, cigarette money going out the door, and harm from secondhand smoke is much more insidious and sure.
Personally, I really like the idea of taxing churches.

report 0 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

>>He notes how little public alarm and government reaction accumulate against it

You need look no further than the nation's capital which can boast of the highest alcohol consumption per capita than any other U.S. city.

Now, if D.C. had the highest number of mj tokers the stuff would be decriminalized tomorrow. If they decriminalized and taxed the natural growing weed then we wouldn't be talking about alcohol tax increases. We would also see great reductions amts spent in the insidious War on Drugs which, incidentally, doesn't include alcohol. Decriminalizing mj would lower the cost of local law enforcement and states' prison costs.

Alcohol is our politicians' drug of choice. We know how that works out.

report 3 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I find overweight people gross, so why not a fat tax on fast food hamburgers, fried chicken, and pizzas? I hate rap music; can we please tax that out of existence? Lite Beer? Don't like it so let's tax it. I'm irked by people who don't use their turn signals. Since it's a behavior I abhor, let's tax it so people will either quit driving or simply stop making right hand turns. All hail the nanny state.

People die everyday from choices they make. Last week one death-by-choice victim happened to be someone of note, a c-list celebrity of bad music. So for this reason, I should now pay more for my bottle of cheap red wine in the form of punitive sales tax?

Here's one more tax suggestion: Let's tax dumb ass columnists for the NY Times.

report 9 likes, 3 dislikes   like  dislike

I like people having a drink or two with their meals. I do it sometimes myself. If the taxes on alcohol are high enough that they stop after one or two, I like that even better.

report 4 likes, 6 dislikes   like  dislike

By the way, I'm curious about this statement: "32.5% of the price you pay at a restaurant for a mixed drink or shot of liquor is tax!"

I'm not sure whether I believe that or not. What's the source?

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Back when my old friend ran a bar on Dickson St, 80s, mixed drink tax was 17%.
So has it nearly doubled?

One day he asked his bartender for the day's tally, the bartender handed him the register tallies and remarked, " a lot of that beer is beer too."

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

It's tragic that Whitney's life could have been saved, if only we had higher taxes on alcohol.

report 2 likes, 4 dislikes   like  dislike

Higher alcohol tax to fund domestic abuse centers was brought up in Ark two years ago.

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.…

Doubt if it ever made it out of committee.

RC is right on. Higher taxes on any substance and criminalizing any substance will not stop the use/abuse of substance, esp for someone with Houston's resources.

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike

eLwood says, incorrectly, "Higher taxes on any substance and criminalizing any substance will not stop the use/abuse of substance."

Not so. Higher taxes on tobacco are one of the factors credited with driving down tobacco use.

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Oh lawdy we're going to be so rich here in Benton County when we go from damp to wet. Raise taxes all you want! We're living high on the Walmart hog and can afford it all! With that $33 million in new annual taxes we'll build another mile of the Bella Vista bypass! Then we'll consider something other than windy 2 lane roads going to the airport! The boom times are here again!

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

John A., the state levies a

10% mixed drink tax
4% supplemental mixed dring tax

the city tax is :

10% mixed drink tax

finally city, county, & state sales taxes equal 8.5%

Total, 32.5%

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

righter, thanks for the explanation, but where's the federal excise tax? I don't see it.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

My source for the 32.5% tax rate.....straight from the monthly tax reports that I fill out for the four restaurants I work for. Breakdown is:

6% Gross Receipts (food,liquor,beer,wine)
10% Mixed Drink (liquor)
4% Additional Mixed Drink (liquor)
1% Pulaski Co (food,liquor,beer,wine)
1.5% City of LR (food,liquor,beer,wine)
All of the above paid to Dept of Fin & Admin

10% Gross Receipts (liquor)
Paid to City of LR

2% (food)
Paid to LR A&P "Hamburger tax"

I like my job, and would like to keep it. And I'm sure the 140 other people employed by these restaurants would like to keep theirs too. Should a restaurant raise prices to cover additional taxes, or do nothing and take the loss? Could higher taxes cause some people to lose their job due to a decrease in sales? And will any of this save the life of an addict? Which was the original point.

report 3 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"eLwood says, incorrectly, "Higher taxes on any substance and criminalizing any substance will not stop the use/abuse of substance."

I agree with elwood, john; and I also give more credit to education/changing social norms with the decline in smoking than I do higher taxes. Our young folks are simply not starting the habit in the numbers that earlier generations did. Sure, there will be folks who can't afford to start smoking. But I've NEVER known a long-term smoker to quit simply because they couldn't afford it.

Whitney's death was sad, as is all premature death. But I'm tired of every TV talking head giving her a pass while blaming her addiction problems on prescription drugs. Clearly if you're a celebrity and/or very wealthy you have access to doctors who are loose with their prescription pads. But the average person, like most of us blog folks, have doctors who WILL NOT hand out enough tranquilizers/narcotics to allow us to get in trouble like Michael Jackson/etc. And thank goodness 'cause I believe in letting my doctor do the worrying for me so I can simply follow the script as written without worrying that I'll end up searching the backstreets of LR for a 'fix' (boy would that be pathetically funny). I also believe in a doctor prescribing what I need rather than denying me because there are addicts who abuse EVERYTHING. In general doctors are more stingy with narcotics/Valium/etc. than not...so QUIT BLAMING INNOCENT PILLS.

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

While we're at it, let's raise taxes on guns, cars, tractors and food since these are all known to kill people when abused or otherwise improperly used.

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Zelda, you are spot on.
I must qualify the education/changing norm remark about smoking, however. Norm change is how we have reduced the smoking rates. But significantly increased tobacco taxes is one of the most effective means for reducing usage and changing social norms. Research shows that for every 10% the price of tobacco is increased we will see a 7% reduction among youth and 3-4% overall among adults. Unfortunately you are quite right about long term smokers not quitting because the price got too high. This level of addiction is hell to overcome and they quit at much lower rates. Now the irony is that education is of variable efficacy when it comes to youth. Young people simply do not have the same concept of long term health risk as adults. They are immortal and do not appreciate how hard it can be to quit or the consequences should they not. But they do have very little disposable income making expensive, heavily taxed, cigs much less accessible.
Arkansas has the 29th lowest tobacco tax. This last $0.56 increase was easily absorbed by the industry discounts. National groups are pushing for a minimum of a dollar a pack increase. The rub is that the most recent data on tobacco came out a couple of weeks ago and while legislators are siphoning off prevention funds for their drug courts and pet projects, the adult smoking rate has spiked to 24.7%, the highest since 2002.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Leaving aside all of the moral and/or physical questions about alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, as well as questions about reduction of consumption by increase of taxes and/or prices, I'd like to raise a speculative question about economics.

And if anyoe knows where and how to find any actual answers, I'd love to see them.

If we raise taxes and therefore lower consumption (i.e., purchases), will we experience any net increase in tax revenue, or will we experience a net reduction?

Anyone know?

Very curious.

report 0 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

I appreciate the interest in taxation but Bruni also mentioned the marketing of alcohol and the lack of pushes for responsible use relative to some other health concerns. Good food for thought.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

A person can be addicted to any number of destructive activities, drinking, dope and sex being among the most discussed. But in Arkansas now, we find a lot of people who are addicted to gambling. No one seems to want to put the lottery out of business because of that. Some people are addicted to high-calorie cheeseburgers and french fries. No one is asking for their prohibition.

At what point does government have any responsibility to save people from themselves?

report 2 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Skypilot, I can't speak to other public health issues re diminishing returns. I can interject that the magnitude of tobacco related disease is such that tobacco taxes don't even touch it. I think Arkansas gets about $270 million in tobacco taxes and MSA $ annually. But health care costs of $812 million dwarf that. There is even a calculus some use to estimate last productivity in lost work years etc. that pops just over a billion annually. The American Lung Ass. projects that just to break even a pack of smokes should cost $10.06 in Arkansas.

One of the arguments people brought up the last time around when seeking a tobacco tax for trauma centers was that eventually the funding stream would end as smokers quit. Two things wrong w that. One is that the tax was not significant enough to make a major impact on diminishing the funding stream. The other is underestimating the magnitude of the cost for which we afford allowing the tobacco industry to do business in our state. California, which actually has a lower tax than Arkansas raised tobacco taxes 15 years ago and dedicated it to a comprehensive tobacco control program. It is estimated that from the $18 billion spent on these programs public health savings amount to $86billion. California has about a 13% adult tobacco use. Arkansas could do well to emulate.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Chelydra: I understand the ratios of taxes and costs addressed in your first paragraph.

But I was wondering if anyone has actual figures on the situation addressed in your second: Will increased taxes negatively impact sales enough to diminish the funding stream? If so, by how much? If not, what will be the margin of advantage?

Just wondering about the pure economic impact.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Plainjim: I think you're right on some points. But with all due respect, I think you're not on others.

Granted, there are many destructive addictions.

But there are monumental differences among addictions, compulsions, obsessions, habits, and appetites. Some people are too quick to throw around the term "addiction" which has some very narrow and specific clinical definitions; take it from an old substance abuse counselor.

As for no one wanting to shut down the lottery because of gambling addiction: Not true.

Many people voted against it for that very reason. And many people would still like to shut it down for the same reason. That you don't see proposals before the legislature simply means those people recognize they are in the minority so it is a hopeless situation.

And about your high-calorie cheesburgers and french fries: Not true. There are people, especially nutritionists and a lot of concerned parents, who would like to prohibit them. And some are campaigning for their removal from fast-food menus.

There may be no Carry Nation movement against gambling, cheeseburgers, or french fries, but there is a large segment of our population opposed to them.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Skypilot, I'm not aware of any calculus that predicts a net loss as a funding stream. The California monies are dedicated to tobacco prevention. I got this from a podcast of a recent UCSF conference and apparently when use rates fall to 10% tobacco control changes. To what I'm not sure.

One calculus to imagine is that prevention is always more cost effective than treatment, be it for nicotine addiction, lung cancer, or heart disease. That tells me that consumption of tobacco, and taxes, have to be damn low before any funding stream is threatened. Somebody may have built some projections but I am unaware. Its almost like you could say you wish you had problems like that.

Again, this is tobacco. I'm not hip to other public health issues. Taxing sugar may make some sense but my thoughts are that since cereal companies learned marketing to children from tobacco, marketing reform might be a more appropriate first step. But here in the US the history of commercial speech and the first amendment make that really problematic.

I have reservations about the government getting involved in gambling. One asks, is there really a victimless crime? We don't exist in a vacuum nor do we want to dictate all behavior. If there were an easy calculus maybe we'd have our problems solved. But there isn't. Our drug laws are asinine. Our permissive tobacco polices run counter to all public health data. Most days my only solace is that humans today are a primitive superstitious animal. Good bloody luck.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Sky, you didn't address what I hoped would be my central point, namely, why government has any responsibility to protect people from themselves. I am a firm believer in free choice, so I think that people should have the right to destroy themselves if they so choose. That is the same reason I opposed the mandatory seat belt law in Arkansas, even though I would be the first to concede it is stupidity not to wear a seat belt. I guess in that respect, I am a Libertarian, although I have voted Democratic all of my life, which is just a little shy of yours.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Plainjim: I didn't address your central point because I didn't take up my keyboard to debate the issue of government control.

In my initial post, I said this: "Leaving aside all of the moral and/or physical questions about alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, as well as questions about reduction of consumption by increase of taxes and/or prices, I'd like to raise a speculative question about economics."

And then I stated my question: "If we raise taxes and therefore lower consumption (i.e., purchases), will we experience any net increase in tax revenue, or will we experience a net reduction?"

And that's all I really intended to address. I'm just curious whether anyone anywhere has any data on this issue: the impact of increased product taxes on revenue stream.

I did respond to your remarks about people wanting to shut down the lottery because of gambling addiction. And your remarks about "addiction" to high-calory cheeseburgers and french fries. But my only point was that there are people who would like to shut those down.

I did not address the issue of government control because I have no interest in that argument at the moment. Whether or not the government "should" impose controls on such things is a debate far beyond my interest at the moment. There are good and reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue, but that is a fight in which I do not care to engage at this time.

I was just curious about the impact of increased product taxes on revenue stream. If we raise the taxes, will we increase or decrease the revenue?

I am not sure there is an acceptable way to predict. Probably our only evidence would be anecdotal data from previous practice along this line: "When (name the state) increased the tax on (name the product) from (X) to (Y), sales decreased by (Z %) so that instead of producing more income, actually income fell by ($D)."

And I didn't set out to prove anything. I was just announcing my curiosity. And Chelydra made a noble attempt to answer--which I sincerely appreciate.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike