Labeled as an effort to battle the government’s archnemesis – teenage drinking – California lawmakers are now proposing to reclassify sugary alcoholic beverages as hard liquor, which would earn the state a windfall of tax dollars and force some retailers to pull the drinks from their shelves.
However, what these officials fail to realize – or what the dollar signs in their eyes help them to overlook – is that this reclassification will likely have little to no practical effect on the ability of teens to obtain or consume alcohol.
Drinks such as Bacardi Silver and Mike’s Hard Lemonade – dubbed “”alcopops”” for their resemblance to cola and similar beverages – have long been placed in the same category as beer, taxed 20 cents per gallon by the state. However, if they were to be relabeled as “”distilled spirits,”” the state would be able to levy $3.30 per gallon, raising an estimated $40 million a year in state revenue.
Can somebody say “”motive””?
Before considering the question of whether or not this reclassification would be just, legislators must first decide whether or not alcopops are, by definition, distilled spirits.
According to former State Controller Steve Westly, these products should be classified as distilled spirits because they are flavored with spirits and marketed as spirits.
However, if you believe Smirnoff representative Gary Galanis, the drinks are classified as beer because they are first derived from a malt base – the distilled spirits are only added as flavor when the color and taste of the beer have been stripped away.
An interesting question raised during the debate was whether other states view these beverages as beer or as distilled spirits, and the answer was overwhelming – a whopping 49 states classify alcopops as beer, with the lone exception of Maine. Good old Maine, where state laws dictate that no man may step out of a plane in midair, and that shotguns must be taken to churches in the event of an American Indian attack.
Despite their vigilance, however, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics indicate that Maine and California were in the same bracket of alcohol-related fatalities per 1 million people in 2006. In this case, it seems like the numbers speak for themselves. But, it still raises the question – Why is a state tax board voting on what appears to be a largely social issue?
The proposal comes after the state Board of Equalization received a petition from members of California Friday Night Live, a student group aiming to prevent drunk driving-related deaths and injuries. While the group’s goals are certainly noble, the rationale for targeting alcopops over other types of alcohol is questionable at best.
Let’s assume for a moment that a teenager wishing to purchase alcohol is looking for two things: low price and accessibility. If Dad’s liquor cabinet is empty and an of-age acquaintance agrees to purchase the coveted goods, it’s time for a trip to the store.
On average, alcopops cost around $5 more per 12-pack than the cheapest kinds of beer, even without this proposed tax hike. Beer can also be found in just about every convenience store, liquor store, supermarket, restaurant, mini-mart and gas station between the Pacific and the Atlantic. Cost? Check. Accessibility? Check.
So why are alcopops – a staggering 3 to 5 percent alcohol by volume – the prime target of this campaign?
According to a CFNL student interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, alcopops appeal mainly to girls, while “”the guys drink the beer.””
While the student may very well be right, aiming a campaign largely towards preventing women from underage drinking does not seem to be the most effective means of preventing drunk driving – according to the NHTSA, males are three times more likely to be involved in an alcohol-related traffic incident than females.
Even if the reclassification goes through, and alcopops are pulled from the shelves of some retailers, do members of the Equalization Board really believe that this will stop teens from obtaining these products on their own?
The simple fact of the matter is, if teenagers have the desire to drink and the connections to obtain alcohol illegally, there is really no practical way for the government to stop them. Mixers such as soda and fruit juice are sold everywhere, and to be frank, it’s not that hard to figure out how to put a mixed drink together.
All a restriction on alcopops would accomplish is to push teenagers toward beer and hard alcohol instead – and with liquor’s higher percentage of alcohol per volume than its sweeter counterparts, it’s a potentially dangerous move for all involved.
In the end, whether the motives behind the push to push these drinks out of sight are philanthropic or monetary, noble or simply greedy, they both amount to a largely ineffective campaign with the potential to worsen the problem it is trying to correct.
