Students of the California State University (CSU) system keep finding themselves pieces in Sacramento’s bleak budgetary chess. Last year, the legislature passed AB 840, which closed revenue holes by handing Big Alcohol carte blanche to market directly to underage undergraduates. To follow that up, California Governor Gavin Newsom clawed back $499 million from the system to balance the 2024 budget.
The solution for both—one that neither kicks needed funding down the road, nor increases risks of academic failure and physical harm to students—comes from a simple, popular, yet apparently perversely unthinkable policy: ask the alcohol industry to pay the bare, fair minimum.
California’s taxes on alcohol producers are not a percentage of sales. Instead, they are set at a fixed dollar amount per quantity produced. This means that every year, it becomes cheaper and cheaper to be a producer in California, and that does not take into account federal alcohol tax cuts. Since California last established new rates in 1992, the alcohol excise tax has lost 55% of its value. In 2022, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration reported approximately $429 million in revenue. However, had the excise tax value kept up with inflation, the expected take would have been $952 million—an additional $523 million just from normalizing the current tax rate.
That half a billion would fill the CSU budget hole, with a little change left over to fund programs and remove any ostensible need to sell student eyes to the industry. More importantly, it would modernize an alcohol tax that was last addressed during the first Bush administration.
This is more than just a pleasing symmetry. Not only are 40% of CSU students underage, but alcohol-related incidents are the leading causes of mortality for that age group. As of 2014, over 4,100 college-age young adults died annually of alcohol-related injury, including 2,614 from motor vehicle crashes. As for the other three acute causes of death, homicide and suicide are both strongly related to alcohol overconsumption, and alcohol greatly increases respiratory depression—and therefore overdose—from opioid use. On top of that, heavy and binge drinking patterns are associated with a number of negative academic consequences—and underage alcohol use can get students punished by the school itself.
There are a number of environmental interventions that can bring these numbers back down, but one of the most forthright ones are, again, alcohol taxes. By moderately raising the typical price of a drink, alcohol tax hikes affect people involved in the most dangerous drinking problems, particularly cash-strapped heavy drinkers—which perfectly describes the college students in the crosshairs of CSU’s bottle-pushing strategy.
This will not be the last time California is faced with brutal budgetary tradeoffs. Even a moderate hike in the alcohol excise tax can improve health in the short term, raise funds in the medium term, and let more compassionate heads in the legislature avoid mercenary lawmaking in the long term.
READ MORE about 2023’s AB 840
READ MORE about closing budget holes with alcohol taxes
TAKE ACTION to tell Gov. Newsom to include a cost-of-living alcohol excise tax increase in the May budget revise.
The quietest people at the table would like to become the loudest ones in the legislative chamber.
Few consequences of alcohol consumption are as dramatic and tragic as motor vehicle collisions. As of 2021,13,384 people died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes in the United States, one every 39 minutes. And while the operatic image of an incoherent vilain speeding the wrong way on the highway remains the popular perception, in fact, over 2,200 crashes involve drivers with BACs under 0.08, the current legal limit. Even a moderate tweak to the BAC level would save lives, and has the potential for protective knock-on effects as well."New York was once a leader in combating drinking and driving, but now our policies are outdated,” [bill author Assm. Jo Anne Simon] said. "Over 100 countries have lowered their blood alcohol content policies to 0.05 or less because the evidence is clear that there is an increased crash rate at 0.05."
"It is very clear to me that drunk driving is impacting the safety of our communities, and it is time that we do something," said [bill sponsor Sen. John] Lovick during a public hearing on Monday. "Drunk driving is a choice. Drunk driving collisions are avoidable."
"Unfortunately we’re at a point where so many of us have been touched by this. We’ve lost somebody that we love due to an alcohol-related crash, and it’s just unacceptable at this point," Transportation Committee Chair Sen. Christine Cohen said. "We see the need to save lives across the state of Connecticut and there’s an opportunity to do that."
[Maui Coalition for Drug-Free Youth Director] Rick Collins closed his remarks with this message “Hawai‘i has the sixth highest alcohol-impaired traffic fatality rate in the nation. We can do without that distinction. And we can save hundreds of lives in the process.“
It's not clear if violinists are well represented in Sacramento, but someone is certainly fiddling while the alcohol burns. Coming out of COVID-19 (if indeed we have), the alcohol-related death rate in the state has spiraled. As recently as 2015, around 11,000 Californians died from alcohol-involved causes yearly. In 2021, California Department of Public Health officials estimated the death toll as high as 19,335 annually. This raised an urgent question: has California's lawmaking exacerbated this trend, or helped keep it from being higher yet?| GET ACTION ALERTS AND eNEWS |
STAY CONNECTED ![]() |
CONTACT US 24 Belvedere St. San Rafael, CA 94901 415-456-5692 |
SUPPORT US![]() Terms of Service & Privacy Policy |