Teens Want Tax Raised on Sugary Alcoholic Drinks

A group of California teens would like to see the state's Board of Equalization raise taxes on alcoholic beverages such as Mike's Hard Lemonade and Smirnoff Ice - companies the teen advocates say are marketed towards other teenagers.

The nonprofit group California Friday Night Live, formed by teens, attempts to prevent problems stemming from teens that drive drunk.

The group sent a petition to the California Board of Equalization asking that sugary alcoholic drinks be categorized as "distilled spirits" rather than beer. The accusation is that drinks such as Smirnoff Ice, Mike's Hard Lemonade and Bacardi Silver are too similar in taste to sodas and juices that are more appealing to a younger crowd.

The Board of Equalization voted to accept the petition which means several months of research and decision-making will occur before recommendations are made to the board.

The change in product categorization would increase the price of a six-pack by as much as $2. Currently, beer in the state of California is taxed at 20 cents per gallon whereas distilled spirits are taxed at $3.30 per gallon - a significant increase.

The alcohol companies are not saying much to the media in protest of the possible tax increase other than to say they do not support underage drinking. Incidentally, many of these companies believe the drinks should continue to be categorized as beer under the state because the drinks are derived from malt and then distilled spirits are later added.

Should the tax increase be approved, it would make the state of California only the second state out of the country to tax these particular sugary, alcoholic drinks as distilled spirits. Maine is the only state that currently categorizes the drinks as spirits.

Incidentally, an extra $40 million would be generated from the tax increase if this decision passes and it could also cause the removal of these products from some 24,000 retailers (who happen to only carry licenses for beer and wine only).

Attorneys are already sitting at the edges of their seats waiting to hear on a decision. Attorneys for Santa Clara County have already threatened to breathe life into a dropped lawsuit against the board. The lawsuit would allege that the board is not following a law which says the board must carry out a specific tax for all distilled spirits.

While still in its early stages, many question the efficacy of raising the t axes. The teens in California Friday Night Live (who brought the drafted petition to the board) have support the changes in hopes of curbing underage drinking because their argument is that the drinks pander to a younger demographic.

It seems a noble cause, but hardly a wise one. There is very little evidence to suggest that by increasing the tax for these drinks, it would deter teens from purchasing the beverages. Too many young adults today have very high disposable incomes so that paying the few extra dollars is inconsequential. In addition, if teens want to drink, they will inevitably find a way to drink.

This hardly seems a worthwhile cause for state officials to be spending possibly more than nine months debating upon or going to court for. What next? Will state officials spend another year debating implementation of a new tax for hybrid drinks that are derived from malt with distilled spirits added later?