'Vice tax' the wrong choice

Some Indiana legislators, along with several interest groups are now campaigning to impose a 50 cent "vice tax" on alcohol to pay for alcohol rehabilitation programs and cut into the $850 million state deficit. Just like additional taxes on cigarettes, the government is again trying to capitalize on a product it knows consumers will continue buying no matter the price.\nAdmittedly, there are many out there who drank too much over the course of their lives and are now in dire need of treatment. It's important that we provide such services to those who need help to continue in their everyday lives, but singling out responsible drinkers to carry this burden is unfair and unwarranted. If these treatment programs are truly "community initiatives," then they should be supported by the community at large, not just those who choose to drink on occasion. \nThis tax increase could be severely detrimental to local business, much of which depends on the production and sale of alcoholic products. Local businesses will not be able to simply pass along the tax to their consumers, they will be forced to absorb part of the burden. In a time of economic crisis, such as this, businesses such as the local bars and breweries of Indiana keep the wheels of the economy moving.\nWhat this could result in is simply a drop in the amount of alcohol consumed. This may or may not be an intended effect of the tax increase, but if it is, then it is simply another instance of the government interfering in the moral decisions of its constituents. Drinking is a personal choice and should not be curbed by government interference. The further our state and national governments tax these so-called "vices," the closer we move back to the days of prohibition.\nWith the economy the way it is, the government should be looking for ways to stimulate spending, not stifle it with increased taxes on individualized products. While the government may simply be looking for ways to further alcohol treatment and education programs, singling out one product is discriminatory and wrong.\n-- Jason Gaddis for the Editorial Board