2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I'm a drinker, and would gladly pay more to fund treatment. However, I think the idea that keeps coming up that "alcohol causes problems" is erroneous. Addiction is a disease and people with the disease will find a way to get intoxicated (I think the treatment people would agree with me on this), and the problem is so much bigger than can be tackled with this tax, even as large as it is. We are dickering around with a few million here and there (meanwhile punishing homegrown small businesess), when in fact addiction is a huge social problem that needs many more resources than brewers can provide.

Also, does anyone else see the sick irony of funding treatment from beer sales? Do you then hope people drink more so that you get more funds for treatment? While we're at it, why not fund schools through something like the lottery! Oh wait.....

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context