Reviving debate about an alcohol tax increase in Massachusetts

There’s a lot of attention on the drug overdose crisis — and for good reason. Fentanyl can kill instantly. It often poisons people who don't realize what they’re taking. And the impact is widespread.

In the U.S., 42% of adults know someone who died from an overdose. But every year, quietly and with less fanfare, more Americans die from alcohol and the damage it can cause to the body than from opioids.

Alcohol is the top reason Massachusetts residents seek addiction treatment. There were more emergency department visits due to alcohol use than opioids, 55,000 in 2019, according to the most recent available state data. I've been thinking about why excessive drinking gets comparatively little attention. Here's a start. Alcohol is a legal substance, it can be cheap, it’s in our daily lives, and is sometimes celebrated in popular culture, including as a way to cope with stress and even deeper psychological pain.

But poll results released last week by Suffolk University suggest Massachusetts residents may be ready to take action on excessive drinking and alcohol addiction.

Researchers surveyed a relatively small sample of likely voters, 500, but the results were striking.

Roughly two-thirds of respondents said under certain circumstances they are willing to make alcohol a little more expensive, a move that research suggests can contribute to curbing use. Respondents were asked: Would they support a 10-cent tax increase, per drink, to address a state budget deficit? The results were evenly split and well within the poll's margin of error: 49% said no, 47% said yes, and 4% were undecided. (A 2010 ballot question to remove the state sales tax from alcohol passed by a similarly tight 52%-48% margin.)

But on a second question, respondents were asked whether they’d support the same 10-cent tax increase if the revenue was designated to reduce underage drinking, fund prevention of substance use, domestic violence, suicide, and drug and alcohol treatment. This time, 67% of likely voters said yes, 29% said no, and 3% were undecided.

“Giving the money to a broader array of causes is clearly more popular,” said David Jernigan, a professor of health law, policy and management at the Boston University School of Public Health, who is a proponent of adding to the tax on alcohol. Jernigan used research funds to pay for the poll. “There are more problems that need to be addressed, and we’re proposing to address more of them,” he said.

Robert Mellion, director of the Massachusetts Package Stores Association, said directing increased alcohol tax revenues to these problems is a wonderful concept, but the survey question is deceptive. State lawmakers ultimately decide how to spend those funds, and there's no guarantee how they'd use them.

“On the public policy side, I get it. But no money is going to get directed where it needs to go,” said Mellion. “Excise tax revenue goes into the general account, and that’s the end of it.”

Bills proposing an alcohol tax increase have included provisions to create a separate state fund for the revenues. Those measures have been tabled, year after year. Even if one passed, Mellion said the legislature has a history of using new taxes and fees for its own priorities.

Mellion argues that an alcohol tax increase in Massachusetts would drive business to neighboring states with lower taxes or none at all. And, he said, his members are already hurting as more alcohol sales take place, illegally, online, and customers shift to cannabis. According to Mellion's numbers, retail alcohol sales are down 6-8% since Massachusetts legalized cannabis for recreational use.

A 10-cent tax per drink would be a significant increase from the current roughly 1 cent excise tax on 12 ounces of beer, 6 ounces of wine or 1.5 ounces of whiskey, gin and other spirits. Jernigan said he was interested to see the strongest support for the tax, 79%, among people making less than $20,000 a year because alcohol tax proposals are often called regressive. Mellion said he'd like to see more money for the Alcohol Beverages Control Commission which he said is woefully understaffed.

There won't be debate on any of these issues on Beacon Hill this year. Bills dealing with alcohol use and oversight were among the thousands that died when the legislature ended formal sessions on July 31.