Bowing to the liquor industry, the governor perpetuates the 'alcopop' craze.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
MARYLAND Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) did the easy thing this week by signing legislation that increases the fines for adults who serve or procure liquor for teenagers. But he ducked a harder, and probably more effective, measure to combat underage drinking in the face of fierce opposition from one of Maryland's most free-spending and influential lobbies: the liquor industry.
The industry, which for years has poured money into the coffers of state politicians, including that of Mr. O'Malley, has fought hard to perpetuate a system under which sweet, fruity malt beverages are classified as beer. That classification allows them to be taxed at the lowest rate for alcoholic beverages and distributed widely, including in convenience stores. But the truth is that the beverages -- Smirnoff Ice, Mike's Hard Lemonade and the like -- are not beer by any reasonable definition. That is also the view of Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, who rendered his formal opinion on the subject this year.
Mr. Gansler's opinion had the force of law, and it would have reclassified the beverages, colloquially known as "alcopops," as hard liquor. But in a late-night vote on a bill that few lawmakers understood, the General Assembly effectively overturned his ruling and let stand the absurd ease with which underage drinkers can buy the beverages, some of which clearly are marketed to them. Mr. O'Malley, despite having publicly referred to alcopops as a "gateway type of thing" that attracts younger drinkers, is allowing the bill to become law without his signature.
In a statement explaining his mush-minded non-decision -- if he favored the bill, he should have done the stand-up thing and signed it -- the governor said he didn't think it fair to enact a stiff tax increase on the beverages by means of an attorney general's decision and a gubernatorial veto. He said he hoped the legislature would return to the issue next year and create a new classification for
alcopops -- presumably one that would tax them at a rate higher than beer but lower than hard liquor. Changing the status quo now simply wouldn't do, said the governor.
Why not? He and Mr. Gansler are, respectively, the highest elected official in the state and its top law enforcement official. Each has publicly embraced the obvious point that alcopops are wrongly classified and area particular temptation to underage drinkers. Each is on record as recognizing that underage drinking is a grave threat to public safety. Why, then, should alcopops continue to receive preferential tax and distribution treatment to which they are not logically entitled?
View all comments that have been posted about this article.