Alcohol-related deaths in New Mexico have decreased for the second year in a row, according to data from the New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH). In 2023, the state reported 1,896 alcohol-related deaths, a notable drop from 2,067 in 2022 and 2,274 at the peak in 2021. New Mexico has made strides in reducing its grim statistics.
“The decline highlights the positive impact of targeted interventions, community partnerships, and policy initiatives designed to address alcohol misuse,” said NMDOH Chief Medical Officer Miranda Durham. She emphasized the importance of maintaining momentum through expanded access to healthcare, substance use treatment, and prevention efforts.
Notably, McKinley County saw one of the steepest declines, with alcohol-related deaths dropping by 38% from 2021 to 2023.
Despite these improvements, Democratic lawmakers, with support from Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration, are moving forward with plans to raise alcohol taxes during the upcoming legislative session. The proposal seeks to increase alcohol excise taxes and impose a new 12% sales tax, which would significantly raise costs for consumers. For example, a bottle of vodka could cost $2.50 more, and Scotch whiskey prices might climb by $15 per bottle.
Proponents of the tax argue it would reduce alcohol consumption by 4% to 11%, though critics question the data and highlight the disproportionate impact on low-income New Mexicans. Additionally, in a November presentation to the interim Indian Affairs Committee, advocates of the tax controversially attributed alcohol harms to racial disparities in consumption and mortality. “Most alcohol in the state is consumed by individuals who are White, yet the highest mortality is observed among Indigenous, Hispanic, and Black individuals,” the presentation noted.
State Representative John Block (R-Alamogordo) has been vocal in his opposition, calling the proposal another example of government overreach. He criticized the governor’s simultaneous promotion of “Dry January,” where New Mexicans are encouraged to abstain from alcohol for the month. “Governor drunk on power wants you to join ‘Dry January,’” Block quipped, pointing to reports of Governor Lujan Grisham’s lavish taxpayer-funded alcohol purchases during the COVID-19 lockdowns.
For example, KOB reported that the governor’s office spent approximately $350 on alcohol purchases for a staff party, including beer, tequila, and wine. Critics have labeled this spending hypocritical, given the administration’s current push to raise taxes on alcohol consumers.
While alcohol-related deaths are declining, Democratic legislators appear intent on passing tax hikes that will raise costs for everyone, particularly harming working-class New Mexicans. As the legislative session ramps up, citizens should be prepared to fight this legislation or risk increasing everyday alcohol purchases by a massive margin.
Taxes, taxes, and more taxes, that’s what the democrats do….this is only the begining, more to come this legislative session, I can’t wait to leave this God forsaken state.
ERIK, your right, only concern is taxes.
The State of NM has 59 billion dollars in investment accounts called permanent funds. The time has come for removing all taxes in this state.
And yet MLG and colleagues do NOTHING about marijuana and all the ills it causes in NM! Where’s Mothers Against Stoned Driving? Where are breathalyzers for THC impaired? Give me a break.
Well at least it wasn’t depression due to the lockdowns, losing jobs, losing businesses, etc.
All I can say is New Mexicans need to realize voting for democrats have not helped them in the past, maybe vote republican? When you do the same thing over and over and get the same results yet you think just one more time and things will change usually mean you are just stupid or insane. I am glad I live less than a mile from Texas, I can buy my gas and beer in Texas where the government is not trying to control me.
Grok says:
Raising taxes on alcohol as a form of economic prohibition has several potential impacts beyond the intended goal of reducing consumption and related harms. Here’s an analysis of how such measures might influence public perception and lead to unintended consequences:
Public Perception of Government Overreach:
Resistance to Taxation: Higher taxes on alcohol can be perceived as punitive by consumers, leading to a backlash against what might be seen as excessive government intervention in personal choices. This perception can vary widely but is often stronger in cultures with a significant drinking tradition or where there’s already a sense of tax fatigue.
Political Pushback: Politicians and interest groups might capitalize on this sentiment, framing tax increases as government overreach. This can lead to political polarization, with debates around personal freedom versus public health, potentially influencing elections or policy rollbacks.
Trust in Government: If the tax is seen as unfair or if it disproportionately impacts certain economic groups without clear benefits, it could erode trust in government. Public health benefits need to be clearly communicated to counteract this perception.
Generation of Black Market Activity:
Increased Bootlegging and Home Production: Much like historical prohibition eras, high taxes can incentivize the production and sale of untaxed alcohol. If legal alcohol becomes significantly more expensive, there’s an economic incentive for black market alternatives, which can range from small-scale home brewing to large organized operations.
Quality Control Issues: Alcohol produced outside regulated environments often lacks the quality and safety controls of legal products, increasing risks like methanol poisoning or consumption of contaminated alcohol.
Economic Impacts: While the government might aim to increase revenue through taxation, a significant black market could undermine these financial goals, reducing tax collection and potentially necessitating more enforcement efforts, which carry their own costs.
Accompanying Criminal Activity:
Smuggling and Organized Crime: High taxes can make smuggling alcohol profitable, attracting organized crime. This not only brings issues of law enforcement but can also lead to broader criminal activities as these organizations expand their operations.
Violence and Corruption: The black market can lead to turf wars over distribution rights and corrupt practices to bypass regulations or law enforcement. This can degrade community safety and public trust in law enforcement.
Social Costs: Beyond the direct criminal activities, there are indirect costs like increased healthcare from unsafe alcohol or legal system expenses due to enforcement.
Mitigation and Considerations:
Regulation and Enforcement: Effective regulation that balances health goals with economic realities, coupled with robust enforcement to deter black market activities, is crucial. However, this must be done without overly invasive measures that could further fuel perceptions of overreach.
Public Education and Communication: Clear communication about the reasons for tax increases, focusing on public health outcomes, could help in garnering public support. Transparency about how tax revenues are used can also mitigate some backlash.
Alternative Policies: Exploring alternatives like minimum pricing, education campaigns, or restrictions on sale times might achieve similar health outcomes without the same level of perceived overreach or black market incentives.
In conclusion, while raising taxes on alcohol can have positive public health impacts, it also carries risks of increasing perceptions of government overreach, fueling black market activities, and associated criminal behaviors. Policymakers must carefully weigh these factors when considering such measures, ensuring that the benefits justify the potential social and economic costs.