I must say that I am very disappointed in The Bulletin’s Nov. 14 editorial opposing raising the excise tax on beer. Instead, The Bulletin advocated a sales tax, which I presume is not limited to beer. Their thinking seems to be we should not expect the nascent microbrew business to bear the costs of the tax. The reality is that cost will more than likely be passed on to the consumer, as it should be. There are also many other costs associated with beer which are currently passed on to those who do not consume beer, which will be addressed in subsequent paragraphs.

Conversely, The Bulletin is encouraging an increase in pay for judges. One way to assist in increased funding, not only for the judges but for all parties involved with the justice system, is to shift the burden away from the average law-abiding citizen to those who assist in driving up the largest percentage of crime related incidents, alcohol drinkers, beer being the number one beverage involved in most alcohol-related crimes.

As an indigent defense investigator, I’ve been involved with thousands of cases during my time in Deschutes County, ranging from driving under the influence of intoxicants, domestic, spousal, child and sexual abuse, assaults, attempted murder, robbery and kidnapping to list but a few. The most common element involved with the cases I’ve reviewed are drug and alcohol use and abuse. When it’s alcohol related, beer is the most frequent beverage listed in the arresting officers’ reports.

Countless hours of officers’, deputies’, ADAs’ and judges’, as well as each department’s support staff, are consumed by those who drink alcohol, lose their inhibitions, tempers, good judgment or just plain old common sense. These are costs borne by all of us taxpayers.

However, the costs don’t end there. Qualifying for indigent defense coverage is a fairly low threshold, so not only are we the taxpayers paying for the costs of arresting and prosecuting these crimes, we are also paying for the defense. Granted, limited court costs are frequently included in the sentencing, but recovering the full costs just isn’t a reality. Then there are the costs associated with incarceration. We’ve just read in The Bulletin that Sheriff Les Stiles is asking for funds to enlarge the jail. This just days after two large taxpayer sponsored funding bills passed to pay for increased sheriff services.

Then there are the hidden costs not covered by the court. Families whose children have witnessed or been victims of alcohol-induced violence are often harmed and require extensive aid or, later in life, follow the same pattern they themselves witnessed. Foster or group housing is often the immediate result. The cost of which is, again, borne by the taxpayer.

Insurance rate increases are also fueled in part and spread throughout the insurance company’s pool by the costs associated with collisions caused by drunken drivers. Beer is again the number one beverage. Increased medical costs are also spread, both to taxpayers and insured persons, by alcohol-related issues. Collisions are one aspect, as are emergency room visits by domestic violence victims, who frequently lack insurance, or by the alcoholics themselves suffering from liver or other related tissue and organ damage.

Asking an industry and the users of their product to help defray the cost borne by society and the members of that society who do not use their product is something most of us support. Just look at the taxes placed on tobacco, many of which are not even used for tobacco-related problems. As both a former smoking addict and a recovering alcoholic, I know the damage both products can cause to the person who uses the products, as well as those who abstain.

We can better fund our court system and pay our judges a higher salary, as well as increase the number of judges on the bench, hire and train more law enforcement personnel, increase foster care, bring in more ADAs and more support staff without asking those who don’t drink to bear the burden of those who do. Just as we have recently established a drug court, we could shift resources to an alcohol-related court. So I say, raise the beer tax. Just make certain it is earmarked for court and related services. Don’t ask the rest of us to have every purchase we make subject to a sales tax.