05/17/2005 11:26 AM

Yet we have done far too little to prevent these crimes, and have failed to address chemical abuse. Tens of thousands of Minnesotans are chemically dependent and would benefit from treatment.

Polls suggest about three out of every four Minnesotans — most of whom regularly consume alcoholic beverages — are willing to pay a higher alcohol tax to fund prevention and chemical dependency treatment.

It doesn't take much. A dime increase in the alcohol excise tax for every beer, glass of wine, or drink of liquor is not insignificant, but neither is it unreasonable. And this dime-a-drink tax could fund the most aggressive fight against violent crime in the nation.

My legislation, Senate File 606, faces strong opposition because it would raise the alcohol tax. An April 23 letter to the editor attacking the proposal suggests it is part of a "a neo-Prohibition agenda." That's nonsense. I enjoy a cold beer as much as anyone, but believe it is only fair that those of us who drink and those who profit from the sale of alcohol should take more of the burden of preventing its abuse.

Alcohol and chemical dependency puts a heavy strain on government budgets, especially from crime and health care costs. It is more appropriate to have those of us who consume alcohol, instead of all taxpayers, pay. And, with a small number of heavy drinkers causing most of the problems, it is appropriate that they would be the ones paying the most to cover those costs.

Even after amending the bill to help small local breweries compete with large competitors, the legislation would still provide the funding necessary to:

? Ensure no Minnesotan would be turned away from chemical dependency treatment for a lack of funds.

?Require a rigorous chemical dependency assessment for all criminal offenders and ensure that they receive needed treatment. This one provision would do more to prevent crime than any other action that the legislature could take.

? Support additional state patrol and local law enforcement officers for DWI enforcement and domestic violence intervention.

Senate File 606 will save money over the long term, reducing health-care costs, crime and special education expenses related to alcohol and drug abuse. But the biggest benefit is to the hundreds of families every year that would be saved from the pain of losing a loved one to a violent crime or a drunken driver.

Although it could cut violent crime by a third over the next decade, the dime-a-drink legislation is dead for this year. However, Sen. Jane Ranum is pushing a 1-cent per drink increase to pay for public safety and crime prevention because she knows the governor's public safety budget is inadequate. Ranum sees the public safety budget is not getting enough money, despite the tough anti-crime rhetoric from politicians.

While Ranum's legislation faces a tough uphill fight, it is the only real chance the Legislature will provide enough funding to meet some critical public safety needs. If we could begin this anti-violence initiative with a penny per drink now, we could fight for the other 9 cents next session.

Next time you see a tragic TV news report about parents who lose their daughter to a drunken driver, or read about the senseless murder of a senior citizen by a methamphetamine addict, ask yourself whether it's worth 10 cents on your next beer to pay for an aggressive chemical dependency and violence prevention plan.

I think most Minnesotans would say yes.