Some Cost, More Gain : Proposition 134: Latinos bear a disproportionate burden of alcoholism with few services. This initiative could help.

Historically, the drug of choice of the poor and the immigrant has been alcohol. Latinos are the heirs to this dubious legacy. National, local and regional surveys all indicate that Latinos suffer disproportionately higher rates of alcohol-related problems than the rest of society.

Reports shows that nearly one-third of adult Mexican-American males can be considered “heavy” or “problem” drinkers. According to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services, Mexican-born males in the United States have a 40% higher risk of death from alcohol-related cirrhosis of the liver than white males. In Los Angeles County, nearly 50% of those arrested for drunk driving are Latinos--clearly a higher proportion than our percentage of the county population.

The liquor industry, like the tobacco industry, refuses to regulate itself and tries to frustrate government efforts to sensitize Latinos and other Californians to the dangers of overconsumption and addiction to alcohol.

Take Proposition 134, better known as the “nickel-a-drink” tax. Proponents, armed with considerable research, say that raising taxes will reduce overall consumption and reduce alcohol-related problems. More important, the revenues would target overconsumption, developing needed prevention, education and recovery services that have never been a priority of either the governor or the Legislature.

Backed by a large advertising budget, the alcohol industry is playing hardball. It has proposed Proposition 126, a counter-initiative that would raise alcohol taxes a penny a drink. The intent is not to reduce consumption. The fact that people throw pennies away makes that obvious. Moreover, rather than earmarking the money for specific programs, Sacramento would be left to divvy it up. The desperate need for funding in other sectors of society further aids the liquor lobby. For example, the California Teachers Assn. backs Proposition 126 because it seeks funds for teacher salaries and school programs. The California Medical Assn. wants alcohol tax money to pay for medical insurance.

Proposition 134 is by no means perfect. Most of its backers are bureaucrats and organizations that would not recognize a cultural difference if they fell over it. Without a doubt, if 134 passes, we Latinos will have to battle with these insensitive gatekeepers for our share of funds.

But life has never been easy for Latinos. Although we are about 35% of the county population and 49% of those convicted for driving under the influence, we receive only about 18% of the county’s services. We are dreadfully underrepresented in the staffing of alcohol programs. This translates into poor planning for Latino services in areas such as South-Central Los Angeles, where more than 50% of the school-age population is Latino and where no Latino alcohol programs are available. Until very recently, there was only one alcohol-recovery home for male Latino alcoholics and one for females in Los Angeles County.

In spite of its drawbacks, the bottom line is that Latinos are better off with Proposition 134. Because Latinos will pay a disproportionate share of a new alcohol tax, as well as the social costs of alcohol consumption, it is essential that the money be targeted to reduce consumption. Further, the goal should be to eventually reduce or eliminate the amount of revenues raised by alcohol taxes by reducing consumption rather than making the schools, medical care and the elderly dependent on revenues derived from Latinos and other Californians drinking themselves to death.