Another nickel for your margarita?

Wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard a politician, especially those in the Valley, say they were voting against something because they “were tired of nickel and diming the voters.”

So, now we routinely cut millions in jobs and services, while cashiers opt not to give us back a penny in change “because what’s a penny buy you anyway?” or we see pennies left untended outside gas stations.

So, would you pay an extra nickel or so for a glass of chardonnay or a Foster’s if that money specifically went to offset costs that governments and hospitals incur for caring for alcohol-related injuries, accidents, and for education and abuse-prevention efforts?

That fee has been proposed, the SF Chronicle reports, by Supervisor John Avalos to “pay for the harm of alcohol consumption on the people of San Francisco and the city and county of San Francisco.” Of course it’s opposed by the beverage industry, while being supported by SF public health director Dr. Mitch Katz and the Marin Institute advocacy group.

Estimates are the fee could raise $15 million annually. A city study said the fire department annually spends $4 million in unreimbursed costs for emergency response to alcohol-related incidents, SF General Hospital spends nearly $2 million for patient care, and substance abuse programs fork out $10 million. And, as in Fresno, every SF social service and protection program is under the financial gun. And as we all well know, alcohol hurts and kills way beyond the imbiber.

Yes, it is a “fee” vs. “tax” thing, giving cities and counties more flexibility. As Fresno County’s once-lush mental health service system of the 1990s dissolves to the point where it can’t keep a psychiatrist employed, more and more safety-net responsibilities are being imposed on clinics and hospitals, like Community Medical Centers. And alcohol abuse is certainly involved in vehicular trauma, family violence and often a component to mental illness.

The Valley seems an odd place. People who don’t have kids in Clovis schools object to paying school assessments. If they’re not required to pay flood insurance, why is there a flood-control assessment on their tax bill?  And when Proposition 63 — a tax on millionaires to improve state mental health services — was passed in 2004, Fresno County was one place where voters rejected it.

So, what do you think of paying a “charge-for-the-harm” fee on your next margarita?