Beer sucks.

Well, let me rephrase that. Cheap beer sucks. Sure, a nice German lager or an Irish cream ale can really help ease the pain of a cold Iowa fall or winter day, and nothing beats a martini while wearing business casual at a high-rise cocktail party.

But in large part, anything you can get a 30-pack of with change from underneath your couch cushions is beer that should be avoided. So you would think that the idea of a tax increase on it that may soon be proposed to the state Legislature by drug czar Gary Kendall would not bother me so much.

But just as utterly confusing as this tobacco tax increase is, which allows the state government to benefit financially off of cancer-stick users much like big tobacco does, this concept gives me a bad case of the heebie jeebies (but since the government admits that smoking is addictive then it’s OK for them to make a profit).

Chet Culver wanted to raise the tobacco tax to increase teachers’ salaries but also to help prevent new users from smoking. In the same way, a tax increase on beer would “help fund state drug prevention and treatment programs” as the Daily reported last week.

So, like the tobacco tax, they want to pretend like they are preventing usage, while using money earned from people who still use alcohol, meaning that if they achieved their goal of decreasing alcohol consumption, they would be losing money.

Brilliant.

Now the idea of a tax increase is appalling, but there has to be a better reason the drug czar can come up with to raise the tax that doesn’t involve lying to your citizens about your true intentions. And I think there may be a solution. In April 2000, a study was released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that claimed that raising the tax on beer could actually decrease the spread of STIs, specifically gonorrhea.

Now you are probably asking yourself, how the hell did they come up with these conclusions? Answer. According to an article from Reason online, the CDC claimed “recent history showed that cases of the clap declined when beer prices went up” and proposed that “a 20-cent state tax increase per six-pack of beer could reduce U.S. gonorrhea rates by almost 9 percent.” Well, there you have it, Gary Kendall – a reason the Legislature might actually bite on, even though they would probably be naive enough to agree that alcohol prevention is best funded by alcoholics – so much for compassionate liberalism.

But truly, this study may be just what the doctor ordered. Because not only could this curtail the thousands of new cases of STIs that surface daily, but you could really kill two birds with one stone here. Drinking less could quite possibly be the end of going home with the guy or girl that you wouldn’t tell your friends about. And on top of saving yourself money, you also save yourself a trip to student health for your free confidential exam. Cut the alcohol out of the equation, you are more likely to keep your pants on, and save yourself from an STI – it’s flawless.

Now this study may sound bogus, and it probably is grossly inaccurate – you are not going to get an STI if you drink alcohol. It is unfortunate that our government thinks we are naive enough to think that the czar is genuine in pronouncing a tax increase in order to curtail drinking and smoking.

The least the drug czar can do is come up with an excuse to raise the beer tax that doesn’t involve lying to the citizens of this state. And just like Culver and tobacco companies, it’s now the drug czar’s turn to profit off of the addictions of others.

So maybe Kendall could provide the state Legislature with close-up pictures that we all saw in high school health class and at least be honest. Until then, we will always be under the impression that our government cares about our health and welfare when in reality it’s only the profit that matters.

– Andrew Gionnette is a senior in mechanical engineering from Chanhassen, Minn.