Should treatment money come from a dedicated fund?

Last week the House Finance committee voted to repeal the Alcohol Fund and instead appropriate money for addiction treatment from the General Fund of all tax revenues.

The Alcohol Fund, established in 2000, sets aside up to 5% of liquor tax revenue for addiction treatment and prevention.

However, the Legislature has almost never given a full 5% of revenue to the fund.  In the last budget, only 1.7% of liquor taxes went to the Alcohol Fund.

This year Gov. Chris Sununu proposed funding at 3.4%.

Rep. Neal Kurk proposed a different approach: repeal the Alcohol Fund and pull money for addiction treatment and prevention from the General Fund of all tax revenues.  The General Fund includes revenue from business taxes, meals and rooms taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, and more.

Kurk’s proposal, which passed in the committee last week, actually increases overall funding for addiction treatment and prevention.

Supporters argue that there is also not a direct relationship between liquor sales and drug abuse overall, so it doesn’t make sense to tie liquor tax revenue to addiction treatment.

Opponents are concerned that repealing the Alcohol Fund ends the permanent, stable funding source for addiction treatment and recovery.

They argue that if the Legislature had been kept the Alcohol Fund at 5% of liquor tax revenue from day one, New Hampshire’s addiction crisis might not be as bad as it is now.

The House Finance Committee will finalize its complete budget proposal this week.  The full House of Representatives will vote on the budget Wednesday.

Do you think New Hampshire should repeal the Alcohol Fund or increase the percentage of liquor taxes that go to the fund?  Share your opinion in the comments below.