It makes perfect sense to me to make those who are drinking pay for the costs of enforcing the laws regarding drunk driving. The laws should be much tougher, since the results can be so devastating. It shouldn't take four OWIs before there is prison time.

Martha Safford, Kohler

This should not even be a question. Yes. A problem that costs out-of-pocket should be paid from the pocket of the instigator, in this case, the drinker(s) and those supplying the drinks.

Marti Zettel, Sheboygan

Taxes have been raised on too many things already. If they want to save money, they should increase the BAC level from the very low level of .08 to something approaching common sense. They are destroying the lives of social drinkers that are nowhere near impaired. Further taxing them for this is absurd.

Frank Lubotsky, Sheboygan

Are you telling me that a person doesn't get prison time until his or her fourth OWI? With the debate of rising health care costs, a person in Sheboygan County can potentially hurt or kill people three times before we tell them it's their last warning. Why not solve the problem the first time?

Steve Carter, Henderson, Tenn.

In the current bill, the increase in beer tax is being earmarked for helping OWI offenders and enforcement. It seems logical that, since we taxpayers are already paying for this, why not tax the offending parties. Besides, 1969 was the last time the beer tax was raised.

Jim Vercouteren, Cleveland

No. We have enough laws on the books to cover drunken driving; we just need to enforce them. We do not need any higher taxes for any reason. Spending more money is usually not the answer to social problems. We should try using common sense instead.

Mike Bean, Sheboygan

No. Aren't we getting taxed enough already on everything else? Where's all the money going from these taxes? Why do taxes keep going up with less to show for it? I think our government officials need to answer some of these questions before they just stick us with more taxes.

Kirk Nick, Sheboygan

Yes. The tax, less than 3 cents per 12-ounce bottle, would send this money directly from the beer consumer to law enforcement and treatment programs. The Tavern League will demonize this effort, as they are only interested in the profits of their industry, not the social costs.

Mark Briese, Sheboygan

I would be in favor of more taxes on beer and liquor if the money were going to be spent to educate rather than punish. I still don't know how much I can drink before I am legally drunk.

Jim Wolf, Sheboygan

No, because when the politicians get their fingers on more tax money, it rarely gets used for what it was intended for. They should be working on how to live within a budget, not be seeking more ways to tax and spend.

Jack Wirtz, Sheboygan

Since much of the cost of patrolling traffic violations and traffic accidents are a result of consumption of liquor and beer I think that it only fitting that those products are taxed.

Norman Veldboom, Oostburg

No. Why penalize the folks who drink responsibly? Focus the penalties directly on the drunken drivers. The tougher laws should include increases in the drunken driving fines large enough to recover the increased costs. This would perhaps add some deterrence as well.

Greg Hunolt, Town of Plymouth

This is tough because fellow Wisconsinites are gonna hate me, but, yes, what's a few cents more for liquor if we can help keep the drunks off the roads? But who really believes the extra money will go toward the intended purpose. Remember what happened to the cigarette tax money?

Donald Sofia, Sheboygan

I'm not sure what costs tougher drunk driving laws would create. Certainly drunk driving is problem that needs to be taken seriously, but I don't know if a tax is the best means to do so. I wonder where the TEA-Partiers stand on this. I'm guessing they won't be outraged.

David Henning, Sheboygan

No. Increasing taxes won't solve the problem. Instead, everyone should be required to have an alcohol conviction noted on their driver's licenses. If a person is ever convicted ,it would be so indicated. Like with minors, it would be illegal to sell or serve any convicted offender regardless of their age.

Dan Sohre, Cleveland