Bill that would increase alcohol tax in New Mexico passes first committee
SANTA FE, N.M. (KRQE) – Getting a six-pack at the grocery store or a glass of wine at your favorite bar may soon cost a little more. HB 417, a bill that would increase taxes on alcoholic beverages, cleared its first hurdle on Wednesday. New Mexico has not seen an alcohol tax increase in more than thirty years.
Story continues below
Albuquerque: ABQ city councilor calls for update on investigation into APD chief's crash
Crime: Day 3 of trial for men accused in fatal shooting of 11-year-old outside Isotopes Park
Entertainment: 'Absolutely fascinating:' Doctor on FOX's 'Extracted' details new survival show
The idea of raising the liquor tax has been debated in the Roundhouse before and sponsors are hoping this year it makes it across the finish line. A group of Democratic lawmakers are proposing a bill that would impose a 6% sales tax on alcohol saying they hope it would reduce the harms caused by alcohol in the state. 'Is that we will see a change in consumption, we also know that many New Mexicans are struggling with addiction and dependency every day. They're also navigating trauma,' said Rep. Micaela Cadena, (D-Mesilla).
Current taxes collected on alcohol go to the general fund and the DWI Fund. Under the new bill, the funds would go to two funds dedicated to addressing social issues related to alcohol, including the creation of a program focusing on helping tribal communities, something supporters agree with.
'Tribal behavioral health programs oftentimes don't have the professional staff or resources to provide treatment and services so we need the funding that's contained in this bill,' said Conroy Chino, Pueblos of Taos and Acoma.
'We also recognize the need for culturally appropriate services in the Tribal Alcohol Harms Alleviation program because we have a slightly higher percentage of veterans in the native communities,' said Dorothy Seaton, Veterans and Military Families Caucus.
However, some business advocates think the bill goes too far. 'But unfortunately, at six percent this creates a giant bureaucracy with $3 million just for administration fees and it's going to put us at an uncompetitive point,' said Ron Brown, a Rio Rancho business owner.
'This proposal places yet another financial burden on our businesses and consumers without providing a clear benefit as indicated in the FIR,' said Kristen Thomson, New Mexico Restaurant Association.
The bill also has some money for the University of New Mexico in order for them to do research on alcohol-related prevention and treatments. The bill passed its first committee Wednesday morning on a 6-4 vote.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
9 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Consultant on trial for AI-generated robocalls mimicking Biden says he has no regrets
LACONIA, N.H. (AP) — A political consultant told a New Hampshire jury Wednesday that he doesn't regret sending voters robocalls that used artificial intelligence to mimic former President Joe Biden and that he's confident he didn't break the law. Steven Kramer, 56, of New Orleans, has long admitted to orchestrating a message sent to thousands of voters two days before New Hampshire's Jan. 23, 2024, presidential primary. Recipients heard an AI-generated voice similar to the Democratic president's that used his catchphrase 'What a bunch of malarkey' and, as prosecutors allege, suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in November. 'It's important that you save your vote for the November election,' voters were told. 'Your votes make a difference in November, not this Tuesday.' Kramer, who faces decades in prison if convicted of voter suppression and impersonating a candidate, said his goal was to send a wake-up call about the potential dangers of AI when he paid a New Orleans magician $150 to create the recording. He was getting frequent calls from people using AI in campaigns, and, worried about the lack of regulations, made it his New Year's resolution to take action. 'This is going to be my one good deed this year,' he recalled while testifying in Belknap County Superior Court. He said his goal wasn't to influence an election, because he didn't consider the primary a real election. At Biden's request, the Democratic National Committee dislodged New Hampshire from its traditional early spot in the 2024 nominating calendar but later dropped its threat not to seat the state's national convention delegates. Biden did not put his name on the ballot or campaign there but won as a write-in. Kramer, who owns a firm specializing in get-out-the-vote projects, argued that the primary was a meaningless straw poll unsanctioned by the DNC. At the time the calls went out, voters were disenfranchised, he said. Asked by his attorney, Tom Reid, whether he did anything illegal, Kramer said, 'I'm positive I did not.' Later, he said he had no regrets and that his actions likely spurred AI regulations in multiple states. Kramer, who will be questioned by prosecutors Thursday, also faces a $6 million fine by the Federal Communications Commission but told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he won't pay it. Lingo Telecom, the company that transmitted the calls, agreed to pay $1 million in a settlement in August. The robocalls appeared to come from a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chair, Kathy Sullivan, and told voters to call her number to be removed from the call list. On the witness stand earlier Wednesday, Sullivan said she was confused and then outraged after speaking to one of the recipients and later hearing the message. 'I hung up the phone and said, 'There is something really crazy going on,'' she said. 'Someone is trying to suppress the vote for Biden. I can't believe this is happening.' Months later, she got a call from Kramer in which he said he used her number because he knew she would contact law enforcement and the media. He also described his motive — highlighting AI's potential dangers — but she didn't believe him, she testified. 'My sense was he was trying to convince me that he'd done this defensible, good thing,' she said. 'I'm listening to this thinking to myself, 'What does he thing I am, stupid?' He tried to suppress the vote.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
10 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Permitless concealed carry in North Carolina faces uphill battle after some GOP pushback
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A bill to let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit cleared the North Carolina legislature on Wednesday, however the path to joining the majority of U.S. states with similar laws remains uncertain. The GOP-backed legislation faces a likely veto from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, as well as pushback from a handful of Republicans who voted against the legislation in the state House. House Speaker Destin Hall acknowledged those concerns after Wednesday's vote. 'I would imagine that — math being math — that it's probably a low percentage relative to other bills,' Hall told reporters. If the bill becomes law, North Carolina would become the 30th state in the country to legalize permitless carrying of a concealed handgun, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. The legislation allows for eligible people with valid identification over the age of 18 to carry a concealed handgun. More than half of states with permitless concealed carry set their age limit at 21 and older, while the rest have the legal carrying age at 18, according to the NCSL. Currently, a person must be 21 and older to obtain a concealed handgun permit in North Carolina. To qualify, an applicant must pass a firearms safety training course and not 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun,' according to state law. Approving permitless concealed carry has been a goal of gun-rights activists in North Carolina for years, with House Republicans historically supportive of the idea. Some see it as the next step after Republican lawmakers successfully eliminated the permit system that required sheriffs to conduct character evaluations and criminal history checks for pistol applicants in 2023. Conservative advocates for the bill say it would strengthen Second Amendment rights for North Carolinians. Republican lawmakers also disputed that the bill would make the state more dangerous, as 'law-abiding citizens' would be the only people that would benefit from the permit elimination, not criminals, Republican Rep. Brian Echevarria said. 'Rights to keep and bear arms are constitutionally inseparable,' Echevarria said. 'If a person cannot own a firearm, they cannot bear a firearm.' The bill's passage tees up one of the first opportunities for a likely veto from Stein if he stays aligned with his fellow Democrats in the legislature. Stein has a more powerful veto stamp than his predecessor Roy Cooper , after Republicans lost their House supermajority last year that allowed them to override vetoes and enact their legislative agenda with relative ease. Now, House Republicans would need to count on a Democrat to join in their override efforts. Reaching that goal seems especially daunting, considering all of the present House Democrats — and two Republicans — voted against the bill. The governor's office didn't respond to a request for comment on the legislation, but House Deputy Democratic Leader Cynthia Ball said in a committee Tuesday that Stein was opposed to it. Several Democratic legislators said it would make communities unsafe by loosening who can carry a concealed handgun without training. Democrats also raised issue with the age limit set in the bill, saying it would put guns in the hands of young people who aren't yet mature enough to have one. 'Do you not remember when you were 18? We are prone and so susceptible to peer pressure, we are hotheaded, we are emotional,' Democratic Rep. Tracy Clark said on the House floor after retelling her personal experience of losing two friends in college to gun violence. Those seeking a permit for their concealed handgun — such as for the purpose of traveling with a firearm to a state that requires a permit — would still be able to do so. The bill also heightens the felony punishment for those who assault law enforcement officers or first responders with a firearm. A separate bill that makes gun safety courses available at North Carolina community colleges for people 18 and up passed in a near-unanimous House vote directly after the concealed carry permit repeal legislation was approved. ___ Associated Press writer Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Fox News
19 minutes ago
- Fox News
DOJ slams Newsom's 'crass political stunt' over Trump's call-up of National Guard amid LA anti-ICE riots
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues the courts should deny California's request for a restraining order against the Trump administration over its decision to activate National Guard soldiers in Los Angeles after violent riots broke out over the weekend amid Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the city. Democratic leaders in California claim President Donald Trump abused his authority by invoking a provision of Title 10 that allows the president to mobilize the National Guard if an invasion or rebellion is underway. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement Monday that Trump caused the bulk of the rioting because he unnecessarily deployed the military to protect ICE personnel and federal buildings. Newsom also claimed local and state police had the situation under control when Trump spurred chaos by issuing his National Guard proclamation. Weighing in on the matter a day ahead of a scheduled hearing, the DOJ made its case that Trump had the authority to call on the National Guard's response. "In a crass political stunt endangering American lives, the Governor of California seeks to use this Court to stop the President of the United States from exercising his lawful statutory and constitutional power to ensure that federal personnel and facilities are protected," the DOJ said. "But, under the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and the President is responsible for ensuring the protection of federal personnel and federal facilities." Since Friday, violent rioters who object to ICE's enforcement of immigration laws have targeted and damaged federal buildings, injured federal personnel and impeded federal functions, the DOJ said. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and other state and local law enforcement officials have been unable to bring order to Los Angeles, the DOJ claimed. The agency also pointed to a comment made by LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, who said during a news conference that "things have gotten out of control" and warned that "somebody could easily be killed." "Evaluating the unrest and threats to the enforcement of federal law that local and state authorities were unable or unwilling to control, the President responded by using the authority vested in him by statute and the Constitution to federalize and deploy the California National Guard to protect federal personnel and property, quell the mobs, and restore order," the DOJ wrote. "When the situation escalated further, the Secretary of Defense deployed a group of U.S. Marines to further assist. "The President has every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law," the DOJ continued. "Yet instead of working to bring order to Los Angeles, California and its Governor filed a lawsuit in San Francisco seeking a court order limiting the federal government's ability to protect its property and officials." The DOJ said California's request would "countermand" the president's military directives, which would be "unprecedented." "On the merits, Plaintiffs' claims are baseless," the DOJ said. Newsom also claimed Trump never consulted with him before activating the National Guard, though the statute does not have such a requirement, the DOJ said. "It merely directs, as a procedural matter, that the President's orders be conveyed "through" the Governor," the DOJ wrote. "They were." Historically, courts did not interfere when former President Dwight Eisenhower deployed the military to protect school desegregation, nor did they interfere when former President Richard Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail during a postal strike. Ultimately, the DOJ recommended the court deny California and Newsom's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Newsom's office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
