New York Bill Would Make Alcohol Sales Fund Addiction Treatment Statewide

More than 8,000 New Yorkers die from excessive alcohol use every year. Treatment programs are chronically underfunded. And the state, in recent years, has made alcohol easier to buy than at any point in recent memory.

That's the contradiction a Bronx state senator is trying to address with legislation that would require the alcohol industry to help pay for the damage it causes.

State Senator Nathalia Fernandez introduced a package of three bills this month, collectively called the SUPER Initiative — short for Substance Use Prevention, Education and Recovery. The centerpiece is a proposed 5% tax on retail alcohol sales, with all proceeds directed into a dedicated fund for addiction treatment, prevention education, and recovery services. A second bill would redirect existing opioid excise tax revenue into the same fund, rather than letting it disappear into the state's general budget. A third would formalize the structure of the fund itself.

Together, the bills represent something that doesn't currently exist in New York: a guaranteed, recurring revenue stream for addiction services tied directly to alcohol.

The Backdrop

The timing isn't coincidental. Over the past few years, Albany has quietly transformed how and where New Yorkers can drink. Cocktails to go from restaurants became permanent. Direct-to-consumer alcohol shipping opened up. Movie theaters can now sell beer and wine. Lawmakers have been debating whether grocery stores should follow suit.

As each measure passed, there was rarely much discussion about what expanded access would mean for people who struggle with alcohol use disorder. Fernandez says that gap is the point. "We're creating opportunities where people can buy and consume at various times of the day," she said in remarks reported by iHeartMedia. "We need to be mindful of the people that currently suffer and may suffer from alcoholism."

The numbers bear out the concern. Nationally, alcohol contributes to an estimated 178,000 preventable deaths each year, according to the CDC — more than opioids at the peak of that crisis. In New York alone, the state health department puts alcohol-related deaths at over 8,000 annually, a figure that includes liver disease, alcohol poisoning, traffic fatalities, and long-term organ damage.

A Gap the Other Industries Don't Have

Supporters of the SUPER Initiative point to a structural inconsistency in how New York funds addiction services. When the state legalized cannabis, it built in dedicated tax revenue for substance use programs. When it expanded legal gambling, a portion of proceeds was earmarked for problem gambling treatment. Alcohol — by far the most widely consumed substance in the state — sends none of its sales tax revenue into addiction care.

Robert Kent, former counsel at OASAS, the state's addiction services agency, framed it bluntly: "When you just put the money into the general fund and spend it however, and you don't dedicate enough resources, too many people suffer the consequences. Too many people die. Too many people can't access treatment."

The opioid excise tax piece of the legislation addresses a similar frustration. That tax was established to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic, but the revenue currently feeds into the broader state budget rather than being ring-fenced for treatment. Fernandez's bill would change that.

Federal Uncertainty as a Forcing Function

The proposal arrives as addiction treatment providers across New York are navigating a period of genuine funding anxiety at the federal level. Over the past year, the Trump administration made multiple attempts to reduce Medicaid reimbursements tied to behavioral health services, including substance use treatment. Courts intervened each time, but the back-and-forth left providers operating in what Fernandez described as a "limbo" — unsure whether existing programs would remain solvent.

Assemblywoman Dana Levenberg, who is sponsoring the companion bills in the Assembly, made the connection explicit: "With federal funding becoming less reliable, we need new, stable sources of revenue."

That framing — state-level stability as a hedge against federal volatility — is likely to resonate in Albany at a moment when many health programs are watching Washington closely.

The Counterarguments

The bills will face headwinds. The alcohol industry, which has lobbied successfully to expand its market in recent years, will not welcome a 5% sales tax with enthusiasm. And critics from a different direction have raised equity concerns: a flat percentage sales tax falls harder on lower-income consumers, who spend a larger share of their budgets on everyday purchases including alcohol.

Levenberg has pushed back on the equity argument, noting that the state's recent expansion of alcohol access — including low-cost delivery services — means that many consumers are already paying less per purchase than they used to. An additional 5% on a $15 wine bottle, she argues, is "not going to be prohibitive."

Whether that framing holds in budget negotiations is another question. Fernandez plans to push for the bills to be included in the state's final budget, which is due April 1 but routinely finalized weeks later.

What Comes Next

The SUPER Initiative doesn't have an obvious path to rapid passage. Budget negotiations involve dozens of competing priorities, and the alcohol industry's political relationships in Albany run deep. But the proposal arrives with something that many advocacy-driven bills lack: a built-in fiscal logic. By tying treatment funding to the thing that's causing harm, rather than general appropriations, it sidesteps the perennial problem of addiction services being the first to get cut when budgets tighten.

For the treatment providers, advocates, and family members who have watched funding levels fluctuate for years, that kind of structural stability — whatever its political prospects — is exactly the kind of conversation they've been trying to start.