The price increase may have additional benefit in reducing availability to youth using the same evidence of even small tax increases due to the increased cost. However, price sensitive consumers such as youth may look to other value-priced brands to offset this. I suppose the brewers understand the trade-off in increasing prices/profits versus low prices to entice new drinkers and solidifying brand loyalty with younger drinkers. As noted, the brewers say the local markets have been assessed and they'll be deciding price increases for local markets. I'm presuming that the increased alcoholic beverage taxes in some 'local markets' this year will be part of the decisions, either with lower/no brewer price increases where taxes are raised to offset price-sensitivities or I can also see brewers strategizing to do both, leading to a double-whammy that they can then use PR and 'concerned citizens' to rail against the impact of tax increases as if the increase was just due to taxes, thus generating future pressure against additional tax increases. I have also heard recently that local distributors are set to add price/profit increases on top of the tax increases and blame all of the increase on the taxes; "we're just passing it along to consumers".

It's funny that the alcohol industry lobbyists always complain to elected officials that increasing alcohol taxes will create immense economic hardships by costing jobs, and then the industry raises prices itself. How come price increases by the industry itself won't costs jobs? And why should anybody listen to industry complaints about how terrible alcohol taxes will be?

In Wisconsin our legislature raised cigarette taxes another 75 cents a pack. They also passed a long overdue smoke-free work place law; both policies increased demand for tobacco services. Then they cut funds for tobacco harm reduction by 55%. The same legislature refused to increase the beer tax already one of the lowest in the nation to help fund our alcohol and drug services. Now the alcohol industry is going to raise beer prices to increase profits. Wisconsin has cut its alcohol harm reduction and treatment services while the beer industry increases profits. So, our elected lawmakers cut resources for reducing harm from tobacco and alcohol while allowing booze and tobacco business to flourish and prosper. When is government going to stop putting business profits before public health? At least government should protect the public by providing enough funds to help those of us who deal with the very real downsides from tobacco and alcohol. But there are no powerful advocates to speak for the victims of tobacco and alcohol so they have no strong political voice to protest or pay off politicians for their support.

You are right, David. There are no powerful advocates for health and safety. If anything is going to change, that change will have to come from the grassroots, i.e. a groundswell of community-based action to counter the wealth, influence and political power of an amoral industry.