An MLIVE report ran today that instantly caught my eye and got my gears turning. In Michigan, counties have a major conflict of interest in keeping people sober and bringing in revenue.
All counties are in a unique position where they financially benefit from both the sale of alcohol and the prosecution of alcohol-related offenses.
Though drunk driving offenses are on the decline, this dual revenue stream raises significant questions about potential conflicts of interest and the implications for public policy and justice.
Front-End Revenue: Liquor Sales and Taxes
Bars and restaurants across Michigan contribute significantly to county revenues through:
Liquor Licensing Fees: Establishments pay for the right to sell alcohol, generating substantial income for local governments.
Sales and Excise Taxes: A 6% sales tax and additional excise taxes on alcohol sales contribute to state and local budgets.
Economic Activity: High-performing bars boost local economies by attracting tourists and creating jobs.
For instance, MLive’s 2025 report highlights the top liquor-selling bars in each of Michigan’s 83 counties, underscoring the economic significance of alcohol sales statewide.
This also inadvertently offers law enforcement a heat map of locations to target for drunk driving infractions, potentially increasing their budgets as well.
Back-End Revenue: Court Fines and Fees from Alcohol-Related Offenses
When alcohol consumption leads to legal infractions, counties benefit financially through:
Fines and Court Costs: Offenders pay substantial amounts in fines and fees.
Probation and Monitoring Fees: Ongoing supervision generates continuous revenue.
Mandatory Programs: Court-ordered alcohol education and treatment programs often come with fees.
Incarceration Costs: Some counties, especially rural ones, charge inmates for jail stays, adding another revenue layer.
A first-time Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) offense in Michigan can vary greatly, encompassing various fines, fees, and increased insurance premiums.
The consequences and points on a license also vary greatly, despite the Michigan Legislature insisting that sentencing guidelines be uniform across the state.
And if you end up in a county before judges like Van Buren’s Michael McKay with a reputation for setting unconstitutionally high bail, you could be looking at substantially higher fees.
The Ethical Implications
This dual-revenue model presents ethical concerns:
Conflict of Interest: Counties might be less incentivized to implement measures that reduce alcohol-related offenses if they benefit financially from prosecutions.
Disproportionate Impact: Lower-income individuals may bear the brunt of this system, facing significant financial burdens from fines and fees. This allows counties to make money off the backs of the poor and often, traumatized or addicted.
Policy Decisions: There may be hesitancy to enact policies that could reduce alcohol consumption and, by extension, county revenues.
Wrapping it Up
It is essential to shed light on the financial dynamics between liquor sales and court revenues in Michigan counties. Failing to consider these factors when discussing public policy and justice reform is absolving counties from financial exploitation.
The Michigan Legislature could absolutely disincentivize this practice by requiring a large portion liquor sale revenue directly fund mental health and addiction treatment services.
Without action, Michigan’s counties are in a complex position, benefiting from both the sale of alcohol and the prosecution of its misuse.
This dual-revenue system necessitates a critical examination to ensure that public health and justice are not compromised in pursuit of financial gain.
Sources:
- MLive: The Bar with the Most Liquor Sales in Each of Michigan’s 83 Counties
- Michigan Drunk Driving Numbers Lowest in a Decade
- Drunk Driving Crashes in Michigan: Arrests Down, Enforcement Wanes
- Grand Traverse County OWI Arrests Report
