Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Sneaky booze

1

Just goes to show you. Drunks are lazy. Place the good stuff a couple blocks away and they'd rather sober up.

Posted by Giffy | January 16, 2007 4:57 PM
2

AFFECTS! Please!

Posted by giantladysquirrels | January 16, 2007 5:04 PM
3

affects, not effects

Posted by Big Wags | January 16, 2007 5:04 PM
4

Benson's grocery at Pike and Bellevue has Big Bear Malt liquor.

Posted by doink | January 16, 2007 5:20 PM
5

I looked at the comments just to see how much of them we're correcting the affect/effect mistake. You people our the reason that other people feel that they're lives are unadaquit. Go remove the caret from your ass!

Posted by God just killed two kittens | January 16, 2007 5:51 PM
6

Why not just impose a tax on fortified wine and malt liquor and use the cash to fund alcohol treatment programs?

Posted by Gitai | January 16, 2007 8:02 PM
7

While a tax would work with fortified wine (which is regular wine with hard liquor added), it wouldn't work so well with malt liquor. Why? Because for the most part, "malt liquor" is difficult to define. It's brewed just like regular beer, but is much stronger in alcohol content. Barley wines and Belgian Ales also have very high alcohol content, but they're costly to make and buy. Not many people would consider Chimay a malt liquor, though it is stronger than say, Olde English 800.

One way to define a malt liquor is by its ingredients. Cheap, strong beer can be made by adding lots of rice and corn. You won't see Belgian Ales made with corn. But this puts the city in the position of having to define beer by its ingredients, just like the Germans do, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Posted by Ebenezer | January 16, 2007 10:36 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).