stupid stupid stupid stupid

[Josh Oakes]

[rant type=foaming at the mouth]
Understanding that macrobrewers don't care at all about beer lovers, as a beer lover I think this concept is ridiculous. First off, guarana is a natural source of caffeine...there's no other stimulant to it. They just use it because it sounds all herbal and sexy, whereas caffeine derived from tea or coffee sounds too plain.

But most of all, where are our prohibitionists like MADD these days? Molson markets a beer with a can designed for shotgunning, now they want to keep alcoholics more alert so they can consume more alcohol and/or delude themselves that their heightened alertness makes them okay to drive when they are actually quite impaired.

The rocket scientists in our government will sell this crap, 151, Crest Super and other shit that poses a threat to people's health as long as it comes from a big company...but oh no! they ban Cantillon Kriek and make life miserable for responsible microbrewers and brewpub owners (and specialty beer importers). Maybe it's time for Operation Anarchy. After a dozen caffeine beers I'd be sufficiently stupid and energetic to stage a coup with my big mouth and a lead pipe. Bloody hell.
[/rant]

[old faithful]

I think the big brewers feel obliged to get on the bandwagon. A major international brewery (A/B) creates a beer flavoured with caffeine, inevitably others follow with something similar. We saw this with dry, ice and light beers, low-carb, etc.

What I find fascinating is when something is introduced or relaunched that is a good traditional beer (maybe not what we here prefer but is undeniably a decent barley beer), people buy it. E.g. Stella Artois, or Keith's IPA, which I'm sure will grow their share a lot in the next few years. I doubt the "spiked", flavoured beer trend will catch on. I think the big brewers would be better off trying to create new versions (really, more traditional versions) of good old barley and hop beer. For the crowd that doesn't like beer taste, they could focus on light beers (e.g. Heinken's new Premium Light) and other such products. But a real-flavoured beer could take off in my view if presented and promoted in the right way.

As for the higher alcohol beers, I am not sure there is any real distinction between commercial stronger beers and micro and import stronger beers. Any beer (of any decent strength) can be abused. What is important in my view is alcohol education. If ever came the day (and it could) where beers over a given strength were banned, I don't see how the government could properly distinguish between, say, Crest and Unibroue's strong ales. Either they all should be allowed or they all have to go, and of course I think they should stay, to allow a maximum of choice. But it is very important that both producers and regulators mount effective, constant, anti-alcohol abuse campaigns. It should be done because that is the right thing to do but also in the interest of the producers themselves.

gary

[esprit]

The day they ban strong beers they'll have to insist that all wines and spirits are also 5%...wow, that would be some kind of single malt!

[old faithful]

You are right Peter, the pressure to do the same with drinks other than beer would, on grounds of justice and logic, be hard to resist, so how could strong beer ever be at risk? Still, I don't see the targeting of beer alone as out of the realm of possibility. I understand some Nordic countries used to ban beer that was in excess of certain (fairly low) abv limits yet spirits were availabale in these places. I don't know how that was justified at the time, maybe it was felt younger people (who cannot generally afford spirits) are the bulk of the beer consumers so an abv cap would tend to promote their safety and that of others, I don't know.

Gary

[borderline_alcoholic]

Nonsense, they would simply get around that on the basis that in the minds of Joe Average, single malt scotches and wines are far classier drinks, only purchased by those who are capable of handling them correctly. Whereas by banning high alcohol beer we are simply protecting Joe Scum from themselves.

Never underestimate the power of hypocrisy.

[old faithful]

Yes, you have a point as to how possibly it was viewed in Scandinavia when these restrictions existed there. But it is different now. Wine is consumed by everyone now and is not the elite drink it was once perceived to be. And spirits, while never cheap, are not that much more costly today than beer or wine, so...

Gary

[borderline_alcoholic]

But it is different now. Wine is consumed by everyone now and is not the elite drink it was once perceived to be. And spirits, while never cheap, are not that much more costly today than beer or wine, so...

Gah, there you go confusing logic with public perceptions...

While what you are saying is entirely true, I suspect that it is still the case that those non-elite everyman types who are drinking wine and spirits still perceive it as being indicative that their social status has risen so much higher than that of the beer drinking hobbledehoys....

That there is little truth to their beliefs is neither here nor there, all that matters is that they won't use their votes to prevent the enactement of new laws which are reliant on the perpetuation of belief in this exciting fairy tale.

[Rob Creighton]

Is the fundemental Canadian tragic flaw in our collective personalty that we ignore personal responsibility, refuse to believe that we are good people at root and will, over time, make the wrong decisions for ourselves and our families?

We can't ban products based on our tainted perception of their ethical role in society. We should have the belief that we will evolve away from crap! Allowing big brother to get involved in our world to make us better folk is just wrong and doomed to failure. (Breathe, breathe Rob) Banning any of these products (all drugs included) leads to corruption and very expensive, frustrating bureaucracy. Eventually you have to try and stop controlling your neighbours behaviour and believe all will be right in the end. I know, waaayyy too philisophical.

[borderline_alcoholic]

There is no place in a modern Canada for such views. You must leave now.

[mustang3]

Don't underestimate the effect of "drinking" drys. I'm sure MADD has quite a few members with this attitude: "My drinking is fine and safe but their (pick target group here) drinking is dangerous". I'm a history major and just did a paper on the opposition to prohibition. The 18th amendment would never have been passed without "drinking" drys. I'd be scared if a question about strong beer ever came to a referendum.

[esprit]

...on the strong beer front, some U.S. states still ban beers over a certain alcohol level and others have restrictions on how big the bottles can be so it's happening close to home.

[Josh Oakes]

Well, since we're on the one bit about strong beers. To me, it's simple. There is a huge difference between Crest Super and say, Fin du Monde. The prices points are different, the marketing is different and the product itself is different. What do the two have in common - that they are beer? Given the character of Crest Super or Faxe 10% even that is a little bit questionable. The government can easily distinguish between products that are intended as ruthlessly efficient alcohol delivery mechanisms and products that are intended to be enjoyed for their flavours and aromas. Surely the same government that can consider Cantillon too sour to be beer one on hand but sell Schultheiss Berliner Weisse on the other can handle a little ambiguity.

As for caffeine, well the day comes that clubbers are slamming Coffee Porter til the wee hours and killing people on the way home we'll look at that one but marketing a product that will delude people into thinking they are more sober than the really are is dangerous.

The government does have the ability to tell Molson to take the little bullseye off the bottom of their cans and change the name to something a little more subtle. They should flex their monopolistic muscle not just to screw over us little guys, but to do a bit of good for the public. It is as hypocritical for the LCBO to sell this type of stuff and preach responsibility as it is for the BC government to charge people with drunk driving.

[old faithful]

But many people buy inexpensive wine as their preferred relaxant, and wine can be abused too like any alcoholic drink. Those cheap sherries sold at LCBO, someone is buying them and I am not sure that it is only people who want to drink too much. Also if someone wants to abuse drink they will find a way, e.g. they will have more units of a 5% beer than of a stronger one. Since the government is already in the business of marketing and selling alcoholic beverage, it already has to deal with a dual role of doing that and counselling the public on alcohol education. I think the LCBO does not a bad job, its publications contain warnings to consume responsibly and the articles in its magazine show alcohol consumption as an activity to be undertaken with food, only in certain social settings, and so forth. There will never be a perfect solution but I would rather see a stepped-up effort on alcohol control and education (by everyone: producers, governments, universities, workplaces) than selectively banning or limiting certain alcohol products. It is true that in certain states in the U.S. beer above a certain abv limit is banned. I think that was a legacy of the post-Prohibition laws which reintroduced beer to America in 1933. At that time there was little wine drunk. The idea was I think that beer, the main relaxant for the people, should not be too strong, and in fact at the time that was probably a good policy. I am not sure if there was really an intention to be condescending to the average person. I think it was felt that people understood what whiskey was and how it is consumed but (legitimate) beer was new again and since it is drunk (even if only one bottle) in a greater quantity than liquor it was felt necessary to put a limit on its strength. Also, there was a memory that before 1920 workers were sometimes allowed to drink at lunch, and 3.2 beer was perhaps felt to be a safety measure for employees at work (and to discourage under-productivity). But times have changed and I know that some states changed their laws since those early days, in part to allow micros to make certain strong specialties.

Personally, I avoid most strong beers. I enjoy an Imperial stout or another kind of strong (or stronger) beer once in a while but in general I like beer at 5%. But I don't see how you can decide which beers are connoisseur beers or likely to be consumed responsibly vs. beers which may not be. What about Schlitz' and the other malt liquors? I know people who like those who are very responsible about beer and its consumption. Then there are those domestic commercial beers, often line extensions, with abv's like 5.8, 6, 6.5, which some people (I think generally an older crowd) just like, e.g. that strong Laker beer or the stronger version of Black Label (I buy those once in a while).

One thought is maybe to require labels that advise people in no uncertain words that these drinks are equivalent to more than one, maybe a table could be given showing equivalencies, e.g. that a 10% abv beer of 12 ounces is equivalent to two beers. Why not post such warnings prominently at the Beer Store and at LCBO in the beer section? I would have no problem with that.

Finally, another facet of alcohol control is the drinking and driving law. Perhaps the time has come for our legislators to look at the current rules and how they stack up viz. laws in other provinces, various parts of the U.S. and elsewhere.

Gary

[pootz]

Mega brewers= gov't crony insider=politically corrupted market place

Microbrewers=bureaucratically oppressed producer=tax slave captive consumer

These are formulas that only shifing the political dynamics of the province will solve. If you ever sat on the couch sucking your thumb (or beer as the case may be) in the fetal position humming kum-by-auw and dreaming of a better day during a provincial election, you are part of the problem.

[Belgian]

Mega brewers= gov't crony insider=politically corrupted market place

Microbrewers=bureaucratically oppressed producer=tax slave captive consumer

These are formulas that only shifing the political dynamics of the province will solve. If you ever sat on the couch sucking your thumb (or beer as the case may be) in the fetal position humming kum-by-auw and dreaming of a better day during a provincial election, you are part of the problem.

Interesting. What's your plan on shifing the political dynamics of the province?

I agree that this country must use the vision of a sophistic mentality, rather than treating Canadians like drooling babies. We want free access to things like vitamin therapies and rare beers because we as typical Canadians are thoughtful and selective, not because we are on a Drano-sucking bender to self destruction.

So who do we shake up and wake up? I don't see a plan. The basic problem may be that all the mechanisms now in motion all have compromised interests. The State is becoming god, and people don't really notice. We are the frog in the saucepan, not aware we're being slooowly boiled. How does one create the general visibility and public interest to force disruption of the current imbalance, and embarass the province onto being more responsible?

It's hard to say where practical action leaves off and lunatic belief in one's ability to change the world begins. Yes we can email and write letters and demonstrate; really overcoming the thick-headed establishment may take a lot more clever media-based strategy. Michael Moore may be kind of a pinhead sometimes but he can make a lot of people uncomfortable who really deserve to be. That takes a shewd approach.