Oklahoma Laws v. 3.2: The Liquor Law Thread

[dismayed]

visit the Corpus Christi HEB on the way to Padre Island. GREAT grocery ... fresh seafood and great beef and other "grocer" items ... but the wine area is very nice, too.

Hopefully this will happen soon in Oklahoma City (and Oklahoma, at large).

I wish we'd get an HEB. Their regular stores are pretty good, but their upscale stores are fantastic. But I agree, no way are they moving into Oklahoma until we settle some of these liquor law issues that are keeping them out.

[jbrown84]

And you both give Christianity and religion a good name... not because you endorse alcohol sales but because you are not judgemental.

You are respectful, and you present your thoughts in a well received manner... you attract people instead of turn them off of your faith or beliefs.

In my opinion, that is the way to influence people in a positive manner.

Thanks Karrie. I hope I always show a mutal respect for others on this board and elsewhere. I credit my parents, my progressive-minded church, and my college education at OBU for a well-rounded, unsheltered outlook on the world.

[BDP]

Give us 6.0 beer and we can stop making beer runs down south and giving our $$ to saxet!

You can get beer over 3.2 in OK, just not chilled. If you mean the common domestics, well most of those don't approach 6.0 no matter where you are. If you drive to Texas to buy Bud Light, you're only getting slightly over Oklahoma's 3.2 content by weight. The 6.0 thing is largely a myth.

Again, Oklahoma's laws basically net that you can't get alcohol over 3.2 in a store that sells anything else and you can't get any alcohol over 3.2 cold at all. I know that this is because of a strong liquor store lobby that wants to be the exclusive provider of a product to customers, but if we opened it up for competition, couldn't we simply allow liquor stores to offer other items so they can compete as well? Maybe give them the opportunity to have more than one store. Maybe limit grocery sales to under 20% alcohol and let liquor stores sell mixers, snack, food, cigarettes, etc. like most liquor stores.

There is so much room for compromise here, you would think we could get some reform that gave all parties involved opportunity for more businesses while removing limitations on consumers...

Here's a pretty good explanation of the current status of our liquor laws, the forces that guide them, and the real difference between beer here and elsewhere:

Oklahoma's 3.2 beer laws unlikely to change anytime soon - Marketplace Modern Brewery Age - Find Articles

[NE Oasis]

And you both give Christianity and religion a good name... not because you endorse alcohol sales but because you are not judgemental.

You are respectful, and you present your thoughts in a well received manner... you attract people instead of turn them off of your faith or beliefs.

In my opinion, that is the way to influence people in a positive manner.

Thanks for the compliment Karried.
As I have matured as a Christian I have learned that judgemental behavior seldom produces positive results. (Living in Vallejo, CA and riding around all of northern California for for three years in the early 90's didn't hurt either).

[Midtowner]

I'm also a Southern Baptist and think this is a good thing. I'm tired of the backwards, 1950's thinking among conservative Christians.

Hence the "Christianist" monicker which only applies to some.. much like Islamists. These are the nutjobs that can make any religion look bad.

No one on this board, that I know of, save some ex-members perhaps would fall into this category.

[betts]

It seems as if there are a few obstacles, after reading the above referenced article. The liquor store lobby will probably be opposed to changing the law, the fact that grocery stores are open on Sundays being a big objection. Then, we've got the fact that our 6.0 beer must be sold warm by law. That sounds like something worth changing as well. I can understand that if it's sold cold, a person can just pop a can open on the way home from the liquor store. But, a good researcher should be able to look at our DUI and alcohol related accident rate and compare them to states that have less restrictive laws. I'm guessing we will find the rates are similar and our laws are having very little affect on liquor consumption, especially as it relates to driving and alcohol.

[foodiefan]

hopefully the fundamentalists and the retail liquor stores won't join hands (at least UNDER the dinner table) or we're doomed. And. . . HEB owns Central Market. . . just wishing. . . .

[Lauri101]

Historically, it wouldn't be the first time the fundies and liquor suppliers joined hands in Oklahoma.

Look at how long it took Prohibition to end - mainly because the bootleggers and churchgoers were snuggled tightly in bed together.

As usual, and sadly, history will no doubt repeat, unless we can get enough folks to get busy and go sign the petition and vote.


Kudos to jbrown and ne oasis - would that all Christians learn the lessons you both have.

[okclee]

Minnesota has similar liquor laws as Oklahoma.

3.2 is sold chilled in coolers at the grocery and convenience stores.
6.0 is sold un-chilled in liquor stores.

[BDP]

The liquor store lobby will probably be opposed to changing the law, the fact that grocery stores are open on Sundays being a big objection.

Which, to me, just seems like another bone that could be thrown to that lobby. Allow >3.2 in grocery stores and you get to keep your own hours.

Then, we've got the fact that our 6.0 beer must be sold warm by law.

Which, again, seems like another benefit to liquor stores to reforming our laws. Allow grocery stores to sell >3.2 products and you can chill your products as well.

But, a good researcher should be able to look at our DUI and alcohol related accident rate and compare them to states that have less restrictive laws.

And I think I remember reading that most alcohol related crimes in Oklahoma are committed by people who were consuming <3.2 products.

A simple look at real alcohol content of beer that's over 3.2 shows that the difference is not as big of a deal as many would think. Rarely is it 6.0 by volume, let alone by weight. As the Busch represented pointed out, the alcohol content of a six pack of Bud regular is roughly that of 7 beers of 3.2 Bud in Oklahoma.

Based on that fact, it becomes very clear that these laws are in no way in place to protect the consumer or community from over consumption or to force selected mystical doctrines on the community, no matter what methods are used to maintain continued support for them. They remain in place only as a protectionist policy that allows government to dictate and manipulate the market through control of distribution and consumer access. The end result is simply less competition and less access to goods for the consumer with very negligible net benefit to the consumer or community in terms of improved well being, safety, or health.

[chrisok]

A simple look at real alcohol content of beer that's over 3.2 shows that the difference is not as big of a deal as many would think. Rarely is it 6.0 by volume, let alone by weight. As the Busch represented pointed out, the alcohol content of a six pack of Bud regular is roughly that of 7 beers of 3.2 Bud in Oklahoma.

If you were to compare Oklahoma Budweiser to Texas Bud Light, the difference is even less. OK Bud - 4.0% by volume. TX Bud Light - 4.2% by volume. Not really worth the drive in my opinion.

To me, it's definitely not worth driving to TX. About the only way I'd drink a Bud, Coors, Corona, etc. is if it we're free. There is so much better beer out there than that stuff.

[Midtowner]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here because we just don't have any over-the-top fundamentalist trolls here to do it for us.

Which, to me, just seems like another bone that could be thrown to that lobby. Allow >3.2 in grocery stores and you get to keep your own hours.

Sunday is the Lord's day. There's a reason we have liquor stores closed on Sundays, laws against bars being located too close to churches and schools, etc. We have these things for a reason. You don't just get to make nothing sacred in the pursuit of "progress."

Which, again, seems like another benefit to liquor stores to reforming our laws. Allow grocery stores to sell >3.2 products and you can chill your products as well.

Chilled beer for sale is one of the biggest causes of drunk driving. The more ready-to-consume alcohol that's available, the more people will die. Don't try and throw that liquor stuff at me -- you don't see a lot of drunks driving around swilling single malt scotch.

And I think I remember reading that most alcohol related crimes in Oklahoma are committed by people who were consuming <3.2 products.

If you allow them to drink the stronger stuff, they will.. and they'll be drunker and commit more crimes. That's "progressive" for you

A simple look at real alcohol content of beer that's over 3.2 shows that the difference is not as big of a deal as many would think. Rarely is it 6.0 by volume, let alone by weight. As the Busch represented pointed out, the alcohol content of a six pack of Bud regular is roughly that of 7 beers of 3.2 Bud in Oklahoma.

So more alcohol is a good thing? Joe-sixpack isn't going to cut his consumption down to 4 beers instead of 6 per night. The cost to society in terms of lives and health could be huge as a result of a policy change like this. Most drinkers get their stuff at the liquor store/gas station, not the 'froo-froo' beer at the liquor store.

The net-effect of a policy like this would be to increase the amount of alcohol consumption among the population.

Based on that fact, it becomes very clear that these laws are in no way in place to protect the consumer or community from over consumption or to force selected mystical doctrines on the community, no matter what methods are used to maintain continued support for them. They remain in place only as a protectionist policy that allows government to dictate and manipulate the market through control of distribution and consumer access. The end result is simply less competition and less access to goods for the consumer with very negligible net benefit to the consumer or community in terms of improved well being, safety, or health.

Fore the aforementioned reasons, I disagree (as the resident devil's advocate).


-- devil's advocate in this case is a term which is just dripping in irony, eh?

[BDP]

Sunday is the Lord's day.

And faith is predicated on free will. I doubt it impresses the Lord if anyone follow's His rules because they are man's law. If the Lord tells you not to drink on Sunday, that should be enough. It's a failure of faith to say you need the state to force you to follow the Lord's rule. You have not chosen the Lord if you have no choice.

Chilled beer for sale is one of the biggest causes of drunk driving.

Well, most people do drink it cold in Oklahoma. Whether they get it from a grocery store or liquor store, who cares?

If you allow them to drink the stronger stuff, they will..

They already have the choice. They chose the 3.2 beer and simply drank one extra beer every 6 pack.

So more alcohol is a good thing?

I didn't say that. I just pointed out that restricting consumers to 3.2 beer is not really resulting in less alcohol and it certainly doesn't hinder anyone from getting drunk.

Most drinkers get their stuff at the liquor store/gas station

Exactly and the evils of the world STILL exist. So, you had your run at regulating the world, Mr. DA, and it didn't work. This time maybe we'll try liberty, you know "freedom". Maybe it won't be mystical, but it will at least be more American! [queue music and flags and bust shots of our founding fathers fading into a spectacular fireworks finale]

[betts]

I would like to point out the power of information being disseminated in forums like this. From August 8, 2006 until May 31, 2007 this poll had acquired 747 signees. After the link to the petition was posted here June 15th (thanks to Karried), the petition has now garnered 1,108 signees. If you haven't signed the petition and agree with it, now would be a good time to do so. And use the e-mail your friends option. I sent it to everyone in OKC in my address book.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/signa...966504?page=15

[rugbybrado]

.

2. Convince WalMart it's what their customers want.

.

I love walmarts in other states, they are the largest most complete of liqour/beer/imported beer that ive ever seen in my life. Plus the walmart motto of keeping their prices low are great.

[flintysooner]

But don't you want to support the little neighborhood package store?

[Midtowner]

And faith is predicated on free will. I doubt it impresses the Lord if anyone follow's (sic) His rules because they are man's law. If the Lord tells you not to drink on Sunday, that should be enough. It's a failure of faith to say you need the state to force you to follow the Lord's rule. You have not chosen the Lord if you have no choice.

Oh, so we should just allow people to murder each other? Why have laws at all? We have plenty of laws which protect the moral and physical welfare of the citizens. We have laws against illegal drugs, we have laws prohibiting public displays of pornography... those are all arguably "moral laws."

Perhaps the purpose of these laws isn't to impress the Lord as you say, but to protect weak people from themselves? Should not one of the goals of government be protecting the weak from harm?

Well, most people do drink it cold in Oklahoma. Whether they get it from a grocery store or liquor store, who cares?

The only kind of beer you can buy cold (presently) is 3.2. The theory is, that if you get yourself a sixpack and start driving around, you're still not going to be too drunk when you polish off #6.. and you'll have had to stop for at least a few pee breaks by then anyhow... something about that 3.2 beer and its effect on the kidneys... But I digress.

If I were to buy a sixpack of full strength beer and start driving around, I'd get drunk twice as quickly and be twice as dangerous, actually moreso because I would have consumed nearly twice the alcohol in the same period of time.

As it is now, that beer is sold warm (all beer should be sold warm). Thus, it will take somewhat of an effort to buy the beer, chill the beer, then drink the beer. There will have to be a fridge somewhere in the equation, or at least an ice chest. At any rate, the drunken excursion will require a great deal of new planning, thus decreasing its likelihood.

They already have the choice. They chose the 3.2 beer and simply drank one extra beer every 6 pack.

So you even admit that it takes more effort to get that drunk... and the extra water consumed in that 3.2 pack will further inhibit one's ability to achieve that sought after drunken state.

I didn't say that. I just pointed out that restricting consumers to 3.2 beer is not really resulting in less alcohol and it certainly doesn't hinder anyone from getting drunk.

But it takes more effort and more money. This would logically result in fewer problems.

Exactly and the evils of the world STILL exist. So, you had your run at regulating the world, Mr. DA, and it didn't work. This time maybe we'll try liberty, you know "freedom". Maybe it won't be mystical, but it will at least be more American! [queue music and flags and bust shots of our founding fathers fading into a spectacular fireworks finale]

We might as well just legalize everything. We can be just like Las Vegas.

[rugbybrado]

But don't you want to support the little neighborhood package store?

If i could buy booze from walmart at a 1/2 - 2/3rds of the price I pay at the mom and pops stores i would in a minute.

Besides i think we will still have those, not everyone wants to go into super store to get what they need.

[rugbybrado]

-We have plenty of laws which protect the moral and physical welfare of the citizens. We have laws against illegal drugs, we have laws prohibiting public displays of pornography... those are all arguably "moral laws."

-but to protect weak people from themselves?
-If I were to buy a sixpack of full strength beer and start driving around, I'd get drunk twice as quickly and be twice as dangerous, actually moreso because I would have consumed nearly twice the alcohol in the same period of time.

-We might as well just legalize everything. We can be just like Las Vegas.

-I guessing you were also against the lottery as well, we've all seen how un-morale we've all become since that started.

-If we are about protecting the weak, why dont we have national health care if we actually want to help protect people from themselves. I dont think not giving them chilled beer really protects anyone anymore. I would like to see drunk driving evidence from this state in compairisons to other states that have chilled beer.

-So thats the closing of your arguement? Good logic.

I have a idea, since its 2007 why dont we leave utah and oklahoma mentality towards 3.2 percent beer behind in the past and join the rest of the united states/world in the present.

[Midtowner]

-I guessing you were also against the lottery as well, we've all seen how un-morale we've all become since that started.

Actually, I don't believe in any of this stuff I'm saying. I'm just arguing the other side of the issue

I think I'm advancing the best arguments which can be made by the other side. In so doing, I think I'm illustrating how dreadfully weak those arguments are.

-If we are about protecting the weak, why dont we have national health care if we actually want to help protect people from themselves. I dont think not giving them chilled beer really protects anyone anymore. I would like to see drunk driving evidence from this state in compairisons to other states that have chilled beer.

Chilled beer is something I'm sort of on the fence about (seriously). I do think chilled beer of any alcohol content is chilled so that it may be immediately consumed. I do think we'd stamp out quite a bit of drunk driving if we were to eliminate the sale of chilled beer anywhere.

Drunk driving is not a "rights" question. It's a safety question. The fewer drunk drivers we have, the fewer deaths. When preventing even a few tragic deaths comes at the expense of something as trivial as buying cold beer, I think I can live with it... for one thing, I enjoy several beers (German dark beers particularly) at room temperature, so I suppose if I wanted an instant-enjoy beer, that'd be the way I'd go.

On the other hand, our policy in not allowing us to keep regular (non-watered-down) beer cold has kept some really great brands out of the Oklahoma area (because keeping their product chilled is something they consider essential to good quality).

-So thats the closing of your arguement? Good logic.

No one ever said the temperance or abstinence movements were founded on good logic.. but they are what they are.

I have a idea, since its 2007 why dont we leave utah and oklahoma mentality towards 3.2 percent beer behind in the past and join the rest of the united states/world in the present.

Progress for the sake of progress isn't the way to go. In Oklahoma, due to our laws, we have created a great many small businesses completely dependent on the current state of the law regarding liquor stores. How much of a mom 'n pop type liquor store's income do you think is derived from the sale of beer and wine? Considering the floor space allocation most of them give to beer and wine, I'd say a large part of their income is derived therefrom.

Keep in mind that by deregulating this, you're going to be essentially driving hundreds if not thousands in the state towards bankruptcy. I don't think that should be a minor consideration at all.

[rugbybrado]

-Actually, I don't believe in any of this stuff I'm saying. I'm just arguing the other side of the issue

-Keep in mind that by deregulating this, you're going to be essentially driving hundreds if not thousands in the state towards bankruptcy. I don't think that should be a minor consideration at all.

-I gottca...yeah i can see the benifit of giving both sides, if not we would just saying ditto after every post.

-Yeah, i could see that being very hard on alot of small business owners. In the last month i was in California and Michigan with work and I will say that they both sell liqour at walmart(and mejier in michigan and albertsons in cali) but I still noticed quite a few smaller liqour stores as well. Now its nothing like the number of ones that we have here, but they still had them none the less.

Now I'm not saying i wouldnt feel bad about all these liqour stores that we have every couple of miles, it can be a very profitable business to be in.

But i still think that just because a large establishment such as Toby Keiths has a beer special on thursday nights, it doesnt mean every other bar in the city is empty.

[Midtowner]

Comparing food service to retail is apples to oranges. No way could these guys compete with WalMart, etc.

Why would you not also deregulate the sale of hard liquors? Or should the monopoly be protected as far as hard liquors? Why is that? That many states allow hard liquors (basically anything that's not beer or wine) to be sold only in liquor stores is logically inconsistent...

At any rate, on some level, it seems bad for the state to create a livelihood for thousands of folks then yank it away. I really value the fact that I can go to a liquor store and usually, when I have a question about wine or a single malt scotch, there's someone in the store who is knowledgeable about such things.

As seldom as I buy those things, it really doesn't bother me a bit to drive over to Byron's. Where things like single malt scotch are concerned, I figure that we'd see Wal Mart only selling the "popular" brands like Glenfiddich and Glenlivet. That'd probably be enough to shut down the vast majority of the mom 'n pop stores which generally offer a pretty decent selection of scotches I've never heard of (but would like to try).

[rugbybrado]

-Comparing food service to retail is apples to oranges. No way could these guys compete with WalMart, etc.

-Why would you not also deregulate the sale of hard liquors?


- Where things like single malt scotch are concerned, I figure that we'd see Wal Mart only selling the "popular" brands like Glenfiddich and Glenlivet.

- I just gave you two examples of different states where walmart and other large chain stores sell liqour and 6 point beer, AS well as smaller liqour stores right down the block for those customers who like to have that personal interaction when they buy their booze of choice.


-I would.

-More than likely walmart would stick to the more popular lables. But I will say the liqour/beer/wine sections at walmart and albertsons ive seen out of state are up their with byrons that we have here.

[BDP]

Oh, so we should just allow people to murder each other?

Of course not. That’s kind of ridiculous, so we’ll try and be more relevant from now on…

Why have laws at all?

You answered that one:

[To] protect welfare of the citizens.

We have laws against illegal drugs, we have laws prohibiting public displays of pornography... those are all arguably "moral laws."

Morality should not trump liberty, at least not in a country where liberty should be the guiding hand of the law.

Should not one of the goals of government be protecting the weak from harm?

Maybe, but you are talking about a different form of government than a liberal democracy (for the Republicans: I am not using 'liberal' in the context of the rehtorical claptrap espoused by politicians and cable news. Here I mean it in it's traditional sense of favoring individual rights over that of the state or other institutions.)

If I were to buy a sixpack of full strength beer and start driving around, I'd get drunk twice as quickly and be twice as dangerous, actually moreso because I would have consumed nearly twice the alcohol in the same period of time.

Not true. Most beer over 3.2 is nowhere near twice as strong. Besides, driving drunk is illegal due to the danger it places on other motorists, so there is no need to limit the rights of everyone to guard against a practice that 1) is already illegal and 2) is clearly not curtailed by current 3.2 or refridgeration restrcitions. If someone wants to buy a cold Sam Adams and not drive around during or after they consume it, then they should have that right. If they want to drive drunk they should be arrested for that, not because of the beer they drank, but because of what they chose to do after drinking it. You can also buy a bottle of liquor at that same liquor store and literally get more than twice as drunk by consuming less than half as much.

At any rate, the drunken excursion will require a great deal of new planning, thus decreasing its likelihood.

There is nothing that shows the current laws affect drunk driving rates, so again the argument is reduced to morality and not public well being. In which case it is obvious to any freedom loving American that further restrictions on the citizens access to beverages is unwarranted and unAmerican.

So you even admit that it takes more effort to get that drunk... and the extra water consumed in that 3.2 pack will further inhibit one's ability to achieve that sought after drunken state.

That actually depends on the individuals body chemisty. In any event, you are way over the legal limit in either case, so it’s really a moot point. And if someone wants to get drunk quicker, that should have that right. Again, it’s that pesky freedom thing.

But it takes more effort and more money. This would logically result in fewer problems.

That’s an illogical fantasy. It' usually way cheaper to get wasted off of 12 3.2 beers than it is to buy a 6 pack of, say, Anchor Steam. But that seems to be where you’re coming from anyway. If anything, all it does it encourage the real drunk to go for the cheap hard liquor over beer.

We might as well just legalize everything. We can be just like Las Vegas.

You're finally making some sense. Long live liberty!

[nice job at showing how silly the debate is. ]

[Midtowner]

Morality should not trump liberty, at least not in a country where liberty should be the guiding hand of the law.

I'll abandon the slippery slopes for now

Following the liberty argument, you'd stipulate to the belief that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, right? That might serve as a simple model for a liberty-approach to rule-making.

It might then follow that if liberty is to be the guiding hand in our rule making (and that shouldn't always be the case), that to create any sort of prohibition on public behavior that there ought to be some rational basis for limiting that behavior. That rational basis must be that the behavior being prohibited, regulated, or otherwise restrained ought to in some way affect someone other than the the actor.

It follows then that I can and have supplied a number of potential ways in which the selling of cold beer at higher than 3.2 will detrimentally affect others. Such prognostications are merely predictive, but multiply any small percentage of harm times 3 million and you're bound to end up with a few deaths as a result of a higher alcohol level being allowed in cold beer, not to mention the definite damage people will do to their own health with the greater amount of alcohol being consumed.

Maybe, but you are talking about a different form of government than a liberal democracy (for the Republicans: I am not using 'liberal' in the context of the rehtorical claptrap espoused by politicians and cable news. Here I mean it in it's traditional sense of favoring individual rights over that of the state or other institutions.)

We aren't a democracy... nor are we a liberal or conservative or libertarian nation. We are a Republican form of government (not the party) in that we elect legislators and executives (and for some reason judges) because we think they're equipped to carry out our will. The U.S. never was a Democracy. The founding fathers rightly feared the nation being governed according to the easily manipulated whims of the masses.

As for the rest of this, I think I covered it under my rational basis/libertarian sort of argument. Here, there arguably is a rational basis for this sort of legislation.. at least on the philosophical/conjectural level.

Not true. Most beer over 3.2 is nowhere near twice as strong. Besides, driving drunk is illegal due to the danger it places on other motorists, so there is no need to limit the rights of everyone to guard against a practice that 1) is already illegal and 2) is clearly not curtailed by current 3.2 or refridgeration restrcitions. If someone wants to buy a cold Sam Adams and not drive around during or after they consume it, then they should have that right. If they want to drive drunk they should be arrested for that, not because of the beer they drank, but because of what they chose to do after drinking it. You can also buy a bottle of liquor at that same liquor store and literally get more than twice as drunk by consuming less than half as much.

There is nothing that shows the current laws affect drunk driving rates, so again the argument is reduced to morality and not public well being. In which case it is obvious to any freedom loving American that further restrictions on the citizens access to beverages is unwarranted and unAmerican.

If the fact that driving drunk was illegal was enough to curtail it, I would have grave fears for the criminal justice system as well as the private jail industry in general. DUIs are a big moneymaker. Clearly, no amount of legislation will completely curtail the occurrence of DUIs. It necessarily follows that the best way to prevent DUIs is to actually prevent them by placing stumbling blocks in the way of anyone who would want to drink and drive. Not allowing chilled beer to be sold is just one very small measure which has been taken.

That actually depends on the individuals body chemisty. In any event, you are way over the legal limit in either case, so it’s really a moot point. And if someone wants to get drunk quicker, that should have that right. Again, it’s that pesky freedom thing.

I'll get drunk much quicker off a six pack of Spaten Optimator than I would ever get off of a six pack of low-point Coors. Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead drinking Coors, Bud, or any of those (unless I'm at Edna's and have no choice), and of course, the Spaten is best served at room temperature, rendering it a bad example , but surely you have to admit that if I consume six beers at 3.2&#37; versus six beers with a higher alcohol content, I'm not a safe driver, but I'm safer in the former example.

That’s an illogical fantasy. It' usually way cheaper to get wasted off of 12 3.2 beers than it is to buy a 6 pack of, say, Anchor Steam. But that seems to be where you’re coming from anyway. If anything, all it does it encourage the real drunk to go for the cheap hard liquor over beer.

Fortunately, even the real drunks usually have enough taste to steer clear of the Wild Irish Rose.

[nice job at showing how silly the debate is. ]

-- np.