A proposed regulation would ban the sale of beer if colder than 60 degrees F. :eek: No, that’s not a typo. Senator Bill Alter, apparently a member of the We Know What’s Good For You coalition has introduced this legislative turd into the punchbowl of life in Missouri. I like how he says the idea came from a fifth-grade kid. Hey-I’m not down on the kid-life is a whole lot simpler when you’re twelve, and it’s a stretch to expect one of such tender age to grasp that correlation doesn’t necessarily prove causation.
When the simplistic offering of a child becomes a sponsored act of legislation, the adult involved is a flaming fuckwit, IMO.
If I were inclined to chug down beers right after leaving the liquor store, I probably wouldn’t be in a mood to care whether it was cold or not.
I think he’d have better luck trying to sell it as an energy conservation measure - less time the beer has to be refrigerated.
First off I have heard of this sort of law long, long ago. I presume it was passed by some state or another. The kid just cribbed it.
Next off, having heard of it long, long ago, I always thought it was pretty darn clever. I never thought of it as some sort of abuse of civil liberties. I am still not convinced it is.
On the other hand, I would suppose MADD supports it. Have they ever not supported a new law?
Frankly, whenever I find myself on the side of those bluestockings, I take a few steps back and reboot.
I figure that unless you chug one of those gigantic beers (32 ounces?) pretty quickly, one beer isn’t going to get anyone stupid drunk. The only people I think this has any chance of affecting are those that are already buzzed/drunk stopping at a gas station to buy another cold one. I suspect this will do a lot more to inconvenience people than at curbing DUIs.
Clearly, since beer is sold cold, people who buy it intend to drink it right away. And since nobody in the United States lives within 200 miles of a liquor store, it’s rather obvious to me that cold beer is sold soley for the looooong drive home from the liquor store.
I’ll double check my math tomorrow when I’m sober, but right now I don’t see anything wrong with the above equation.
I don’t think anyone suggested it was. It is a pointless law that will not reduce drunk driving, but will make life more annoying for law abiding citizens.
I had no idea that there was such a problem with grade five students boozing it up. Won’t forcing the tykes to cool their own beer only delay their consumption rather than reduce it?
Didn’t any of you people watch Breaking Bonaduce? Danny bought a container of cranberry juice and a bottle of vodka at a convenience store. He sat down on the curb and right then and there gulped down his perfect mixture of cranberry juice and vodka.
What’s next? Will we need another 5th-grader suggesting all those drinks that are meant to be served at room temperature need to be refrigerated so we wouldn’t be tempted to drink them chilled?
Aren’t some beers meant to be at a certain temperature so they stay fresher longer? Mandating that beer be stored at higher temperatures will shorten the shelf-life.
Anyway, similar legislation was introduced in Arizona a couple of years ago. It died. With Anheuser-Busch headquartered in St. Louis, I think the Missouri bill will die as well.
Actually, I think it has something to do with American distribution. When I was drinking it at pubs in England/Ireland, it was served room temperature and it was great. When I buy twelve packs stateside I hardly ever refrigerate them anyways.
The good folks who brew Guinness are reminding us that amidst the hustle-bustle of life nowadays, time to relax, unwind, and rejuvinate is essential to our mental health, or in urban slang: Chill.
The intent if fine. Damned few people really favor the idea of drunks operating lethal machinery that might kill them.
There are several problems, not the least of which is a very dubious connection between cause and effect. An idea by a bright, earnest fifth grader doesn’t automatically make for good law. Nothing scarier than an enthusiastic, crusading, self-righteous young’n, swept along with good principles but without the least grasp of real consequences.
Spiffy theories abound–though few from children make through responsible elected bodies. This smacks of the nastiest kind of smarmy, huckstering neo-Puritanism. Why not make law–with all the awful weight–as long as it’s a surefire political sell? Cute kid, knee-jerk rube voters: where’s the downside?
It’s lousy law. It effectively criminalizes ordinary citizens for buying or selling an otherwise perfectly legal commodity, dependent on the temperature of that product. And the basis for this full weight of law? An unsupported assumption of what said citizens might do if actually allowed–gasp!–to buy…cold beer.
While on Temporary Duty in San Angelo, Texas, many years ago, I read a headline from the morning paper to my room-mate. The headline was about just such a law as mentioned in the OP. My roomie’s response: “Dang. Now I’m going to have to develop a taste for warm beer.”
Hell, if you can buy cold beer (on weekends even!) at certain places (with certain restrictions) here in Pennsylvania with our archaic alcohol laws, how dangerous can cold beer be?
