Quotulatiousness

March 12, 2011

Drinking is good for you, but we still don’t know why it’s good for you

Filed under: Health, Science, Wine — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 14:17

Moderate drinking (defined as 2-3 drinks per day) is proven to be healthy for most people, but the jury is still out on why it’s good for you:

Scientists say that more research needs to be done to understand why alcohol may be beneficial in small doses. Most commonly, evidence shows that alcohol is associated with increased cardiovascular health. Researchers at the University of Calgary recently analyzed data on alcohol consumption and heart disease and determined that those who drink one to two glasses of alcohol per day are up to 25% less likely to develop heart disease.

The team, lead by Dr. William Ghali, found that moderate drinking led to higher levels of “good” cholesterol and a decrease of a chemical responsible for blood clotting. It doesn’t matter if the booze is from Chateau Mouton-Rothschild or Labatt’s; “it does appear to be alcohol itself that is causing these favourable outcomes,” Dr. Ghali, a professor of medicine at the university, said.

March 6, 2011

Don’t worry, liquor fans, they’ll soon stop over-serving you

Filed under: Cancon, Economics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:05

Did you know that the US shot glass is ever so slightly larger than the Imperial one? These guys didn’t, but they do now:

To be fussy about it — and who’s fussier than a liquor tax auditor? — a U.S. fluid ounce works out to 29.574 millilitres while the imperial (that is, Canadian) ounce is 28.413. While that may not sound like a big discrepancy to you, it means Canadian bars using U.S. shot glasses, as virtually all of them do, have spent years serving countless more litres of liquor than legally required. The upshot for your shots is that they’ll soon be 7% lighter.

Owners had no idea there was a difference between a U.S. shot and a Canadian one. “I’d say it’s totally unrecognized,” Tweter says. Finding imperial shot glasses proved impossible, and Tweter and Wilson took matters into their own hands. They sourced a factory in China to make a slightly smaller-than-usual vessel. Meet the Can-Pour, probably the only imperial ounce shot glass on the Canadian market.

As a result of rounding, the standard U.S. shot glass actually works out to 30 millilitres while the Can-Pour pours an even 28. Tweter points out this falls within Weights and Measurements Canada’s tolerances. A chart on Tweter and Wilson’s website shows how a bar with annual liquor purchases of $360,000 could save more than $25,000 by pouring a little less. Doesn’t that cheat the customer? “The two-millilitre difference is virtually undetectable. It’s literally drops,” Tweter says.

So drink up, Vancouver shot fans: you’ll soon be paying the same for slightly less alcohol per drink.

February 23, 2011

Ontario actually considers liberalizing (some) liquor laws

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Government, Law — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 13:00

It’s a rare, rare thing for the Ontario government to consider any kind of liberalization, but especially one involving booze:

Could Ontario be saying good-bye to beer tents? The province’s government announced on Wednesday that it would be asking for public input on a series of possible liquor law changes.

Some of the changes considered would include relaxing the liquor laws at events and festivals, meaning drinkers would no longer be sequestered in beer tents, but could wander with a drink in hand.

It would also allow one-off event permit holders — weddings, parties and fundraisers, for example — to serve booze until 2 a.m., bringing their serving hours into line with bars. Current laws require special occasion permit holders stop serving alcohol at 1 a.m., with the exception of New Year’s Eve, when it’s 2 a.m.

Don’t hold your breath — this is still bluestockinged Ontario — but just the idea that they’re willing to discuss changes is heartening.

January 13, 2011

Beer incoming!

Filed under: Randomness, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 07:30

H/T to Lester Haines for the link.

December 9, 2010

QotD: Ontario’s “restrictive, puritanical, liquor laws”

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Law, Liberty, Quotations, Wine — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 00:20

Later in the trip we were at a Napa Valley winery. During our winery tour, the guide mentioned that if we filled out an order form we could have a case of wine delivered to home or office. Then she stopped, looked at my friend and me, and said, “Oh wait, not to Ontario. You guys are worse than Utah.” She proceeded to list all the countries they ship to, two of which have majority Muslim populations. But Ontario was too much trouble, so they gave up trying. We could buy the wine and bring it over the border ourselves, but if it were to be shipped across the border it would clearly be illegal.

Our restrictive, puritanical, liquor laws are not just limited to restricting products or preventing private stores from selling alcohol. On our trip it became a running joke to point out things that were banned in Ontario. Happy hour is illegal in Ontario. I pointed to a seasonal winter beer in at a convenience store with a cartoon picture of Santa Claus on the label and noted it would be banned in Ontario. There is cheap beer across the U.S. because of intense competition, but Ontario has a price floor of $1.07 per bottle.

So I pose the question that I was asked in the bar in San Francisco. Why are we so puritanical when it comes to alcohol?

Hugh MacIntyre, “Ontario’s liberalism dies at the brewery door”, National Post, 2010-12-08

November 13, 2010

QotD: Drinker’s lesson

Filed under: Humour, Quotations, Wine — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 14:00

In “real life”, Amis was a no-nonsense drinker with little inclination to waste a good barman’s time with fussy instructions. However, there was an exception which I think I can diagnose in restrospect, and it is related to his strong admiration for the novels of Ian Fleming. What is James Bond really doing when he specifies the kind of martini he wants and how he wants it? He is telling the barman (or bartender if you must) that he knows what he is talking about and is not to be messed around. I learned the same lesson when I was a restaurant and bar critic for the City Paper in Washington, D.C. Having long been annoyed by people who called knowingly for, say, “a Dewar’s and water” instead of a scotch and water, I decided to ask a trusted barman what I got if I didn’t specify a brand or label. The answer was a confidential jerk of the thumb in the direction of a villainous-looking tartan-shaded jar under the bar. The situation was even grimmer with gin and vodka and became abysmal with “white wine”, a thing I still can’t bear to hear being ordered. If you don’t state a clear preference, then your drink is like a bad game of poker or a hasty drug transaction: It is whatever the dealer says it is. Please do try to bear this in mind.

Christopher Hitchens, “The Muse of Booze”, Everyday Drinking: The Distilled Kingsley Amis, 2008

August 14, 2010

QotD: Canadians and booze smuggling

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Law, Quotations — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:28

Colourful, aggressively marketed and bad for you unless consumed in moderation, spirits have a lot in common with breakfast cereal. And just as Trix are for American kids only, Canadian adults are denied quite a number of wonderful products, many of them taken for granted abroad. It’s the fault of our provincial booze monopolies, of course. The only remedy for now is to cross the border and spend those 96¢ loonies. Rather than filling the trunk with discount Smirnoff on your next trip to the States, I would suggest bringing home some of the alcoholic flavours you cannot buy here, as listed below.

Review the rules on alcohol importing on the Canada Border Services Agency’s website at beaware.gc.ca. The best policy is honestly declaring what you have; if you’re over the limit you’ll just have to pay taxes and duty (unless you live in Nunavut or the Northwest Territories, which restrict the amount of booze you bring into the country).

Also note: Alberta residents are advised to use the search function at alberta-liquor-guide.com before making any suitcase-stuffing plans. There’s a chance the products below are available at home. Surprise, surprise: The lone province that doesn’t put shelf-stocking decisions in the hands of bureaucrats offers a superior selection.

Adam McDowell, “Happy Hour: Making the most of cross-border booze shopping”, National Post, 2010-08-13

August 7, 2010

Protip for British troops: don’t wear your uniform to the Co-op

Filed under: Britain, Bureaucracy, Military — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 21:02

Apparently, British soldiers (in uniform) are considered “untouchables” by the Co-op grocery chain:

A soldier who had just arrived home from Afghanistan was refused service at a supermarket and told they didn’t serve people in Army uniform.
Sapper Anthony Walls called into a branch of the Co-op for some beers after a gruelling 34-hour journey from Kandahar.

[. . .]

The manager told Mr Walls he ‘couldn’t do anything about it’ and refused to serve him while he was in uniform. The soldier — who was on his way to his three-year-old nephew Jack’s birthday party — walked out of the shop in New Addington, Croydon, in a daze.
‘I was deeply hurt,’ he said yesterday. ‘All I was thinking about was getting home to Jack in time to wish him a happy birthday.

‘It was great to be home after a difficult journey and I just thought I’d grab a couple of beers — a luxury I hadn’t had in a while.

The good news is that it was all a misunderstanding: the Co-op won’t sell beer to Policemen in uniform, and the cashier and her manager misunderstood that the chap in military-style kit wasn’t actually a police SWAT-team member on a break from bashing EDL protest marchers. They’ve apologized (but there’s no indication that Sapper Walls got his beer before flying back to Af’stan).

July 26, 2010

McGuinty’s governing style on display again

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 13:05

New rules on young drivers to come into effect very soon:

Starting on Aug. 1, this coming Sunday, drivers under the age of 22 in Ontario must have a blood alcohol reading of zero, regardless of what level of licence they possess or how many years of driving experience they have. This is a major change to Ontario’s system of licensing drivers. Twenty-one-year-old drivers, who may be fully licenced and mature and experienced, will be breaking the law if they have a beer a few hours before driving to the grocery store.

And our friendly Ontario government has announced this change in the dead of summer, on a Monday before a long weekend, and given the people of Ontario exactly six days to find out they might be about to break the law. Surprise, kids! You’re a drunk driver now!

[. . .]

How many times does the McGuinty government plan on making mistakes like this this summer? First there were the maddening rule changes surrounding the G20 fence, which weren’t announced and apparently didn’t even exist at all. Then there was the eco-fee debacle, where Ontarians were hit with a tax they weren’t told was coming into effect, with predictable public outcry. But those things may pale in comparison to the completely justified outrage if this government starts suspending licences this weekend. If there is reason to think that this measure will save lives, then I’m all for it, but for heaven’s sake, you have to give people more than six days’ notice.

(Calls placed to the Ministry, and to the office of the Minister herself, were met with total confusion this morning. When asked how the rule change was enacted — through legislation that had been quietly passed, through an order-in-council or through a simple administrative amendment — a Ministry spokesperson claimed not to understand the question.)

Every time the Ontario government does something like this you have to assume either they’re afraid to take any advance heat for new laws and regulations or that they want to ambush as many unsuspecting breakers-of-new-unpublicized-rules as they possibly can. Either way, it’s no way to run a government and retain the support of the governed.

June 10, 2010

Enough with the camel jokes!

Filed under: Europe, France, Military — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 10:05

The French Foreign Legion has a storied history of bravery, endurance, and inappropriate relations with camels extraordinary fighting skills. They do, however, also have some less-savoury attributes:

The Legion has a lot of dirty laundry that almost never gets exposed due to the unit’s notoriously secretive nature. For one thing, desertion is, and always has been, rampant in the Foreign Legion. As far as modern, 21st century armies are concerned, the Legion has some of the worst desertion rates in the world. This is the reason why small arms and light weapons are ALWAYS kept under lock and key under the watch of armed guards 24/7 when they are not being used at the range, training, or combat. French Army authorities know that, given the high rates of desertion, it’s too much to risk having renegade soldiers running around the French countryside with loaded assault rifles.

Furthermore, substance abuse, particularly alcoholism, is even more of a problem in the Legion than in other armies. It is not hard to see why, considering that the Legion has often sent its men to isolated duty stations in some of the most inhospitable and violent regions on earth. Finally, unlike the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Army, or British Army, corporal punishment (e.g., punching) is still very much alive and in practice in the Legion, and often comes in the form of sometimes savage beatings administered by NCOs as a means of instilling “discipline”. The Legion’s notorious military police section possesses an even more sinister reputation for brutality and mistreatment. Much of this abuse is directed towards captured deserters and the grim reputation of Legion stockades is well-deserved indeed.

May 27, 2010

Canada’s positive experience of US Prohibition

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:07

I knew that individual Canadians did well out of supplying booze to thirsty Americans during the period of Prohibition, but I didn’t realize how well:

. . . Prohibition — perhaps the maddest of mad American dreams [NR: in a dead heat with the current War on Drugs, I think] — did pretty well by our nation from 1920 to 1933. As American writer Daniel Okrent points out in his fine social history of the era, Last Call, the rivers of Canadian booze that flowed south enriched not only the Bronfman liquor empire, but our federal government. Canadians did make and smuggle illegal liquor, evading both Canadian taxes and American law, but we also made millions of litres of the legal, taxed stuff, the ultimate destination of which was of no concern to Ottawa. The amount of alcohol subject to excise tax — most of which went south one way or another — went from 36,000 litres in 1920 to five million 10 years later, and the excise tax on it rose to a fifth of federal revenue, twice as much as income tax.

Few in Canada had the slightest inclination to aid the American government in cracking down on alcohol use. When a U.S. Coast Guard cutter in pursuit of a Lake Erie rum-runner ran aground near Port Colborne, Ont., locals looted the vessel, then filled its engines with sand. About the only Canadians Okrent could unearth who thought the Dominion should help Uncle Sam seal his border were those making a fortune selling alcohol to American visitors. One way or another, most Canadians agreed with the smug satisfaction of CNR president Sir Henry Thornton, whose railway was growing fat off liquor tourism: “The dryer the U.S. is,” opined Sir Henry, “the better it will be for us.”

If there was an upside to what was known — at first, without a trace of irony — as “The Noble Experiment” in the U.S. itself, Okrent is hard-pressed to find it. America had always been awash in alcohol. (Johnny Appleseed’s fruit was inedible, but Americans still embraced his trees — virtually every homestead kept a barrel of hard cider by the door for visitors.) During the sodden 19th century, adult Americans downed 27 litres of pure alcohol each annually. That kind of demand wasn’t going to disappear no matter what the law said.

And yet the lesson has been forgotten. When drug prohibition finally comes to an end, historians will have a field day drawing the obvious comparison between the War on Drugs and the “Noble Experiment”. The theses practically write themselves . . .

May 13, 2010

QotD: Because your government cares about your health

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:55

If there ever was a reason to get the Ontario government out of the liquor business, this is it. While taxes on booze will drop on July 1, thanks to the introduction of the province’s new Harmonized Sales Tax, the price of your favourite poison will actually increase because — wait for it — the government doesn’t want to turn you into an alcoholic.

[. . .]

Actually, the whole modus operandi of the LCBO is counter-intuitive. At the same time that it preaches social responsibility, the LCBO inundates Ontario households with glossy brochures that take lifestyle advertising to new heights. The latest one cheekily invites customers to take “French lessons”, and features winsome couples in various states of embrace (hey, aren’t the French always making out?). A concurrent radio campaign features a sexy French-accented female voice extolling the virtues of Bordeaux. You get thirsty just listening to her.

Such campaigns are designed to make Ontarians drink more, not less, of course, funneling more cash into LCBO coffers and keeping its employees on the public payroll at juicy union wages. All fuelled by taxes and a staggering mark-up of 71.5% on that latest imported bottle which pairs so well with flank steak and frites.

This kind of hypocrisy is but one reason why the government shouldn’t be in the liquor business. The others include higher prices, less consumer choice, and the general inefficiency inherent in any monopoly business, whether public or private.

Tasha Kheiriddin, “Lower taxes, higher prices, courtesy of your local LCBO”, National Post, 2010-05-13

May 12, 2010

QotD: National Post goes full Anarchist

Filed under: Law, Liberty, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 14:14

Speaking of Queen Victoria, the Calgary Herald‘s editorialists are disappointed that Banff National Park is banning alcohol at its campgrounds on the 24th of May weekend. Better enforcement would take care of “the young rowdies in the tents,” they insist, without denying “the family out for the weekend in the motorhome” a glass of wine with dinner. We suggest such families do as we did when we were young rowdies in tents on the 24th of May weekend at parks where alcohol was banned: Ignore it. This land is your land, this land is my land, pass me another Big Rock.

Chris Selley, “Full Pundit: Jesus comes to Ottawa”, National Post, 2010-05-12

February 20, 2010

Prohibition’s victims of US government poisoning

Filed under: History, Law, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 13:29

Deborah Blum talks about something I’d only heard a little bit about — the US government’s deliberate poisoning of illicit drinkers during Prohibition:

Doctors were accustomed to alcohol poisoning by then, the routine of life in the Prohibition era. The bootlegged whiskies and so-called gins often made people sick. The liquor produced in hidden stills frequently came tainted with metals and other impurities. But this outbreak was bizarrely different. The deaths, as investigators would shortly realize, came courtesy of the U.S. government.

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

Although mostly forgotten today, the “chemist’s war of Prohibition” remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was “our national experiment in extermination.”

The US government hasn’t shown that it learned (any of) the lessons of Prohibition, and there have been documented attempts by government agents to contaminate drugs on their way to American destinations. Perhaps the best known was the use of airborne spraying of the herbicide Paraquat to make Mexican marijuana more dangerous to consume. Rumours abound of other, more recent, attempts to poison other drugs on their way to the States.

October 21, 2009

Brilliant re-mix

Filed under: Humour — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 14:09

Fark comment thread here.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress