Super strength lagers do not encourage irresponsible drinking.
That is according to the Portman Group's Independent Complaints Panel after it received a complaint from homeless charity Thames Reach. The charity complained that 500ml cans of Skol Super, Kestrel Super, Carlsberg Special Brew and Tennent’s Super encourage immoderate consumption and drunkenness. These 9 percent babies contain in one can, more than the Government 's sensible drinking guidelines for a day.
Following the Portman Group's rejection of its complaint Jeremy Swain, chief executive of Thames Reach, said: “These decisions completely discredit the Portman Group’s Complaints Panel. “There we were thinking that the reason alcoholics drank super-strength lager in horrifying quantities was because they were marketed as ‘super-strength’ and at a size that ensures that the drinker can become inebriated after just two or three cans."
I offer this with one single observation. That's self regulation for you!The illustration is nicked from the "interesting" Arrysbrewsite.
7 comments:
Thames Reach? More like Thames Reich.
I'm delighted by this ruling as it's something that's bothered me for a long time.
You cannot survive on the streets without alcohol, so if superstrength lager was banned, tramps would just switch to cheap wine of something else - paint stripper, perhaps.
Do-godders like Thames Reich have this idea that tramps denied superstrength alcohol will suddenly rub their eyes, realise they are living in a piss-stained carboard box and become good Christians with a job on the council.
Even a prohibitionist organisation like the Portman Group can't swallow that one.
Um. Maybe so, but I doubt if that was the motivation!
Are there such things as Christians in England?? I thought you were a secular force??
It's a complex question - is there such a thing as an irresponsible drink, or are there just irresponsible drinkers?
So let me get this straight, controversial wording on a craft brewed beer bad, street drinking good. That's the message I'm getting here. It smacks a bit of the whole "genocide OK, teddy bear named Mohammad bad" episode we had going on in Sudan a while back.
Ok perhaps that's a little extreme but you see where I'm coming from.
In my experience most alcoholics are pretty sharp at determining value vs strength. They would not be fooled/encouraged by wording alone. As SD suggested, take cheap super strength away and they'll turn to household cleaning products etc. Take away one substance of addiction and those that need a 'support' in life will turn to a different substance.
This sounds like the nanny state is at it again. People have been drinking cheap booze for ages. So removing the the words "Super Strength" is going to solve all the problems? The Words "Night Train" would be much better suited.
Post a Comment