Ban discount coupons for alcohol

00 on 01/03/2014 - 15:11

Today's The Age has an online article titled "Ban discount coupons for alcohol"

As an OzBargainer we love coupons and discounts. Is the lazy knee jerk reaction of 'banning' discounts really going to influence how much alcohol we buy? Personally I've been swayed into buying more, such as when at the checkout they have a "$10 for a 6-pack of beer with any purchase over $x" offers. However, that doesn't necessarily mean I'd buy more - just that I would already have the beer that i was going to buy in future anyway.

Do you think you would buy less if it weren't constantly on sale? Or would you buy less but perhaps of greater quality?

Poll Options expired

  • 5
    Banning discounts would make me drink less
  • 48
    Banning would have no affect on how much I drink
  • 5
    Banning would cause me to rebel and go nuts.
General Discussion

Comments

  • Tal_Shiar on 01/03/2014 - 15:14

    I buy what I like, when I like, how I like 80% of the time. A coupon or a deal might make me buy a bit more than I intended like https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/65512, but it wouldn't be considered in excess…

  • scrimshaw on 01/03/2014 - 15:26

    I have never once used coupons to buy alcohol. Most of the time, I buy wine online in dozens and have it delivered to my house when they're on offer.

  • mskeggs on 01/03/2014 - 15:44

    I like a drink, but I remember being a bit shocked when they introduced alcohol coupons on supermarket dockets.
    Advertising obviously works to some extent, and I imagine there are many people with a set budget for alcohol ($20 for a bottle of wine, for example) who would find 2 for 1 coupons end up with them increasing their consumption.
    Personally, I probably drink a little more than I would otherwise due to specials. If I have 5 packs of beer (thanks DM international packs) on hand, next time I have a BBQ I won't necessarily finish when the usual six pack gets drunk.
    That said, that deal was a a week and a half ago and I haven't opened one yet, so maybe it averages out.

  • Daabido on 01/03/2014 - 16:35
    +1

    I chose no affect because I don't drink alcohol.

    • scotty on 01/03/2014 - 17:25

      I don't drink either however with wine deals on ozbargain I usually hunt for a dozen to give away during Christmas.

    • elf888 on 04/03/2014 - 11:58

      Me too. but i support no alcohol coupon!
      Less people drink, Less drink driving, less people die.

  • tonyjzx on 01/03/2014 - 16:37
    +5

    i'm against over regulation of things that people think are bad

    i can control my consumption of alchohol

    why should i be punished because a small minority cant

    • Daabido on 01/03/2014 - 17:07

      You shouldn't be punished but the small minority who can but don't should be punished for their unruly, destructive and criminal behaviour.

      Obviously I don't include people who have an addiction problem.

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 01/03/2014 - 19:55
    +1

    Ironically, the discount ban may be most effective for no-income/low-income under-age drinkers that need to obtain their alcohol through other means (which appears to be the target of the ban anyway). It's kind of sad that most of the full-blown alcoholics I know would beg, borrow and steal to get a drink and it's so hard to help this particularly affected group.

    One things's for sure - the alcohol industry has had it relatively easy compared to the tobacco industry - they haven't been allowed to advertised on TV in Australia since 1976 or sporting events since 1992. When I was a kid you could even buy cigarette shaped paper-covered Camel chocolates so you could copy mummy and daddy - the chocolate was too bitter for my taste though. While Australia is definitely a nanny state in some regards (we probably have one of the greatest number of fines in the world for self-harming behaviours) it appears the nanny likes to pop off to the nursery for a tipple or two.

    • altomic on 02/03/2014 - 13:25

      i remember as a kid getting free cigarettes with junk mail.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2014 - 08:59
    +5

    More nanny state garbage.

    • b53fj on 02/03/2014 - 11:00

      I agree with the family man. There is way too much state intervention in trying to rule our lives

  • Marble250 on 02/03/2014 - 14:52

    Fireworks, guns, smokes, booze, high fat foods…where does it end?
    Australians seem hell bent on giving away all freedom of choice..and once it's gone…it ain't ever coming back!

    • 00 on 02/03/2014 - 17:01
      +1

      I agree with this but I also am wary of the illusion of freedom provided to us.

      For example, going down the breakfast cereal aisle at the supermarket you're presented with mainly Kellogs & Uncle Toby's with a smiggen of other brands. They're the ones always on sale and mostly full of just wheat and sugar. There are other brands but they're becoming rarer and rarer.

      Similarily with fast food - drive down any highway and the fast food is HJ's, KFC, McDonalds, HJs, KFC, McDonalds repeat. All serving greasy unhealthy food. Sure you'll find others like Nando's, Red Rooster, Subway, Grill'd and others scattered but market dominance usually impacts 'choice'.

      As for alcohol, go to a major sporting event or most pubs or bars and you'll find the 'choice' of a CUB or Lion Nathan product. Plenty of brands so the illusion of choice but all coming conveniently from a select number of suppliers.

      Now what brand of toothpaste did you buy last time at the supermarket? Then have a think about what your available options were.

  • srhardy on 02/03/2014 - 15:09

    ABC LANDLINE today make the pint that the wine industry this year will pay 15c for a 750ml bottle for the actual wine. The break even point is about 30c with a profitable business from 40c and up. Growers are going broke, water and softdrink cost more to buy than wine to buy!

    The wine equalisation tax is a wrought, in fact alcohol taxation is such a mess i think it needs a total overhall. Alcohol is toxic to every part of the human digestive system (hence the effect) and as such should be at cost recovery for the economy that has to fund the hospital, clinics and recovery clinics from the devastating effects of this simple (fermented sugars) has on employment, health and law enforcement.

    No way the powerful lobby groups will let that ever happen i guess, they wont even stand for a simple 5 star rating system for peanut butter after all…

    Now i drink alcohol, i use any deal i can to save money when doing so but its SO CHEAP already it all about bulk savings now. For example i always buy 6-12 bottles, never one or two as the deals are higher. Ive worked picking grapes, pruning and rolling on when i was in my late teens and early twentys and have more knowledge of distilling than any reasonable person would have and i know that we need an overhall of this whole area.

    I dont think coupons make much of a difference myself, but i could be wrong. its taxation and getting some of that back on funding our industries ability to market itself internationally thats needed. The high AU$ has killed the cheapo wine export market dead and now where awash in the stuff (again) and that cant go on for ever. The gov undertax and dont fund expanding the industry overseas, that cant go on either. But 15c from even a cheap bottle of wine at around $6 for 750ml 9-14% alcohol is made… Ive bough it for as little as $2 a bottle, water was $2 for 600ml on another shelf in wworths/coles!!!

  • srhardy on 02/03/2014 - 15:17

    Cask wine is about $2-$2.50 a L/$9-14 for a 4L cask that can be as high as 16% alcohol… The poor grower (maybe) made $0.60C or less!

    This year a family friend (about to retire) was offered $50 a tonne, ended up getting $150 a tonne but it cost him $600 a tonne in water and wages! Even at thies low rates of say $700-850 a tonne it would have made almost no differences in what the bottle costs RRP in store to the consumer!

    Just think milk industry and then exaggerate everything as no one ever drive thier car into a tree after consuming a bottle of milk!

  • Marble250 on 02/03/2014 - 22:43
    +1

    I take your point andthe Woolies/Coles duopoly makes me nervous at times, more for the effect on their suppliers than their competition. But I still smile when I can buy the cheap bread and milk, which, according to the nutrition panel is the equal to the expensive alternative.
    As far as Maccas, Hungry Jacks etc….the stuff is poison as a steady diet, but as a quick, reasonably priced alternative to a proper meal it’s OK. At various stages, I have travelled , in a working capacity all over Australia where eating fast food was the only option, I have suffered food poisoning at various greasy spoons and side-walk cafes. Twice in Victoria, once in Q’ld and where most travelling was done, NSW.. 3 times. But never once so much as a tummy upset from Maccas!
    Now if some poor slob, who is too lazy , or time poor to cook themselves a good meal, wants to waddle up to the counter each and every night of the week, it should be their right to indulge up to the hilt without some sugar- nazi looking over their shoulder and forbidding a particular choice.
    In an indirect way, booze specials are the same. I have no doubt that the same sort of purchaser will buy booze, regardless of the affect on the home budget. If it can’t be obtained at a reasonable price then something for “the kids” may be sacrificed.
    It’s OK for some chardonnay swiller from Rose Bay or Tourak to extol the virtues of organic food and Zumba, when some, are just trying to get enough nourishment to see them through and pay the rent at the same time.

  • ThisJustin on 03/03/2014 - 10:55
    -1

    Is it a knee-jerk reaction or a reasonably thought out idea to curb alcohol consumption? Obviously those providing the discounts want you to buy more, those opposing the discount know this and want to stop it.

    I'm neither defending or opposing the discounts, but society wants something done about alcohol abuse and frankly limiting or discouraging its consumption is one of the most obvious measures.

    • dktlim on 03/03/2014 - 15:05

      society wants something done about alcohol abuse

      What abuse?

      http://ipa.org.au/sectors/food/news/3039/neo-prohibition-isn…
      "Our alcohol consumption is steady, too. Australia's per capita alcohol consumption has been hovering around 10 litres a year for the last few decades. (In the 1970s it was more like 12 litres.)"

      http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/09/alcohol…
      "Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research statistics show the rate of alcohol-related assaults in New South Wales has been declining since 2008 and is the lowest since 2002, with 184.8 assaults per 100,000 people per year. It is however, still higher than the lowest point in 2000 of 136.6 assaults per 100,000."

      Is there really a large public outcry for regulation of alcohol consumption or is it just the shrill cry of nanny statists?

      and frankly limiting or discouraging its consumption is one of the most obvious measures.

      It's really not obvious at all. Correlation is not causation. Look at some of the studies linked in the IPA article above.

      Also from the Guardian article: "As a side note, when looking for factors other than alcohol related to assaults, I found this study showing a correlation between when the Geelong Cats win a game, and a higher rate of assaults."

  • Marble250 on 03/03/2014 - 19:01

    mmmm…. a Public Service, Greenie quoting AMA and AIC to prove a point?…like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse!
    Have you heard of "Prohibition" in the US..how did that work out?

    • ThisJustin on 03/03/2014 - 19:22

      I take it that was to me? Okay.

      1st: I'm not a Greenie. I've never voted for that party in my entire life and I highly doubt I ever will.

      2nd: The AMA and the AIC offer evidence to corroborate my argument; their evidence is clear and concise. What exactly do you have against those two institutions/groups? What evidence do you have to prove they aren't a reliable and trustworthy source? Besides, of course, your belief that only "Greenies" would quote them.

      3rd: Nowhere in the Age article is there a call to ban alcohol outright. Nowhere did I advocate for prohibition. Prohibition in the U.S. is irrelevant to this topic.

  • Marble250 on 03/03/2014 - 21:43

    Well if you're not you should join. They seem to believe in the principle of the vociferous few forcing their will upon the majority.

    The reason I cite "Prohibition" is that it is an example of doogooders hijacking policy and visiting upon the general populace a far worse situation than the one they set out to cure…I could have also cited "the stolen generation" or, the importation of cane toads to protect sugar cane crops.

    That having been said,you have a right to your view. Opposing views and a final consensus is what good policy is built upon.

    What I object to, is when you use terms like "right wing libertarian" and "drivel", when someone puts a view forward…..after all you just reacted to being "labelled" didn't you?

    • ThisJustin on 03/03/2014 - 22:58

      Prohibition isn't being suggested here, it is an irrelevant slippery slope argument. The arguments against prohibition are different to the arguments against banning discount coupons.

      And you still haven't explained why citing evidence from the AMA, a medical organisation which can speak authoritatively about the health issues related to alcohol abuse, and the AIC, an organisation which researches crime are "foxes in charge of the hen house".

      I didn't "react" to be called a Greenie, I pointed out I wasn't one and the assumption I was based on me citing the AMA and AIC was absurd. The reason I mentioned Libertarians is because they are always so quick to shout "Nanny State!" against anything without taking evidence into account. Remember when seatbelts came in and they squealed about how it infringed upon their rights and felt there wasn't any good evidence that seatbelts reduced injury and death despite the fact there was plenty of it? Now people would laugh at them if they tried that on.

      Shouting "Nanny State!" is not an argument, it's a cynical attempt to shut down debate by exploiting peoples' mistrust of an authority (i.e. the State).

  • Marble250 on 04/03/2014 - 07:25

    See, when you say Prohibition is a slippery slope argument….it’s only a short step from the beginning of prohibition of any sort…. It’s a mind set…. where and when do you stop!

    You decry the use of proprietary media and espouse the use of statistics published by a government organisation and a body representing a medical fraternity, both of which have a vested interest in dramatically reducing the consumption of alcohol….both having the need, like Caesar’s wife, to be seen as waving the flag for sobriety and temperance. Hence the publishing of figures which may be skewed, with comparison and stressing of particular periods, which are aligned to “prove their case”. (Lies, damn lies and statistics!)

    In any case, I wouldn’t argue that over-indulgence of alcohol causes car accidents, violent behaviour etc, etc….It happens! …I would argue however, that it is not anyone’s right to curtail the use of alcohol, in the belief that such incidents will befall all of those who partake……SO LONG AS IT IS LEGAL!.

    I agree the term “Nanny State” has become a bit of cliche, but I applaud all of those who question the suppression of their liberties by the state, instead of being led like lambs to the slaughter.
    Don’t get me wrong…I am the state, but just as we all do, the state sometimes loses its way and should be reminded that ALL of the people ARE the state…and if the people want access to booze they should get it, unencumbered!

    • ThisJustin on 05/03/2014 - 02:33

      See, when you say Prohibition is a slippery slope argument….it’s only a short step from the beginning of prohibition of any sort…. It’s a mind set…. where and when do you stop!

      When you no longer have evidence to corroborate your argument. Prohibition has more evidence against its effectiveness than for it. That is what makes the argument of "Oh noes, next comes prohibition!" so silly.

      You decry the use of proprietary media and espouse the use of statistics published by a government organisation and a body representing a medical fraternity, both of which have a vested interest in dramatically reducing the consumption of alcohol….both having the need, like Caesar’s wife, to be seen as waving the flag for sobriety and temperance. Hence the publishing of figures which may be skewed, with comparison and stressing of particular periods, which are aligned to “prove their case”. (Lies, damn lies and statistics!)

      "Vested interested" isn't automatically evil or nefarious. That seems like weasels words to me. Medical practitioners see the harm caused by excessive alcohol consumption and want to convince society to limit its use. Criminologists see the link between alcohol and crime and also want the public to be aware of it. Just because you don't like their conclusions doesn't mean you can dismiss their evidence or accuse them of skewing or manipulating evidence.

      In any case, I wouldn’t argue that over-indulgence of alcohol causes car accidents, violent behaviour etc, etc….It happens! …I would argue however, that it is not anyone’s right to curtail the use of alcohol, in the belief that such incidents will befall all of those who partake……SO LONG AS IT IS LEGAL!.

      I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you arguing alcohol doesn't play a role in road accidents and violent crime? OK. Let's see what drinkwise, an alcohol industry body has to say about drink driving:

      Is there such a thing as safe drinking when driving?
      There is no absolute safe level of alcohol consumption for competent driving.
      Research shows that any BAC over the legal limit at least doubles your risk of car crash injury and your risk of involvement in a fatal crash rises sharply.
      http://www.drinkwise.org.au/you-alcohol/alcohol-facts/drink-…

      They cover all of the risks involved and all of the impairments drinking causes. That isn't a government site spewing "Greenie" propaganda, that is an industry body.

      Violence is a little more tricky. Alcohol probably doesn't make people violent, like marijuana doesn't make people psychotic, despite what the old propaganda film Reefer Madness tried to tell us, but it no doubt erodes peoples' decision making ability and cognitive function. You lose the ability to assess risk and are more likely to engage in dangerous behaviour.

      In any case, arguing "alcohol doesn't create violence" is of no value. Alcohol can, and does, lead to violence. It doesn't need to be the exact cause for it to still play a significant role in its existence. It seems dishonest to argue that the link between violence and alcohol isn't entirely established therefore alcohol plays no significant role in violence. Especially when you have evidence to the contrary.

      • Marble250 on 05/03/2014 - 16:08

        When you no longer have evidence to corroborate your argument. Prohibition has more evidence against its effectiveness than for it. That is what makes the argument of "Oh noes, next comes prohibition!" so silly.

        It wasn’t silly at the time…it was law!….and spawned by a lot of “dogooders”, who believed that alcohol was a tool of the devil and they began by quoting all of same sort of statistics that you do.

        "Vested interested" isn't automatically evil or nefarious. That seems like weasels words to me. Medical practitioners see the harm caused by excessive alcohol consumption and want to convince society to limit its use. Criminologists see the link between alcohol and crime and also want the public to be aware of it. Just because you don't like their conclusions doesn't mean you can dismiss their evidence or accuse them of skewing or manipulating evidence.

        You must be extremely naive to think that any entity that uses resources does not have to "prove" their case, by showing that their research was very necessary and does highlight that a great problem exists!….can you imagine that if the AMA's data suggested there were fewer problems during a period of increased alcohol consumption that they would recommend its use?

        In any case, I wouldn’t argue that over-indulgence of alcohol causes car accidents, violent behaviour etc, etc….It happens! …I would argue however, that it is not anyone’s right to curtail the use of alcohol, in the belief that such incidents will befall all of those who partake……SO LONG AS IT IS LEGAL!.

        Apparently you can’t make head nor tale of this??…..I would have thought it would be obvious that it means …of course there IS a correlation between car accidents and drink driving, but just like all lung cancers are not caused by smoking……all car accidents are not caused by the consumption of alcohol!. There is one factor that is common however, motor vehicles…now I’m hesitant to say this for fear of adding to your list…. but why not ban….no I won’t take it any further you might get serious and begin a diatribe on that!

        Regarding “violence”: a couple of years back. a friend of mine (admittedly as drunk as) had his face caved in by two guys…bouncers ,who were stone cold sober (violence is just violence!) Now, I’ve seen drunks in fights, flailing their arms around, throwing a thousand punches without connecting with one…. and the only real damage I’ve seen inflicted, was done by the sober!

        Look Justin, you and I have exhausted this argument and suborned the OP’s posting in so doing, for which I appologise to him. I am not going to convince you. and you sure as hell won’t convince me on this topic.

        But as they say in the classics, I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it! (cos that's the way us civil libertarians roll).Good luck with all future bans.

        • ThisJustin on 05/03/2014 - 16:37

          Good luck with all future bans.

          I enjoy a good sarcastic parting shot as much as the next man, but nowhere in this topic did I say I advocated a ban. In fact, I said:

          I'm neither defending or opposing the discounts

          :)

  • Baghern on 04/03/2014 - 12:19
    +2

    Bought alcohol is generally drank at home. Your generally doing yourself harm.

    Violent reactions is generally due to our primitive reaction to things that are different/strangers, a need to prove ourselves, which is what happens at/outside clubs.

    Domestic abuse is another thing, that discounted alcohol won't make a difference.

    • cwongtech on 04/03/2014 - 17:20
      +1

      Violent reactions is generally due to our primitive reaction to things that are different/strangers, a need to prove ourselves, which is what happens at/outside clubs.

      +1 Showing dominance if we feel threatened. The way to stop this is remove the trigger that causes the emotion of feeling threatened, now you can either do this by removing the provocateur (the Douchebag), or the overly-sensitive crazy guy who likes to show dominance over something they took offence to (which they shouldn't have).

      Domestic abuse is another thing, that discounted alcohol won't make a difference.

      +1 Just like guns, taking away guns does not equal no mass murders, just means there is more of a chance there won't be any mass murders that have a gun involved, a different weapon of choice will be used instead by mr crazy. Instead of banning everything the crazy guy can hold, you have to stop the crazy guy from becoming crazy.

      • Marble250 on 05/03/2014 - 16:15

        Yep right on in both cases and have you noticed the increase in arrests for gun smuggling?
        Crims will always have access to guns, but now they know there won't be anyone with a gun in the houses they invade!….must give them a warm, fuzzy feeling!

        • Baghern on 05/03/2014 - 19:21

          Also means they're less likely to use it, or feel the need for it.

          Kids get angry, they don't go to the back of the house for a gun…

        • cwongtech on 05/03/2014 - 19:52

          Kids get angry, they don't go to the back of the house for a gun…

          Pretty sure gun laws state you need a gun safe… If it's accessible by a kid, that's the gun-owner being stupid and irresponsible. Nowadays we see kids with kitchen knives instead of guns. Should we ban all kitchen knives too? We shouldn't be banning everything the kid can hold, rather educate them, and stop them from becoming angry (address bullying), and also teach them about what to do in the event of getting angry (put bricks in the douchebag's bag rather than shoot/stab them, so you get a good laugh out of it)

        • Baghern on 06/03/2014 - 10:51

          Yep, doesn't mean kids can't access them.

          Yes but knives aren't as likely to kill, there's also a big leap from waving a knife around then actually doing the deed.

          A gun a trigger isn't much of a leap.

        • cwongtech on 06/03/2014 - 12:50

          Yep, doesn't mean kids can't access them.

          As compared to knives in a drawer..?
          In the same token of logic, just because guns are restricted from the public, doesn't mean crims can't access them.

          A gun a trigger isn't much of a leap.

          It's quite a leap to break into a gun safe to retrieve a gun for the purpose of murdering someone. It's not quite a leap to open your mum's kitchen drawer for a steak knife and hide it up your sleeve.

          Yes but knives aren't as likely to kill, there's also a big leap from waving a knife around then actually doing the deed.

          Knives aren't likely to kill? What…? Pretty sure a knife would leave a bigger hole in someone than a bullet… blood loss would be faster.
          Before you go on about "doing the deed" crap, a mr/mrs crazy would not care. Fairly sure, they would use any means necessary to exact their revenge… gun, knife, chainsaw, broomstick handle, toothbrush shaft, pen.

          Should be ban everything on that list then? Need to stop banning everything the crazy person can hold, rather, prevent the crazy person from becoming crazy in the first place or restrict the crazy person from things they can hold.

          Back on-topic, I believe we shouldn't ban the alcohol coupons in an attempt to stop abuse, mr abuse would still obtain their liquor one way or another, all it does is slightly slow liquor sales. If that's what you want, then sure.. but the coupons were created in the first place to move more volume.

        • Baghern on 06/03/2014 - 14:40

          Then why isnt that we don't have a proportionally high knife crime?

          The USA shows us how careless and carefree gun crimes are.

          I wonder how many of those gun killing sprees nuts would of had the guts to do the same with a knife/blade.

          Pulling a trigger is more than a little different to sliding a blade into someone.

          Bullets explode, bullets ricochet, a knife wound is isolated.

        • cwongtech on 06/03/2014 - 17:59

          The USA shows us how careless and carefree gun crimes are.

          Fairly sure they only happen in states where guns are banned.. and all unregistered firearms

          Then why isnt that we don't have a proportionally high knife crime?

          Knives were just an example dude, you also have to factor in the median income and what causes people to go crazy.

          I wonder how many of those gun killing sprees nuts would of had the guts to do the same with a knife/blade.

          I guess restricting access to everyone would stop the mr slightlycrazies but not the mr crazies.

        • Baghern on 07/03/2014 - 08:45

          ummm Guns aren't banned in America… and most have been with registered firearms…

          One of the latest shooting, shot for sending/receiving text during a movie.

        • cwongtech on 07/03/2014 - 11:33

          ummm Guns aren't banned in America… and most have been with registered firearms…

          I guess you could say the same in Australia with regards to Registered Firearms.

          One of the latest shooting, shot for sending/receiving text during a movie.

          Ah, so the gun got mad at the texter and shot him yeah? Nothing to do with the mr crazy holding the gun.

          In regards to alcohol - the alcohol bottle got mad at the not-so-strong-partner, and smashed her on the head, not mr crazy dominant father/mother in an abusive relationship hey?
          Again, stop restricting everything the crazies can hold which limits the thing you just banned to every other non-crazy out there, and deal with the crazies instead.

  • sprucemoose on 06/03/2014 - 16:40

    When will a major news publication have the balls to call for a complete restructure of the ridiculously uneven alcohol tax laws?
    Why should your drink of choice be taxed differently (i.e. Jim Beam RTD) to someone else's drink of choice (i.e wine)?

    • bargaino on 09/03/2014 - 12:24

      Why should your drink of choice be taxed differently

      History. Spirits were highly taxed to encourage people to drink beer instead, and not get so badly drunk so fast. More recently with beer, the tax was changed so light/mid beers have very low tax.
      Wine, well I guess the wine industry have good lobbyists. If bogans ran the country, JimBeam premix would be subsidised. I agree its not fair. Premix should be taxed the same as beer, based on the logic of encouraging weaker drinks.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join