Brewdog WINS!!

[KimyReizeger]

That could be said for anything.

For example a kettle. Can a company stop a person from stciking their face right into the steam of a boiling kettle? No.

So should we ban kettles?

So you feel it is wholly an individual's responsibility to not drink too much.

Therefore you're against closing times for bars, curfews in nightclubs, minimum drinks prices?

Personally I think it's well proven that there are lots of people who aren't able, literally aren't able to control themselves in the realm of alcohol, something which necessitates regulation. Nanny state yes, but we asked for it.

[KimyReizeger]

These statements would be true if the producers of the 18% beer were mass producing them and selling them in packs of 20/24 for 10.

e.

Ok:

One 330ml bottle of 18% beer will get you more drunk than one 330ml bottle of 4% beer.

Which bottle of beer is more dangerous?

[Le Stu]

Ok:

One 330ml bottle of 18% beer will get you more drunk than one 330ml bottle of 4% beer.

Which bottle of beer is more dangerous?

They both weigh the same and would likely cause identical head injuries. Yet I feel that's not exactly what you're getting at. Not to labour the point, but cheap vodka is even more dangerous than any strong beer. Are you saying that we can't deal with traditional 'bands' of alcohol products being skewed like this?

and by 'bands' I mean a broad generalisation of alcohol content by terms such as beer, wine, spirits, etc.

[MattJimF]

Ok:

One 330ml bottle of 18% beer will get you more drunk than one 330ml bottle of 4% beer.

Which bottle of beer is more dangerous?

Yes the 18% bottle of beer will get you more drunk, but I'm guessing (having not actually tasted the beer) that the beer is also a heavy beer that you couldn't down in one, and i would guess that it would also take the same length of time to finish as maybe 5 bottles of the 4% beer (again a guess having never tried it).

I wish you would make up your mind what your arguing about.

Are you against the production of a 18% beer, the producers of the 18% beer or the marketing of the 18% beer?

Honestly have you been a victim of alcoholism, had your life ruined by someone who was under the influence of alcohol or just lost someone close to you through alcohol?

If someone is going to abuse alcohol they will use whatever they can get their hands on, be it 18% beer, cheap white lightning or hoarding alcohol from parties and hiding them. Even if you can control what they get, they will end up hiding bottles all over the place, it's amazing what people will lie about when they need money for drink, and if they have a problem they want the largest volume of the strongest alcohol for the cheapest price, so a 330-440ml 18% beer costing 10 a bottle will be further down the list then a 3 litre bottle of white lightning costing 3.

Trust me there's nothing more fun then playing hunt the vodka bottle, or spending boxing day night convincing a friend who has been binging, that life is worth living and trying to drown himself in the sea isn't the best thing in the world.

You seem to be trying to pick on something that isn't an issue to the people you are arguing with, and when people answer your little digs you change the goal posts and pick on something else.

[KimyReizeger]

Yes the 18% bottle of beer will get you more drunk, but I'm guessing (having not actually tasted the beer) that the beer is also a heavy beer that you couldn't down in one, and i would guess that it would also take the same length of time to finish as maybe 5 bottles of the 4% beer (again a guess having never tried it).

Are you against the production of a 18% beer, the producers of the 18% beer or the marketing of the 18% beer?

Honestly have you been a victim of alcoholism, had your life ruined by someone who was under the influence of alcohol or just lost someone close to you through alcohol?

If someone is going to abuse alcohol they will use whatever they can get their hands on, be it 18% beer, cheap white lightning or hoarding alcohol from parties and hiding them. Even if you can control what they get, they will end up hiding bottles all over the place, it's amazing what people will lie about when they need money for drink, and if they have a problem they want the largest volume of the strongest alcohol for the cheapest price, so a 330-440ml 18% beer costing 10 a bottle will be further down the list then a 3 litre bottle of white lightning costing 3.

Trust me there's nothing more fun then playing hunt the vodka bottle, or spending boxing day night convincing a friend who has been binging, that life is worth living and trying to drown himself in the sea isn't the best thing in the world.

You seem to be trying to pick on something that isn't an issue to the people you are arguing with, and when people answer your little digs you change the goal posts and pick on something else.

How can my former question regarding the 330ml bottles be construed as 'an attack'? I just asked you to answer the question. I am not biased in any respect. Just trying to affirm something: An 18% beer is more dangerous than a 4% beer. Simple. Maybe that goes some way to explaining why there was a bit of an outcry about Tokyo. You can lay out all the 'oh but it's rich and expensive and people don't drink so much of it' arguments you like, but that is just personal speculation. The only fact here, is that an 18% bottle of beer is more dangerous to consume than a 4% beer. I'm not making a judgement on that. I'm just trying to affirm something.

I wish you would make up your mind what your arguing about.

That's the thing. I never came in looking for an argument. Rather, to generate some conversation about the brand image of Brewdog. I was drawn into making comments on the irresponsibility thing. I have nothing against Brewdog. Their success or failure is irrelevant to me. I admire their ability to capture imaginations through marketing, but cannot get excited about their aspirational message and ridiculous association of a beer brand with music.

[KimyReizeger]

Are you saying that we can't deal with traditional 'bands' of alcohol products being skewed like this?

and by 'bands' I mean a broad generalisation of alcohol content by terms such as beer, wine, spirits, etc.

I'd say there is an element of confusion yes. Most people's conception of beer is fairly rooted in the 4-6% mark, and they may be inclined to treat any pint along those lines. I know I've drunk strong wine in the same manner as I've drunk weak wine.

Though this is a fairly difficult point. I think the fact that 18% beer is more dangerous than 4% beer (same size bottle drunk over same amount of time) says more about why people were angry over Tokyo than any personal reflections of mine.

Another personal anecdote:

That time I drank Chimay Blue, I totally belted it down in about two gulps. We ordered them because they were the strongest. It wasn't about quiet, relaxing, sociable, safe drinking. It was about getting pissed. It's also one of the few times I've ended up at the casino.

[Nev]

Tokyo* has been banned by the nanny state. Fuck you, Portman.

[KimyReizeger]

Tokyo* has been banned by the nanny state. Fuck you, Portman.

Why they don't they ban Buckfast too? There is a seriously unhealthy culture surrounding that drink.

I don't think its worth getting outraged over though. I mean, the Brewdog company are getting outraged. Outraged all the way to the bank that is. All it does is re-affirm their 'alternative message'; indeed almost martyring them. Fundamentalist Brewdog drinkers will simply be consolidated in their convictions.

There is only one true drink! Brewdog Akbar!

[MattJimF]

How can my former question regarding the 330ml bottles be construed as 'an attack'? I just asked you to answer the question. I am not biased in any respect. Just trying to affirm something: An 18% beer is more dangerous than a 4% beer. Simple. Maybe that goes some way to explaining why there was a bit of an outcry about Tokyo. You can lay out all the 'oh but it's rich and expensive and people don't drink so much of it' arguments you like, but that is just personal speculation. The only fact here, is that an 18% bottle of beer is more dangerous to consume than a 4% beer. I'm not making a judgement on that. I'm just trying to affirm something.

That's the thing. I never came in looking for an argument. Rather, to generate some conversation about the brand image of Brewdog. I was drawn into making comments on the irresponsibility thing. I have nothing against Brewdog. Their success or failure is irrelevant to me. I admire their ability to capture imaginations through marketing, but cannot get excited about their aspirational message to would-be customers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattJimF View Post

Plus they are local and sticking two fingers up to the main breweries and the government

But aggressively marketed 18% beers are irresponsible.

My first response and your response to your question about why BrewDog was popular on here' date=' I don't quite understand why you feel the need to say your not attacking the company when YOU produced the fact about the 18% beer, which makes me feel you were waiting to use it as 'an attack'. You could have asked why they were sticking two fingers up at the government, which would have resulted in the mentioning of the nanny state beer, the problems with the naming of the beers they produce and the fact that the government and the industry aren't happy about the fact that they won't bow down to them.

Also I don't remember ever having seen an advert about any of their beers appearing in print or on tv (apart from the James May program on BBC 2).

You got the answer to your original query 3 pages back (post 131) but yet you carried on with what appears to be a crusade against the company and people who know how to handle their alcohol properly, despite everyone who has responded on this thread telling you that you are basically arguing for argument's sake.

Anyway none of this matters any more as they have been banned from selling it Mr Portman bans Tokyo*, but who complained? and have stopped selling it on their website Buy Tokyo | BrewDog Beer which was the only place you could buy it anyway.

[KimyReizeger]

My first response and your response to your question about why BrewDog was popular on here, I don't quite understand why you feel the need to say your not attacking the company when YOU produced the fact about the 18% beer, which makes me feel you were waiting to use it as 'an attack'. You could have asked why they were sticking two fingers up at the government, which would have resulted in the mentioning of the nanny state beer, the problems with the naming of the beers they produce and the fact that the government and the industry aren't happy about the fact that they won't bow down to them.

Also I don't remember ever having seen an advert about any of their beers appearing in print or on tv (apart from the James May program on BBC 2).

You got the answer to your original query 3 pages back (post 131) but yet you carried on with what appears to be a crusade against the company and people who know how to handle their alcohol properly, despite everyone who has responded on this thread telling you that you are basically arguing for argument's sake.

Anyway none of this matters any more as they have been banned from selling it Mr Portman bans Tokyo*, but who complained? and have stopped selling it on their website Buy Tokyo | BrewDog Beer which was the only place you could buy it anyway.

My initial reason for entering the thread was, that I was intrigued people could get so uppity about a drink. I then discovered Brewdog endow their booze with all manner of aspirational messages and associate it with things like ideas and music.

The irresponsibility issue: I'm just trying to understand it, and I think the fact that strong beer is more harmful than weak beer is about as factual as you can make it. Arguing about your own drinking habits and ability to hold ale is mostly irrelevant. I still don't understand the argument, really, but I'm not going to start saying things like, 'yeah, 18% beer, yeah that's fine, that fits in well with the current state effort to reduce binge-drinking and alter attitudes towards drinking, oh yeah, totally. Peas in a pod.'

[KimyReizeger]

In essence, I just don't think drinks should be cool. The marketing of booze is so see-through:

WKD 'everyone's got a wicked side',

Guinness 'the craft, the art, the refinement' etc. The ritualised pouring.

Tennants Football and music, 'Wherever it takes us, whatever it takes' (used on the Scotland side's world cup campaign.

Carling: male chauvinism (bloke lying around all day, burd comes home and asks him to clear up yadda yadda)

Strongbow: The idea of a working class

Brewdog: ideas of music, philosophy, oppression.

It's as if your drink choice accurately reflects your personality, politics and national identity. I think that's a bit of a sad situation to be in. I'm fine with people being connoisseurs of alcohol, but I feel uncomfortable about the powerful effects of image and advertising. Tennants, we'd possibly all agree, tastes like dishwater. However, the majority of Scottish beer drinkers drink it. Why is that? Is it because the company have worked themselves into a position of trust and accurately identify with the political and social views of their customers? That's a ridiculous reason to drink dishwater. Why do countries like Belgium and Germany offer so much more choice?

[Old Gold]

I think the fact that strong beer is more harmful than weak beer is about as factual as you can make it?! Is that an Allan Partridge quote?

I await your cold, hard scientific FACTS. Heck, people are still busy debating whether a glass of wine a day saves your life or gives you cancer, therefore this should be good. I don't think the points regarding the difficult nature of downing rich, expensive, alcoholic beer should be ignored.

[Guest Gladstone]

In some respects Brew Dog is as much a fashion accessory as a drink, clearly targeted towards a certain group of people.For example, you guys have already tried to distance yourselves from teenages, those on low-incomes, binge-drinkers and old people like me with uncool views. This simply reflects the fact that you think your drink choice really says a lot about you.

Mid-20s? Have a bit of cash? Love music? take an interest in what you consume? a connoisseur of sorts?

Drink BrewDog!

And what the hell is wrong with me having a go at this company? Would you complain if I had a go at Starbucks? Just because I don't agree something is cool when it like totally is.

Fuck me. You're like a dog with a bone.

Nobody says you can't have a go at this company. We just disagree with your opinion.

Here's my "portfolio".

27 year old male.

Lager of choice: Tennents

I do enjoy a Brew Dog now and again though.

I'm not trying to distance myself from teenagers or those on low income or anything like that. You just made that one up all by yourself. What I'm saying is that the alleged target market that you say Brew Dog is targetting (in your original posts) is completely off the mark. They may well have a target market that is mid-20s and above, and people who can afford a slightly more expensive beer. That is not irresponsible or encouraging binge drinking at all. This is the misconception that pisses me off. Cheap beer/alcopops etc are far more to blame for binge drinking than a brewer (like Brew Dog) that sells more expensive ales.

I don't understand why you are struggling to grasp that concept. ?(

[Guest Gladstone]

For once I am in complete agreement with Old Gold on this debate.

It is not a FACT that 18% beer is more dangerous than 4% beer. Far from it. You're ignoring the "facts" by coming to that conclusion.

Let's assume that Tokyo has not been banned. You can buy Tokyo on the Brew Dog website. I have never seen it advertised anywhere. It costs 10 for one bottle. Tennent's lager is available for less than 50p a can in Tesco. Don't try and convince me that the far more difficult to get hold of bottle of Brew Dog that costs 20 times the price of the can of lager is more dangerous. That is just utter nonsense. The stark reality is that people who will abuse alcohol will not sit themselves down for a bottle Tokyo. It is going to be an acquired taste, not easy to chuck back, and just more difficult to get your hands on. You have to order it and wait for it to come in the post! Tennent's is available in nearly every pub in Scotland (not at 50p a can obviously) and in every supermarket at a very affordable price.

The chances of someone drinking 10 cans of Tennents for a fiver are far higher than the chances of someone drinking 1 bottle of Tokyo. And, the person drinking 1 bottle of Tokyo is almost definitely going to be the kind of person having a bottle of beer on a Friday night in their house, and staying there, rather than the kind of person getting tanked up on a Friday night in a public park/mate's house/pub before going out and starting some sort of trouble.

[KimyReizeger]

For once I am in complete agreement with Old Gold on this debate.

It is not a FACT that 18% beer is more dangerous than 4% beer. Far from it. You're ignoring the "facts" by coming to that conclusion.

Let's assume that Tokyo has not been banned. You can buy Tokyo on the Brew Dog website. I have never seen it advertised anywhere. It costs 10 for one bottle. Tennent's lager is available for less than 50p a can in Tesco. Don't try and convince me that the far more difficult to get hold of bottle of Brew Dog that costs 20 times the price of the can of lager is more dangerous. That is just utter nonsense. The stark reality is that people who will abuse alcohol will not sit themselves down for a bottle Tokyo. It is going to be an acquired taste, not easy to chuck back, and just more difficult to get your hands on. You have to order it and wait for it to come in the post! Tennent's is available in nearly every pub in Scotland (not at 50p a can obviously) and in every supermarket at a very affordable price.

The chances of someone drinking 10 cans of Tennents for a fiver are far higher than the chances of someone drinking 1 bottle of Tokyo. And, the person drinking 1 bottle of Tokyo is almost definitely going to be the kind of person having a bottle of beer on a Friday night in their house, and staying there, rather than the kind of person getting tanked up on a Friday night in a public park/mate's house/pub before going out and starting some sort of trouble.

A bottle of 330ml 18% beer will get you more drunk than a bottle of 330ml 4% beer, if both are drunk over the same time scale.

What you're arguing is that people wouldn't drink Tokyo over the same time scale, and in fact alter their drinking speed to suit the alcohol content.

Speculation over the length of time people in the future will drink at is highly questionable.

Your personal opinion on the subject is pretty worthless.

I don't think drinkers rationalise as much as you say.

You're still ignoring my implicit suggestion that you're an easily manipulated, senseless consumer willing to lap up anything you're told is cool, an idea which is far more interesting than your personal reflections over this ABV crap.

[paranoid]

A bottle of 330ml 18% beer will get you more drunk than a bottle of 330ml 4% beer, if both are drunk over the same time scale.

What you're arguing is that people wouldn't drink Tokyo over the same time scale, and in fact alter their drinking speed to suit the alcohol content.

Speculation over the length of time people in the future will drink at is highly questionable.

Your personal opinion on the subject is pretty worthless.

I don't think drinkers rationalise as much as you say.

You're still ignoring my implicit suggestion that you're an easily manipulated, senseless consumer willing to lap up anything you're told is cool, an idea which is far more interesting than your personal reflections over this ABV crap.

You really are trolling it up now, are you not?

Define "drinkers". Do you mean people who drink beer, or drunks?

[Adam Easy Wishes]

So that said, Kimy (and bear with me - I've skipped quite a lot of this debate, apologies) - what are your views on higher percentage Belgian beers that don't have what you have described as a clever marketing scheme? Are they okay?

[Guest Tam o' Shantie]

So you feel it is wholly an individual's responsibility to not drink too much.

Therefore you're against closing times for bars, curfews in nightclubs, minimum drinks prices?

Personally I think it's well proven that there are lots of people who aren't able, literally aren't able to control themselves in the realm of alcohol, something which necessitates regulation. Nanny state yes, but we asked for it.

Can you explain to me why in Belgium (and most of Europe) where the bars which serve half-pints for as little as 0.50 and DO NOT HAVE REGULATED CLOSING TIMES there is virtually no binge-drinking amongst young people? Young people, I might add, who are legally entitled to drink from the age of 16 upwards? The solution (if it exists) lies not in curfews, closing times or higher minimum drinks prices, but in education and/or a shift in cultural attitude towards alcohol.

[Guest Gladstone]

Fucking hell. The only person ignoring anything is you (kimy).

I've just told you that I'm a Tennent's drinker really. I earn enough cash to drink Brew Dog all the time rather than Tennent's, but I'm still a tight bastard, and don't fancy shelling out that much money on a beer all the time. I indulge myself sometimes by buying a couple of bottles of Brew Dog and enjoy them whilst sitting on my sofa watching telly.

You're still completely ignoring the fact that Brew Dog is far more expensive than the 4% beer. I will also point out that you brought up the "ABV crap". You are saying that 18% beer is more dangerous than 4% beer. I will give you that if both beers tasted exactly the same, cost exactly the same, and were both as readily available as the other (i.e. were both identical apart from the difference in strength), that the 18% beer would be more dangerous.

That is NOT the case though. The fact is that the 4% beer will be about 5-10% of the price of the 18% beer. For me, that one point alone throws your argument out the window. You can also buy a cheap bottle of vodka for less than a bottle of Tokyo. If someone's intent is to get smashed, they will not buy a bottle of Tokyo, they'll buy a bottle of cheap vodka, or a larger quantity of cheaper lager.

I have no idea what Tokyo tastes like and whether it will take longer or the same amount of time to drink as a bottle of "average" beer, but I'm guessing that it will be a heavier beer and not so easy to chuck back, and would be the kind of beer that a person savours rather than downs. If a pint cost me a tenner, I'd certainly want to enjoy it and make it last!

[Guest Gladstone]

Can you explain to me why in Belgium (and most of Europe) where the bars which serve half-pints for as little as 0.50 and DO NOT HAVE REGULATED CLOSING TIMES there is virtually no binge-drinking amongst young people? Young people, I might add, who are legally entitled to drink from the age of 16 upwards? The solution (if it exists) lies not in curfews, closing times or higher minimum drinks prices, but in education and/or a shift in cultural attitude towards alcohol.

Exactly this.

[Teabags]

It has been mentioned that a 330ml bottle of Tokyo costs 10, right?

Irresponsible drinkers are NOT going to spend 10 on one small bottle of beer, when they could get 3 larger bottles of wine. Tokyo is NOT aimed at irresponsible drinkers.

[Guest Tam o' Shantie]

So that said, Kimy (and bear with me - I've skipped quite a lot of this debate, apologies) - what are your views on higher percentage Belgian beers that don't have what you have described as a clever marketing scheme? Are they okay?

Spooky that we both dropped the b-word in independent posts within a minute of one-another!

Wishes-twins activate! Form of...a forum king!

[MattJimF]

A bottle of 330ml 18% beer will get you more drunk than a bottle of 330ml 4% beer, if both are drunk over the same time scale.

What you're arguing is that people wouldn't drink Tokyo over the same time scale, and in fact alter their drinking speed to suit the alcohol content.

Speculation over the length of time people in the future will drink at is highly questionable.

Your personal opinion on the subject is pretty worthless.

I don't think drinkers rationalise as much as you say.

You're still ignoring my implicit suggestion that you're an easily manipulated, senseless consumer willing to lap up anything you're told is cool, an idea which is far more interesting than your personal reflections over this ABV crap.

Taking this out of the alcohol market for a moment.

Bugatti produce a car that can hit a top speed of 255 miles an hour which is produced in a limited number and costs close to 1 million. Now this is 3.5 times fast then the national speed limit in this country, and most other countries in the world.

Vauxhall mass produce the Corsa which lots of people in this country drive, and is far more likely to be in an accident or caught speeding.

Now using your logic Bugatti are irresponsible for producing a high speed car over Vauxhall's more responsible mass produced lower speed car, despite the fact that the average consumer wouldn't be able to afford to drive the Bugatti.

Please don't dismiss this as being different to the argument you are putting forward, as it really isn't. Your whole argument is 'supposedly' about how we have all been brainwashed into liking this beer over other beers, and i'm sure that all of us would like a Veyron over a Corsa, but all of us know that if we were to drive one we could control ourselves to not constantly drive at 255mph, much like we all like Brewdog products but we couldn't spend the night knocking back 18% beer to get drunk.

Why don't we ask the workers of the Mooring about Delirium Tremens, this is a 9% beer sold in bottles in a bar. Now i'm sure that they get lots of people in to get drunk in as quick as time as possible (the same as most bars on a Friday or Saturday night), but i'm willing to bet that they don't go through cases each Friday and Saturday night because the beer is going to get people more drunk in the same space of time as one regular bottle.

[Flash@TMB]

Taking this out of the alcohol market for a moment.

Bugatti produce a car that can hit a top speed of 255 miles an hour which is produced in a limited number and costs close to 1 million. Now this is 3.5 times fast then the national speed limit in this country, and most other countries in the world.

Vauxhall mass produce the Corsa which lots of people in this country drive, and is far more likely to be in an accident or caught speeding.

Now using your logic Bugatti are irresponsible for producing a high speed car over Vauxhall's more responsible mass produced lower speed car, despite the fact that the average consumer wouldn't be able to afford to drive the Bugatti.

Please don't dismiss this as being different to the argument you are putting forward, as it really isn't. Your whole argument is 'supposedly' about how we have all been brainwashed into liking this beer over other beers, and i'm sure that all of us would like a Veyron over a Corsa, but all of us know that if we were to drive one we could control ourselves to not constantly drive at 255mph, much like we all like Brewdog products but we couldn't spend the night knocking back 18% beer to get drunk.

Why don't we ask the workers of the Mooring about Delirium Tremens, this is a 9% beer sold in bottles in a bar. Now i'm sure that they get lots of people in to get drunk in as quick as time as possible (the same as most bars on a Friday or Saturday night), but i'm willing to bet that they don't go through cases each Friday and Saturday night because the beer is going to get people more drunk in the same space of time as one regular bottle.

Correct. High strength beers are not really a problem as people only tend to drink one bottle then switch to lighter stuff. I've never seen anyone fucked up drinking the really strong stuff. Likewise with cask beer, if it's a strong one then it's also much more expensive and people tend to drink it more slowly in half pints.

We probably stock and sell more high strength beers than anywhere else in town but we also have probably the lowest incidence of trouble and bad behaviour. The only people you ever saw unconscious in The Moorings were Frank and myself (although I'm now thankfully retired).

Public disorder is down to chain bars buying in cheap vodka and selling doubles for a quid. Minkoff Vodka (I shit you not) at 3.99 per litre being the industry fave.

The root of the problem is people being encouraged to drink higher quantities of alcohol for logarithmically less money. The more you drink the cheaper it gets.

Brewdogs strong beers are very expensive. You don't benefit from any discount if you buy larger quantities of them.

There is also a misconception about strength in terms of %ABV. What counts is not the quantity nor the strength that a person consumes... it's the total number of alcoholic units they ingest and what that does to their blood alcohol level.

Absinthe is 72%ABV. Minkoff is 37.5%ABV (almost half). Absinthe is sold as 25ml and diluted with 4 parts water leading to a solution that is 14.4%ABV and 125ml of volume. Minkoff is doubled up to 50ml diluted with 1.5 parts diet cola leading to a solution that is 15% and 125ml of volume. The absinthe therefore equates to 1.8 units (same as a bottle of Stella) and the Minkoff weighs in at 1.875 units, slightly more. The Absinthe costs 4 and the Minkoff costs 1.50. The cost per unit of the Absinthe is 2.22, the cost per unit of the Minkoff is 80p. The Minkoff was manufactured by diluting a tanker of 100% industrial ethanol with 1.5 tankers of water. The absinthe was handcrafted in small batches by a master brewer/distiller from 60 odd different herbs. 25 will buy you enough Minoff to end your life. To kill yourself with absinthe would cost you 67.

I rest my case!

[Teabags]

And with that: