Malt Liquor == Special Brew?

http://www.40oz-warriors.com/profiles/images/Mr.%20Malt%20Liquor.jpg

==

http://gk007a0336.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/carls.1.jpg

I've had both UK strong lager and US malt (ALOT) and they're pretty much the same thing. Elephat malt is probably the most drinkable available here. Malt is usually for poor folks, it's a good meal replacement.

MALT LIQUOR plus MENTOL = ethnic marketing disaster

http://www.zianet.com/spencer/schlitz1200.GIF

6.8% and mighty fine tasting redish colored malt. It's still hard for me to accept "red bull" as some yuppie energy drink.

I fear the only way for me to truly get to grips with this is to drink a 40 on the sidewalk. Where did I put those air miles?

vs.

The 40oz. Crew @ www.ezboard.com

Ya got me.

Quick mental rithmetic: One forty = 3 pints, tops?

Puffs.

Around 1/4 mile from the house I was born. Every Friday the entire area stinks to fuck of hops.

(40 US fluid ounces = 2.08168461 Imperial pints)

Wards Brewery in Sheffield used to smell the same. Possibly Fridays too. It now smells of yuppie flats, a Peugot dealership and the Sheffield DVLA. Lush.

I've never seen Special Brew in the states in large package stores. I'm sure package stores in the hood sure as hell don't have it either.

Your average american lager is around 5.5%. King Kobra is 10%. Steel Reserve High Gravity is 9.1% (I believe). Its also really cheap. Since most people are tore completely up after two (if not just one) 40s, that means you can get drunk for $3, or less. Even a 30 case of Natty Ice costs $10, and you'd have to drink about 7 of those to get the same effect. And it tastes worse.

Then again, you guys probably don't have parties like Edward Special-Brew-Hands.

I don't think that's right. More like 3.5 - 4.5, and 4.5 is high for a lager.

Who remembers the 64 oz.? Those were badass; I know Colt .45 made one, Little Kings cream ale, and I think Special Export. I felt like a pirate drinking one of those.

It's more like four, but at any rate, it's not about the ethanol, it's about the nasty. Poor brewing process + cheap, sugary ingredients = more fucked up quicker, and in this case, that's not a good thing.

The apparently confusing and inconsistent use of the term 'malt liquor' has to do with the vagaries of American alcoholic beverage regulations, which can vary from state to state. In some states 'malt liquor' refers to any alcoholic beverage made by fermenting grain and water; in these states a non-alcoholic beer may also be called a non-alcoholic or non-intoxicating malt liquor. In some states, products labeled 'beer' must fall below a certain alcohol content, and beers that exceed the mark must be labeled as 'malt liquor'. A typical legal definition is in Colorado Rev. Stat. ss. 12 – 47 – 103(19), which provides that:

"Malt Liquors" includes beer and shall be construed to mean any beverage obtained by the alcoholic fermentation of any infusion or decoction of barley, malt, hops or any other similar products, or any combination thereof, in water containing more than three and two-tenths percent of alcohol by weight.

(Note: alcohol percentages measured by weight translate into larger figures when re-expressed as alcohol percentages by volume, because ethanol is lighter than water.)

Some states do not define a category of malt liquors; in these states, beers labelled malt liquor are typically available, but the label simply identifies the product with the style, and has no legal significance. While ordinary beers in the United States average around 5.0% alcohol by volume, malt liquors typically range from 6.0% up to 9% alcohol by volume. In some areas of the western United States, beers that are too strong to legally be beer are confusingly called 'ale'.

(Bolding mine, to emphasize the rightness of the average = 5% claim.)

Your average american lager is around 5.5%
I don't think that's right. More like 3.5 - 4.5, and 4.5 is high for a lager.

Budweiser is 5%.

While ordinary beers in the United States average around 5.0% alcohol by volume

My text got cut, somehow. I noted Coors, Miller, Michelob were also 5%, and doubted that the "nastiness" of the brew made it any more potent, it's probably just that when one gets drunk on crap, the extra sickness makes the experience more vivid in retrospect, so you think you were drunker.

Dude, this will get you SOOOOOO not drunk.

I would argue that the extra sickness makes the experience more vivid in real time.

it's a good thing when you're broke and young and stupid but yeah, it's nasty stuff. I stuck to King Kobra, Mickey's and St. Ides. 'Special Brew' in the US means a particular brand of (terrible)fruity drinks by St. Ides as mentioned above.
in my laziest, drunkest summers I got up to needing 2 40's to get 'faded'. I probably couldn't finish one these days(at least not pounding it, the way you're supposed to drink it). There used to be a hubbub amongst black folk(at the height of the rapper/malt liquor synergy of the early-mid 90's) about malt liquor being designed by the man to damage our reproductive health; seems to have gone the way of many other perfectly serviceable conspiracy theories post-9-11.

That too, but not drunker.

I'm drinking a Sparks knockoff called Tilt and it's awesome.

A few times a week, I drink a single can of 211 as fast as I can, then write for an hour. Quarantine has really done me in.