Lagunitas has Brown Shugga', another craft malt liquor. It's not bad and at $7-10/6-pack cheap for the punch
http://www.lagunitas.com/beers/brownshugga.html

Shaefer's here in CT is pretty bad... but for $4.99 in an otherwise pricey town is hard to beat. I drink it every time I have a bad day in the market and feel like i need to do something "austere".

My understanding was that, in the US, "Malt Liquor" applied to any beer that had an alcohol content above 5% regardless of what market it was aimed towards.

The term malt liquor definitely has connotations of cheap, poorly made beverages consumed only for the effect of the alcohol, but I've had many high quality beers that technically fit the malt liquor label.

Feel free to correct me on my above assumptions, I'll admit I'm not 100% clear on US liquor laws

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...nd-malt-liquor

I bought a six pack of Red Bull (by Schlitz, no relation to the energy drink) in the early 90s from a gas station next to my hotel. Nasty stuff, didn�t make it through one can! I left the remaining ones on top of the coke machine and went back for a six pack of Bud.

The Red Bull to which you refer is Schlitz Malt Liquor. The original SML was the Blue Bull and was popular enough in the late 70s to merit frequent TV commercials ("Don't say beer, say bull! Schlitz Malt Liquor Bull!") and in the 24 ounce cans was a mainstay of my younger days. The red bull was even stronger, and like the 8 ball (Old English 800), made me "earl" (a reference to St Ides commercials). IIRC none of these was as popular as Colt 45, which Lando Calrissian assured us "works every time" (maybe for you, Billy Dee), it only worked to make me naseous the next day

I have a couple 40's of Mickey's a month -- complete with ghetto koozie. Old school. Used to drink O.E., but lost the taste for it.

Chris

He missed what I always understood to be the key differentiator. Malt liquors got high alcohol by adding an adjunct - sugar, dextrose, corn, rice - something other than the malt, water, hops, yeast.

In the U.S. alcohol regulations are set on the state level. That's actually in the U.S. Constitution as part of the 21st Amendment that ended prohibition. Some states do require beers above a certain alcohol content to be called "malt liquor" but there's no single national rule or standard.

With the growth of craft brewing and high octane beers, several states have relaxed or eliminated the naming requirement.

Here's a game for you guys. It's called Fists of Steel.

(Requires at least 3 people, one of whom is the "umpire")

1. Two or more participants each produce two 32oz cans of Steel Reserve.
2. The umpire tapes one can in the grip of each of the participants' hands with duct tape.
3. The participants are free to do whatever they like, except pour out the beer. The only acceptable way to dispose of the beer is to drink it.
4. When a participant has an empty can, the umpire verifies it and removes the tape.
5. The person first to get both hands free is the "winner".

Optimum strategy is to consume the beer quickly. It warms rapidly due to body heat, and normal activities such as going to the bathroom are significantly more difficult with cans of beer taped to your hands.

The optimum strategy is sort of implied in the rules, as well ;-)

I used to be able to down a 12 oz can of beer in a bit under 5 seconds. However, I fear that this does not imply a potential sub-minute performance with 64 ounces, though.

Maybe there should be a belt system added to the game. Black belt for under 2 minutes, brown for under 4 minutes and so on...

Cheers,
T.

That brings back some memories.

The kids these days call it "Edward Forty Hands" and 40s of Hurricane seem to be the poison choice. Also, while more difficult, it does not necessarily require an umpire. Trust me.

I have drank many a Red Horse and Singha.

Joose anyone?

It's like 24 ounces of 9 percent malt liquor mixed with caffeine and other energy additives for something like $3. Worst thing ever.