Cloying, oft-carbonated alcoholic beverages (apparently they're known as "alcopop," though I refuse to use that word, because it sounds more like a weird new music genre than a beverage) are under great scrutiny in Maryland: are they beer or liquor? Yesterday, Governor Martin O'Malley decided to hold off on signing a bill that would categorize the fruity drinks as beer, a move that rattled the liquor industry. Liquor lobbyists think the drink should be sold as beer, but others (like Mothers Against Drunk Driving members) disagree, saying putting malt liquor drinks sold alongside beer in convenience stores will encourage underage drinking and driving.
Another sticking point is the tax: currently, the drinks are taxed like beer at 9 cents per gallon, whereas liquor is taxed as $1.50 a gallon, meaning a higher revenue for the state.
The position of Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, who first ruled that the drinks should be considered liquor because they are distilled spirits, is best summed up by his quote: "They are no more beer than hot chocolate is," He said.
Now there's something to ponder: hot chocolate beer.
Something tells me parents aren't going to be thrilled with this.
Due to falling alcohol prices, "drink wars" in pubs and sales at supermarkets, it looks like this could be 
In an effort to curb underage drinking, two California senators have launched a plan to make sweet malt liquor
products like Mike's Hard Lemonade and Smirnoff Ice more expensive, less available and less aggressively advertised.
Democratic Senators Carole Migden of San Francisco and Liz Figueroa of Sunol feel that the makers of sweet, carbonated
drinks they call 'alcopops' are illegally targeting underage drinkers with their advertising. Advertising that is
"intended to encourage minors to drink" alcohol is illegal in California. According to a 
A fraking amazing Battlestar Galactica cake
Iced Tea 101
Pierogies + cheese + onions + kraut = Parmageddon!
