I think cheap in this case means inexpensive not poor quality. Hence they’re asking the government to tax it to deter excessive use. Also it said it increased in the last decade. What do the 1900s have to do with anything?
Considering that in the US, food and drug safety laws were passed in the early 1900s because of often toxic additives used as fillers to help stretch production. An investigator for the proposed bill who happened to be a bit of a whiskey connoisseur was presented with two whiskeys, one unmolested and the other cut with a substance assumed to contain arsenic. He was sure that the one he chose was the true whiskey but when asked if he’d bet his life on it, the drink was pushed aside and the bill was green lighted.
And I’m sure alcohol was way better in quality in the 1900’s… Right?
I think cheap in this case means inexpensive not poor quality. Hence they’re asking the government to tax it to deter excessive use. Also it said it increased in the last decade. What do the 1900s have to do with anything?
Considering that in the US, food and drug safety laws were passed in the early 1900s because of often toxic additives used as fillers to help stretch production. An investigator for the proposed bill who happened to be a bit of a whiskey connoisseur was presented with two whiskeys, one unmolested and the other cut with a substance assumed to contain arsenic. He was sure that the one he chose was the true whiskey but when asked if he’d bet his life on it, the drink was pushed aside and the bill was green lighted.
Meanwhile, Thomas Midgley: “hold my beer”