It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"FDA Bans Caffeine In Alcoholic Beverages?"

page: 15
57
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by undivided
 


lol I guess I worded that wrong, I know this is a conspiracy site and I have questions of my own, why else would I be here? but when I say goofy I mean stuff like the moon being a large secret base, of course it's their right to believe something like that, just as its my right to point and laugh.




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nobama
reply to post by undivided
 


lol I guess I worded that wrong, I know this is a conspiracy site and I have questions of my own, why else would I be here? but when I say goofy I mean stuff like the moon being a large secret base, of course it's their right to believe something like that, just as its my right to point and laugh.


You are correct. I may have reacted a bit too harshly ,I apoligize. I misunderstood the post as another bunch of conspiracy nuts here post. It is absoloutely important that every person have a voice.
edit on 17-11-2010 by undivided because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
It only takes a few to ruin it for everyone.I don't see this ban lasting long since everything from coffee to chocolate has caffeine in it.So caffeine is a dangerous additive. Even though alcohol kills hundreds of thousands of people a year with disease and accidents. Its funny where the FDAs priorities are.I guess the makers of these drinks didn't "donate" enough money. Maybe they just need better lobbyist. They should talk to the tobaaco guys, they've been successfully selling a product that kills people for years now.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I go to Central Michigan University a place more associated with partying then education it seems like, these drinks were everywhere up until about a month ago. 4loco is the most popular one, i think it has the same alcohol as like 4 beers in one can and loaded with caffeine. I honestly think they are doing a good thing by banning these.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I would just like to point out that not a single person in this thread has rationalized how you can ban drinks like Four Loko, yet not any other combination of alcohol and caffeine even when a majority of cocktails that aren't premade are typically stronger in both caffeine amount and alcohol levels.

All I've seen is people making appeals to emotion and authority that in no way legitimize the FDA's ban.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by soupE
 


So what's the problem with it having as much alcohol as 4 beers? A pint of whiskey has as much alcohol in it as 8-or 10 beers depending.

Should whiskey be banned?

Sounds to me like most people who favor this nonsense are just opposed to the package it's in rather than anything of any real quantifiable reason.

Sort of like the ban that killed clove cigarettes. They tasted different and scenesters liked them so we had to ban them. But not menthol.


People are going to support stupid #. At least they could try to be consistent in their stupidity and not run amok spreading their idiocy all willy-nilly to and fro.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Daedalus24
 


It doesn't matter who it is designed to protect because:

1. Government can not save people from themselves.

2. Bans don't work - ever.

3. Laws can only punish, never prevent.

4. The State is not my nanny or mother

5. The ban is racist.



So, under your logic, there should not be a law against anything. So, no one has to pay taxes, bank robbery is legal, drive your car drunk at 150mph, rape and murder all you want. No one invents or innovates in any way because their ideas can be stolen. No one can buy or sell anything at all because everyone just steals what they want. There are no police or firefighters because no one pays taxes.

A free market cannot exist without the rule of law. If the state does not enforce your right to hold property, then people will take what you have without consequence. Laws prevent because they take murders, thieves and rapists off the street and put them in jail. Laws prevent because people who would steal, murder, or rape don't do so because they don't want to spend their lives in jail.

If you don't want the government, then apparently you don't want private property or even a modest level of security. Frankly, I think someone needs to be your nanny or mother because your real mother never taught you the basics of how civilization functions.
edit on 17-11-2010 by andrewh7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


I'm not sure how you leap to the conclusion that I am against law and order because I feel the State is not my mother.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Lol @ the people in this thread who don't "get it."

Bravo TC, I fully agree.

But sheeple are sheeple:

- "Lololol the government is right! mixing caffeiners and aolcohawl IS BAD 4 U. HERES DA PROOFS"


The point of the topic



The poster's head


------------------

It's not about whether the combination is good or bad for you, it's about the government taking another action to limit the choices we as civilians have. It's about the line that defines criminal and law-abiding. The law, as it it stands in the US, is a sick joke. We can drink ourselves into a coma, as long as we don't drive, and it's fine. God forbid you touch a joint, you're a criminal. Marijuana kills. You smoke marijuana, you deserve to go to jail.

You mix redbull and vodka, you're also a criminal. What's the appropriate jail sentence? Or should you just be tazered and told "cease and desist."

It's a joke. The law is a joke. That's the point. You can't have politicians and lawmakers running around trying to protect people from themselves and still call our society free. We don't have freedom. Fact is, you can't do much of anything without breaking some kind of law.

We are ruled by fear. Fear of everything prevents the common citizen from recognizing the extreme violations of freedom the government partakes in. As long as the common public fears something, it's okay to rule against it. Ensue lists and lists of propoganda with the intent of making the public fear X, then ban it.

That's how we operate.

Don't smoke marijuana, it's dangerous and will kill you.

But here's your script for 150 Oxycontin 80 mgs that will make you physiologically and psychologically dependent. Good luck coming off those.

Better yet; here's your Xanax. Don't stop taking it immediately, or you'll enter status epilepticus and die.

But don't smoke that joint. Don't do it man. You criminal.


Once again:


Point of this topic



Most posters' heads.
edit on 17-11-2010 by SaosinEngaged because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I love how the FDA comes out NOW and says its unsafe. They sure are looking out for us. Thats why they passed it through the first time......

I mean, call me crazy, but doesnt the FDA HAVE TO approve of all food and beverages that we are able to purchase and consume, prior to them being released to the public?? Isnt that their job?

That seems to be their excuse whenever a new cure or groundbreaking treatment is discovered. "Oh wait John Q Public, we the FDA must test this new revolutionary cure for a minimum of ten years before we allow you to try it. Never mind that you will probably be dead by then from your illness. This is for your own good!"

Then people who are clearly irresponsible have too much to drink and the FDA swoops in to save the day.

I've had Four Loko's before, although thinking they were gross, I somehow managed to survive to drink another day. If this drink is so bad for us, why didnt they stop its release BEFORE it supposedly killed people?

There are plenty of prescription drugs that kill people EVERY GOD DAMN DAY, why are they still available to be consumed by the public?

I mean it seems to me that either the FDA doesnt do their job, or they there is some bribery going on behind the scenes. Whatever the case, somehow mankind survived thousands of years without the FDA. In my opinion, just another stupid waste of money.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The totalitarian criminals you call the federal government have decided that a naturally occuring chemical called caffeine, often found in such products as coffee, is to be banned.


Cocaine, which is naturally occurring chemical, and plenty of others are also banned. Big deal. OK, that's moot because you warp the facts -- mixing caffeine with booze has always been dangerous. In fact, such warning is usually found on Red Bull containers. Your point?


Of course, in the FDA’s opinion, consuming a known toxin such as alcohol is perfectly fine, as long as you do so without adding caffeine to it.


What's wrong with limiting the danger?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
I love how the FDA comes out NOW and says its unsafe. They sure are looking out for us. Thats why they passed it through the first time......


It's astonishing that you don't know about constant steam of legal drugs being banned by FDA, when they prove dangerous in the field. Clinical studies aren't always enough (due to limited stats) to really gauge the various effects of drugs.


There are plenty of prescription drugs that kill people EVERY GOD DAMN DAY, why are they still available to be consumed by the public?


Because some of it is inevitable if we want to use medicinal drugs at all.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by andrewh7
 


I'm not sure how you leap to the conclusion that I am against law and order because I feel the State is not my mother.


I think it may have had to do with the words you organized into sentences that conveyed the idea that "bans don't work." All law prohibiting conduct are bans. Hence, you've attacked the viability and effectiveness of all laws. You've stated that laws do not prevent when in fact they do by taking those that break those laws off the street so they cannot break them again and the threat of jail discourages other from committing crimes. So, laws do in fact prevent. To entirely eliminate your overly broad definition of a "nanny state," one would have to be living in chaos.

edit on 17-11-2010 by andrewh7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


coc aine has to be processed with acids and other caustics, which is why it wears your nose out.

but that aside, how does me blowing 10 rails of coc aine affect your life?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


What's wrong with limiting the danger?


I don't know, what's wrong with using a reasonable argument not based in appeals to emotion or authority while taking into account the backwardness of the ban?

Oh wait, it doesn't support what you think. Never mind.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I can't believe some people don't read, oh hang on... Scrub that

For one thing the actual ruling has not been made so the exact wording is not yet available, you're going by a stupid line from a media outlet and we all know how reliable they are

But just by clicking the link in the article you can actually see something slightly more accurately worded which states:


U.S Senator Charles E. Schumer announced today that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will rule that caffeine is an unsafe food additive to alcoholic beverages, effectively making products such as Four Loko, Joose, and others like them, prohibited for sale in the United States. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plans to notify manufacturers that they are engaged in the potential illegal marketing of unsafe alcoholic drinks. These announcements come after months of intense pressure by Senator Schumer to have the drinks banned because of serious risks to consumer health and safety.

schumer.senate.gov...

Do you see that? The bit that says to alcoholic beverages ?

No one's going to come round and arrest you if you mix some RB with your vodka at home, this law is clearly being brought in to do exactly as they say - prevent the manufacture and sale of a potentially dangerous drink combination. The effects of each drug, the caffeine and the alcohol, counteract each other to an extent while still causing their full damage to your body. But due to the counteractive affect you can drink more which equals more profit for the manufacturer at the expense of your health.

This law is to prevent manufacturers from taking advantage of people that are too stupid or irresponsible to make logical decisions. Like the laws in place from stopping con artists ripping off sweet little old ladies, it is literally just there to protect you!

The fact some people can't see this and then the people running around with selective hearing, or reading, that ignore the full meaning so they can find another excuse to whine their rights are being taken away prove one thing - it is actually required as some people are literally too stupid to function by their own accord without being a risk to themselves or others.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


That's just it!

YOU CAN'T RULE AGAINST STUPIDITY.

Sheesh.

Why is it such a difficult concept to grasp. I sure as hell don't want to live in a society where we cater to protect the lowest common denominator.

Let social Darwinism do its thing.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
And you're worried about companies/businesses taking advantage of the consumer?

What about the government taking advantage of the citizen?

Is that not a concern of yours?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
I love how the FDA comes out NOW and says its unsafe. They sure are looking out for us. Thats why they passed it through the first time......


It's astonishing that you don't know about constant steam of legal drugs being banned by FDA, when they prove dangerous in the field. Clinical studies aren't always enough (due to limited stats) to really gauge the various effects of drugs.


There are plenty of prescription drugs that kill people EVERY GOD DAMN DAY, why are they still available to be consumed by the public?


Because some of it is inevitable if we want to use medicinal drugs at all.


Okay so what is your point exactly?

That the FDA does a shoddy job? That some stuff they pass through is actually really bad for us, but that is the "risk" we take?

Do you work for the FDA or something? Clearly you are one of their biggest supporters.

Tylenol can be just as dangerous as coc aine if taken irresponsibly, so we should stop taking tylenol or should we demand that coc aine be made available?

And why are you astonished by an assumption that you made about my knowledge of what is supposedly banned? I am well aware that the FDA does ban MANY things every year. But so what? What makes some stuff more dangerous than others? A doctor once told me, it takes about a hundred years to really gauge the side effects of a new drug or treatment. So, whats the point of the FDA at all?
edit on 17-11-2010 by WhiteDevil013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 


This would make monster truck racing more fun. I'll sign up to drive the CCCP monster truck!

"Bigfoot? Ha! No match for Ivan Drago!"



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join