"FDA Bans Caffeine In Alcoholic Beverages?"

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gazrok

 

It is illegal to kill yourself because that would be damaging State property.

Not as a civilian. But it is considered damaging government property if you are in the Army. I know fellow soldiers that were busted for getting sunburns.

Especially as a civilian.

You are the State's property.

You must be, otherwise they could not tell you what you can and can not consume.

You must be, otherwise they could not tell you that you can't hurt yourself.

You must be, otherwise they could not take the fruits of your labor from you by threats and force.

Actually you are confusing two issues.

There are no criminal laws against killing yourself, so technically it is not "illegal" to kill yourself.

What you are saying, and I agree to your postulate, is that the U.S. legal system assumes citizens to be property of the states from birth. Which is why we use the Maritime Law usage of capital letters in our name and legal documents have our names in all caps which creates an entity that the legal system can prosecute.

Originally posted by pianopraze

Actually you are confusing two issues.

There are no criminal laws against killing yourself, so technically it is not "illegal" to kill yourself.

What you are saying, and I agree to your postulate, is that the U.S. legal system assumes citizens to be property of the states from birth. Which is why we use the Maritime Law usage of capital letters in our name and legal documents have our names in all caps which creates an entity that the legal system can prosecute.

There are criminal laws against killing yourself on the books in many places inside the US, and I am not confusing anything.

reply to post by mnemeth1


If there are in some U.S. states I am not aware. I am disabled vet who has attempted suicide multiple times in multiple U.S. States and have never been arrested or threatened with arrest.

I have voluntarily and with urging from my therapist gone to the hospital. But has been voluntary and never with threat of arrest.

But this is a thread side note.

I mostly agree with the thrust of your original post and subsequent assertions that our government is becoming to much of a nanny or big brother system. This is something that needs to be peacefully changed. The intrusions into our privacy and freedom are becoming intolerable.

I've had Jagermeister and red bull a few times. People seem to love that. Personally, I'm not a fan of mixing caffeine and alcohol, but people do it all the time and are usually fine. Cocaine and alcohol is another frequent mix. Also, nicotine is a stimulant and it goes superbly with alcohol. However nobody ever blames cigarettes for what's getting people getting sick, but I think they can definitely make you throw up because they're gnarly and disgusting. Four Loco sounds gross, and I'd rather just have a beer. Not really sure why people are mad it is getting banned. There are plenty of other better ways to get inebriated. Did you know that some social scientists include getting inebriated as a top drive on the hierarchy of basic human needs?

reply to post by mnemeth1


I have read in an articl long time ago that its a deadly mix, people who take caffeine with alcohal consume more alcohal and with effect of caffeine find themselve OK, not drunk, but after a short time the loose control and get really drunk, so those who drink in their limit, it is indeed a dangerous combination. i think this move is not bad, its image of fed. and fda that makes things bad. if they really care us then do not push floride in water.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Yes, it seems like a harmless combination until someone with an unknown heart condition takes it.
And before you all start screaming that a handful of people with undiagnosed heart condition or even a diagnosed one, should be able to dictate what you can drink, it is a different story when it is just chemicals that are simply being seperated.

I could go running with an unknown heart condition and die. I could ride a roller coaster with an unknown heart condition and die. I could be part of 0.01% of people with a particular biochemistry that is hyper-sensitive to a discrete chemical found in a local restaurant's nation-famous meal and die.

I know a few people who are incapable of digesting wheat - their body is allergic to it in many circumstances. You can't ban something that someone might have an adverse reaction to. It is the responsibility of that person to be aware of their condition and take appropriate measures. I'm type O blood - I'm not a doctor so it's not usually something I will ever deal with - but I'm not allergic to anything, so I'm reaching for straws to implicate myself, here. That means my blood cell coatings do not have the "A" and/or "B" antigens that will be seen as foreign and hostile in my body. I'm also RH positive - which means I can breathe easy and receive blood from any O donor. In a sense - it's my responsibility to know that. Now - if someone has some unknown antigen, say a hypothetical C - that would cause problems, and it would just be the way the cookie crumbles if I were to receive blood from someone with an undocumented set of traits.

Just like you can't buy a cleaner that has both bleach and ammonia. And no one is crying foul about that.

No cleaner would have bleach and ammonia in it because the two react with each other. It would be like trying to package a epoxy-resin and hardener in the same tube - silly.

Many cleaners, however, are dispensed in a mixture (though they are contained separately) that does react. Others react with the atmosphere, itself. The reason bleach and ammonia are not sold together is because, to my knowledge, it doesn't clean any better - and it produces chlorine gas that will kill you. Businesses that sell products killing their customers tend to run out of clients for some mysterious reason.

i believe in substances beign what they are. If you have a heart condition, you know you can't take certain things together, but you don't expect your vodka to have caffeine in it.
I see no harm in this.

No, I generally wouldn't expect vodka to have caffeine in it anymore than I would expect rum in my coke. However - when a bottle of alcohol indicates it is pre-mixed with a caffeinated beverage (or with caffeine in general), then I believe it would be safe to presume it has caffeine in it. It would be like a person with lactose intolerance walking up to the dairy section and seeing "Made with REAL cheese" on a product... being aware of his/her condition, and being informed about what they intend to purchase and consume... would realize it is unwise to consume that product (and rather silly to purchase if one is not going to consume it).

Originally posted by WashingtonGrewHemp
I've had Jagermeister and red bull a few times. People seem to love that. Personally, I'm not a fan of mixing caffeine and alcohol, but people do it all the time and are usually fine. Cocaine and alcohol is another frequent mix. Also, nicotine is a stimulant and it goes superbly with alcohol. Nobody ever blames cigarettes for people getting sick, but I think they can definitely make you throw up because they're gnarly and disgusting Four Loco sounds gross, and I'd rather just have a beer. Not really sure why people are mad it is getting banned. There are plenty of other better ways to get inebriated. Did you know that some social scientists include getting inebriated as a top drive on the hierarchy of basic human needs?

edit on 17-11-2010 by WashingtonGrewHemp because: missed a word

I'm mad about it because it targets minorities and it is a needless violation of property rights that accomplishes nothing except to drive out competition in the energy drink / alcohol markets.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Tell me socialists and other assorted totalitarians, what should my penalty be for offering consumers a product that combines caffeine and alcohol?

1 year in prison?

2 years?

How about they just shoot me in the head right there in the court room.

Not even close. The penalty should be a $350 fine. That way we can help the children with the money we get to our government. Its a good idea to destroy poor poople's lives for the sake of the children... all over a rum & coke.

The people who run our lives need to clamp down and start shoving fruit juice down our throats if we don't send in video proof we've been drinking it once per week. It will be good for us all. Society will benefit from the fruit juice being force-shoved into our mouths weekly by government bureaucrats.

Originally posted by WashingtonGrewHemp
Not really sure why people are mad it is getting banned. There are plenty of other better ways to get inebriated.

That's why so many things are so easily banned and how the slippery slope gets rolling.

Like who cares if same sex marriages are illegal, I'm not looking for a same sex marriage.

Who care's if they ban a type of gun, there are plenty of others to shoot.

Who cares if all the fast food joint are shut down, there are plenty of other restaurants.

Who cares if women cant vote, I'm not a woman.

Who cares if black people are unfairly profiled, I'm not black.

Liberty is liberty. There arent degrees of liberty or room to rationalize one "liberty" over another.

I dont drink. Booze or energy drinks. I dont party and I'm not in college surrounded by a bunch of buddies who love this stuff. Yet I'm still wholly opposed to this attempt to ban a thing, any thing. Especially for these halfassed and contrived emotionally charged reasons.

Originally posted by Portugoal
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The whole ban of certain beverages was because alcohol is a depressant and caffeine is a stimulant... The mix is dangerous. I don't think anyone sees caffeine as dangerous in itself.

edit on 16-11-2010 by Portugoal because: (no reason given)

I've consumed alcohol and caffeine in combination many times. The only time mixing stimulants and depressants is really dangerous is when it's things such as amphetamines and alcohol, or amphetamines and opiates/opioids. Alcohol does not lower your heart-rate enough, and caffeine does not increase your heartrate enough to cause noticeable and immediately dangerous heart problems. Of course, consuming alcohol is toxic enough... so, I don't see why it would even make sense to consider such a ban. It makes no sense.

They make a big deal about caffein, but ignore chemicals like aspartame and high fructose corn syrup, oh i mean "Corn Syrup". The food cartel strikes again.

What about caffein in Coke???

There goes the Brandy and Coke, I can see lots of people getting upset over this... not me though... as I don't drink alcohol or Coke...

reply to post by GTOWarrior


Yeah in today's world big booze companies are increasingly marketing their products to younger people who are just starting to drink...like the "bros icing bros" phenomenon...I've seen people drink one or 2 of these "Joose" things and its not a pretty sight. Of course, college kids will probably run out and stock up on them before the ban takes place, thus boosting the sales...any publicity is good publicity.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support Jaegerbombs though.

But when its in a can the size of an Arizona ice tea and its %12 alcohol with as much caffeine as an energy drink, I mean people have to know what they are getting themselves into.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The actual reason behind the ban has nothing to do with "consumer safety" - and everything to do with keeping alcohol production cartelized.

The competition such products might create among vendors is a sin in our fascist economy.

Given that the FDA has found caffeine to be an unsafe food additive, you can look for its removal from Mt. Dew and Coke soon.

This isn't true at all. The caffeine and alcohol interact in a weird way. Just recently there was a party at a college near me where they were drinking these caffeinated alcohol drinks. I think it was about 12 kids who had to be hospitalized because they weren't aware that they were drinking too much. Apparently they were all unresponsive. Mixing stimulants and depressants has always been an unsafe idea, which is exactly what these drinks are.

I'm not really sure why this is such a big deal. this thread is boring IMO.

Originally posted by HollowJacket
but when its in a can the size of an Arizona ice tea and its %12 alcohol with as much caffeine as an energy drink, I mean people have to know what they are getting themselves into

The fluid ounces, percentage of alcohol and addition of caffeine are displayed quite prominently on the container. In the case of some brands they are highlighted as selling points and placed in bold type with bright coloring.

They know what they are getting into. All of these "bad" things are what they want.

Here we have an obvious poor choice being intentionally chosen by people seeking a poor choice then crying fowl when the consequences come back to bite them in the ass so the gov gets involved with this circus.

These are the types of things they are attributing to the drink:

In August, an 18-year-old in Palm Coast, Fla., died after drinking Four Loko in combination with diet pills. The following month, a 20-year-old in Tallahassee, Fla., started playing with a gun and fatally shot himself after drinking several cans of Four Loko over a number of hours.

So some dude overdosed on diet pills because of a drink. Another blew his brains out because of it. Come on people. The joke is right in front of you all and you're still buying it.

So what many of you are proposing is an advocacy of our rights over safety? Not so so sure I'm convinced on this one. This is not stopping you from creating a redbull vodka, irish coffee or whatever other kind of caffeine/alcohol combination you'd like to concoct. Far from it.

Has anyone else besides myself had one of these drinks? I drank two of these, back-to-back not too long ago and got HAMMERED. I'm FAR from a lightweight drinker and got very, very drunk from 2 cans of 4Loko. It started out as a joke and when the few of us finished them, we were astonished as to how we felt.

Now imagine a spanish themed college mixer. What better to have than a ton of 4loko's for everyone?! A bunch of underage, inexperienced drinkers, "doing what's cool" and getting hammered, but this time they end up in the ER after 2 or 3 of these.

This isn't beer or alcohol where you get drunk over time and can stop yourself when you feel as if you've either had too much or feel sick. This masks the feeling of being drunk and allows you to keep going...straight to alcohol poisoning-city.

Scream about the right to add whatever you want to these drinks, but I know many people who strongly advocate the restriction and removal of these drinks.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Really? REALLY?

You think the percentages and amounts of caffeine being put onto labels on these cans is what the target market is looking at?!

This is being marketed to a young generation (not too much younger, if not including, myself). When we hear something gets you messed up, we want to try it. We don't care how much of what is in anything. We heard "jager bomb" so we made them. We heard "redbull vodka" so we made them. We heard "4loko" so we drink them. Don't sit here and assume the adolescent or young adult reads the damn label and makes a determination at the liquor store on what to drink.

"Hey Johnny wanna grab some 4loko's for pregame"
"Sure dude, let me just ensure the caffeine content and caffeine to alcohol ratio is safe for us"

reply to post by Rockstar02


"So what many of you are proposing is an advocacy of our rights over safety?"

Shocking, I know.

It's almost unheard of these days.

Eventually the government will put us all in rubber rooms so no one ever gets hurt again.

reply to post by Rockstar02


Of course they're looking at it. You think people buy Steel Reserve for its flavor? They buy it because it's $2 and right on the label it says "8% alcohol!"

These kids are seeking out the "extreme" crap to get wasted for cheap. They know exactly what they're doing.