"FDA Bans Caffeine In Alcoholic Beverages?"

Originally posted by Brood
When you break my basement window in the middle of the night and start beating the Sh* out of my kids because you are "Raging for a fight".

They have laws against property damage and assault.

Those laws have victims.

Cocaine is not a drug to be defending. It is probably the most dangerous drug to people around you when you are on it. You would not say otherwise if you have done it. Cocaine makes you want drama so that you can inflate your "blow ego". Furthermore, people who get addicted to drugs like heroine and coc aine often end up needing to be on financial aid or attend tax-funded rehabilitation centers, so that affects other people in the sense that they are paying your way out of your decision to slowly kill yourself...

Pure propaganda. The vast majority of people who engage in coc aine use are non-violent, non-aggressive, non-property damaging, otherwise law abiding citizens. - We know this to be true because coc aine users do not make up a large majority of our prison population. It is the coc aine DEALERS who cause the majority of the problems.

There will always be stupid people who engage in property crimes to fund bad habits, including gambling, drug use, shopping addictions, and so forth. Banning the bad behavior does not reduce the number of people who engage in property crimes. Therefore only property crime laws are necessary.

Banning behavior to prevent "pre-crime" is immoral and unjust.

Just as it is immoral or unjust to search people without probable cause, it is immoral and unjust to ban behavior without just cause.

Don't sell me bleach and toilet cleaner at the same time, either - we need a national ban on that so that my dumb ass doesn't kill myself cleaning my bathroom.

Hehe...classic....(and really shows that you get the absurdity of it)...

All the rulings in the world won't stop people from killing themselves.

To think it will be illegal to order a Long Island Iced Tea, or an Irish Coffee....really? Seriously?

Personally, I think those energy drinks will damage you just by themselves...but I'll certainly uphold the right of anyone to CHOOSE to drink it...supposed to be a free country...anyhow....

reply to post by SpectreDC


And I'm still waiting for the OP to say something that makes sense.

Though I will add that we're talking about a pre-packaged drink (Four Loko) vs a drink where you can control the portions of alcohol and caffeine (Vodka & Red Bull). It doesn't really make sense to compare both.

I can't comment on jagerbombs as I've never actually had one. I did however, try Joose, Four Loko and red bull with vodka. The bull with vodka tastes better and it's not something that I feel compelled to drink. If I want caffeine, I stick with coffee, black and with no alcohol.

reply to post by Gazrok


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

reply to post by susp3kt


They are removing the caffeine from Four Loko.

That should satisfy most people. It will still be on the market but without caffeine in it.

Happy now, ATS free market advocates?

Originally posted by Brood
Drugs like marijuana, mushrooms, even '___'... they're only illegal because the FDA doesn't have a patent for them and they can't make money off of it.

'___' is extremely cheap to make and there are patents (expired so it would be considered generic... i.e. 9$ at wally world).

There are many debates on the subject, but I think the best arguments lay in the CIA (who tested '___' on both U.S. and Canadian citizens without their consent or knowledge via project MK ULTRA) does not want competition in the illegal drug market which they use to fund many operations worldwide. This "war on drugs" to me seems more like a turf war. I know other people feel differently - this is my opinion based on my research.

Originally posted by SaosinEngaged

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
If the FDA was truly looking out for the public why would they say all of these drugs are fit for the public when they all have 3-4 pages of side effects which are often worse than the malady this new drug is supposed to help?

I have a friend that took a medication for epilepsy and it made him blind. His family found out that other people had the same tragic result. The drug manufacturer directed them to the FDA, the FDA said "well if you read the warning label it does say may cause blindness"

Thanks FDA!

Haha oh don't get me started on this nonsense. Take this magical pill for your illness. But don't rest easy, for this may cause you 9,002,871 other unwanted side effects or even diseases!

Thanks FDA, you really know what's best for us.

I swear, the other night on television I saw a drug advertised (I don't remember exactly what it was, If I find it I'll post it) where, I'm not kidding you, they said something to the effect of, "...may also cause certain kinds of cancer.."

Gee, sign me up.

Yeah its great,

"want to get a good nights sleep? Try this little blue pill. May cause heart palpitations, anal leakage, blood clots, stroke, and may be fatal."

Sweet!

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by susp3kt

 

They are removing the caffeine from Four Loko.

That should satisfy most people. It will still be on the market but without caffeine in it.

Happy now, ATS free market advocates?

To be logically consistent, you must support a ban on bars selling vodka redbull cocktails as well.

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.

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.

Just found this...

interesting...

Cocaine fears boosting Red Bull sales in U.S.?

Retailers in six German states stopped selling Red Bull Simply Cola energy drinks after a study released this month by the German Nordrhein-Westfalen Institute of Health and Work said it found 0.4 micrograms of coc aine per liter in the drink.

Red Bull notes that their products contain say "de-cocainized" coca leaf extract as a flavoring agent its cola, but insists that the illegal coc aine alkaloid is removed by law before being shipped outside the Andean region of South America.

www.examiner.com... aine-fears-boosting-red-bull-sales-u-s

reply to post by mnemeth1


I don't support a ban on anything other than caffeine in alcoholic beverages.

What don't you understand about that? How old are you? 13?

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I don't support a ban on anything other than caffeine in alcoholic beverages.

What don't you understand about that? How old are you? 13?

Then you are logically inconsistent.

reply to post by mnemeth1


And you continue to make no sense.

Enjoy the hangover from the Four Loko.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

And you continue to make no sense.

Enjoy the hangover from the Four Loko.

I would, but nanny State leftists have decided I can't make that choice any more.

Good Idea !

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

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Don't say it, PROVE it.

I still find your responses to be some of the most ridiculous posts that I've EVER seen on this site. Your crusade against the FDA is illogical as well. Without the FDA, companies could put rat poison in their products and sell it to people as a "stimulant" and if people died from it? They'd be # out of luck.

The FDA only stops rat poison from going in your McDick's cup to gain face. As long as they have face, they can run around behind the curtain sucking all the money out of your pocket for the drugs that you need to combat the bacteria and additives that they put in your food. The FDA is a publicly owned corporation, and as such has a legal responsibility to raise stockholder value. If people aren't sick, they aren't making money, and the politicians tie them up in litigation. So they have to keep making people sick, by not curing them, but making drugs that have tons of side-effects so that you need more drugs to fight these new symptoms... The most recent Big Pharma crusade was to take all Cheerios off of the shelves because they are sponsored as "health products", and only Big Pharma is allowed to combat heart disease.

There's also motions to take all herbal remedies off of shelves... this would include multivitamins -- can't have those, too healthy. These are the people you trust? The FDA? Big Pharma? Good luck with cancer. They made $160 Billion off of that epidemic last year. Too bad if you eat nothing but berries, nuts, and broccoli your body will be too oxygen rich too support cancer -- it's scientifically impossible; your body is too alkaline to support cancer. I wonder why the FDA isn't just telling people about that? Or injecting them with O3 to instigate apoptosis? Because you can't patent natural substance and the FDA doesn't sell things that they cannot patent because it does not make them or the government enough money.

Yep, you're right, trust the FDA. They are surely out for our best health interests. Good luck with that.

Anyways, I'll be over here in Canada drinking a Red Bull & Vodka because, if the FDA wants it gone, it's probably the best thing for me.

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

So if you have a heart condition, don't drink it.

If you have a heart condition you shouldn't be drinking any caffeine or alcohol, both are bad.

Originally posted by Brood


The FDA only stops rat poison from going in your McDick's cup to gain face.

The FDA doesn't even stop that.

The producers don't do it because it would harm their business and lead to lawsuits.

The FDA is an entirely unnecessary entity.

Prior to the FDA, people sued businesses for damages if a business harmed them in some way.

Prior to the FDA, producers worked hard to meet costumer demands for quality and price - offering various levels of products based on quality preferences and pricing.

If you wanted old meat, bread, butter, or whatever else of a lower quality because it was cheaper, you could make that choice.

Today, you have no choice.