Nanny State Senators Take Aim at Energy Drinks

L.A. Times

Read it and weep, kids.

Long ago I said that the same people that were attacking the tobacco companies would soon turn their attention to something that was far more popular, and guess what? They have.

Don't get me wrong here, I know that energy drinks are bad for you, but pretty soon, you won't even have the choice to drink one, and that is what I have a problem with.

Our government needs to be put in its place by the voters sooner rather than later.

And thus just one more reason I got the hell out of CA.

Worst state in the union if you ask me.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

Don't get me wrong here, I know that energy drinks are bad for you, but pretty soon, you won't even have the choice to drink one, and that is what I have a problem with.

Where does freedom of choice end and right of responsibility begin though?

I mean with the cigarettes for example. Here in Canada, I pay for everybody's health care with my tax dollars. Had we known back in the day how bad cigarettes were, and outlawed them as poison, how much healthier would our population be?

That's a vague argument I know, and I don't disagree that people should be allowed to put into their bodies whatever they please.

But do we allow companies to market poison to us directly and profit off knowing that they've sold a product that's a detriment to your health? I struggle a lot with what role the government or the law should play in those sorts of scenarios.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by ProfessorChaos

 

Don't get me wrong here, I know that energy drinks are bad for you, but pretty soon, you won't even have the choice to drink one, and that is what I have a problem with.

Where does freedom of choice end and right of responsibility begin though?

I mean with the cigarettes for example. Here in Canada, I pay for everybody's health care with my tax dollars. Had we known back in the day how bad cigarettes were, and outlawed them as poison, how much healthier would our population be?

That's a vague argument I know, and I don't disagree that people should be allowed to put into their bodies whatever they please.

But do we allow companies to market poison to us directly and profit off knowing that they've sold a product that's a detriment to your health? I struggle a lot with what role the government or the law should play in those sorts of scenarios.

~Tenth

I agree with one thing, a patently dangerous product should never reach the market, and once linked to certain morbidity requirements should be pulled .


But thats a long way from a few idiots over doing the energy drink to the point of heart attacking themselves, or mixing with alcohol not realizing caffeine and alcohol are both vessel dilators.

That's a Darwin award if anything, if you still smoke at this point after all we know the consequences are on you, not the government for allowing you to do what you want.

reply to post by benrl


Yeah I agree entirely on the aspect that Energy drinks aren't the kind of thing you want to start banning cause a few college kids died of overdoses.

You can do the same thing with espresso if you tried hard enough .

~Tenth

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


HOLLY CRAP I DIDN'T KNOW THEY HAD THAT MUCH CAFFINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh frig!

reply to post by benrl


The problem is that those who choose to smoke knowing the consequences will still push the rest of us who don't smoke into higher premiums and costs. Reminds me of that "rate sucker" commercial.

There are a lot of slippery slopes within...

Originally posted by Terminal1
reply to post by benrl

 

The problem is that those who choose to smoke knowing the consequences will still push the rest of us who don't smoke into higher premiums and costs. Reminds me of that "rate sucker" commercial.

There are a lot of slippery slopes within...

I've got some news for you, the insurance companies will always find ways to over charge on premiums. Smoking is just the current boogeyman.

Originally posted by Terminal1
reply to post by benrl

 

The problem is that those who choose to smoke knowing the consequences will still push the rest of us who don't smoke into higher premiums and costs. Reminds me of that "rate sucker" commercial.

There are a lot of slippery slopes within...

Than the talk should be on giving people with those habits HIGHER premiums, or incorporation of that cost into the tax on Cigs.

Prohibition does not work, people will do what people want, so if it cost, than find a way to incorporate the cost from the habit.

Funny how they are so concerned with our health when it comes to energy drinks, but eating arsenic laced chicken, gmo foods and toxic vaccines is ok.

Oh and cigarettes are ok cause they get tax money from those.

Energy drinks are like an epidemic around here. Kids from like 5 up buy tons of them. That amount of sugar, coffeine and what else they put in them cannot be healthy for kids. It wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the fact that they basically drink loads of them daily. Some shops have volenteered to add age limit of 15 to them. I fully support that. We do have other stuff like alcohol and cigarettes that have age limits so I see no problems with that.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


I think insurance is a scam... and I agree with what you say..

The only thing I can say is that some people carry much more risks than others but then again we ALL have some risk in one shape or another when it comes to health, be it physiological, environmental or a host of other factors.

reply to post by benrl


They still end up in the emergency room and the state still foots the bill.

So your point is... what? We should allow people to do stupid things that cost the rest of us money because they don't want to sit at home and die?

Originally posted by Terminal1
reply to post by ProfessorChaos

 

I think insurance is a scam... and I agree with what you say..

The only thing I can say is that some people carry much more risks than others but then again we ALL have some risk in one shape or another when it comes to health, be it physiological, environmental or a host of other factors.

100% agreement here.

I may just have a good tolerance, but I'm inclined to wonder if the "energy" effects are just placebo. I can slam several 24 oz Monsters, and not feel a damn thing. Hell, I've slammed 2, and still gone to bed on time right afterward. I can drink 2 pots+ of strong coffee a day to myself, and not have any ill-effects. The only thing I've ever used that had me saying "Nope, not again" was downing a fist full of No-Doz to try to wake up faster. Not the brightest idea to slam so much caffeine in one shot there.

Maybe instead of blaming the companies, people should be encouraged to know their limits & mind them? Hmm? Or am I making too much sense?

reply to post by tothetenthpower

But do we allow companies to market poison to us directly and profit off knowing that they've sold a product that's a detriment to your health? I struggle a lot with what role the government or the law should play in those sorts of scenarios.

One could argue sugar is poison. As is aspartame, HFCS and fluoride.
Not to mention many of the food additives used these days.
And, the government is the one putting fluoride in our drinking water.

So, leave the energy drinks alone....until they can also tell themselves and corporations to stop the other "bad" things.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

But do we allow companies to market poison to us directly and profit off knowing that they've sold a product that's a detriment to your health? I struggle a lot with what role the government or the law should play in those sorts of scenarios.

~Tenth

Monsanto.


Soda including diet soda with aspartame is covered by food stamps. It's not so much that we are being poisoned, it is more about who can pay off the FDA or whoever to continue being allowed to sell poison on the market.

reply to post by Wertdagf

We should allow people to do stupid things that cost the rest of us money because they don't want to sit at home and die?

It doesnt "cost" you a thing. You pay taxes whether you like it or not, then the City, County, State decide how to allocate those resources.
Some of it goes to social services type programs, regardless of who uses it for what

reply to post by Sharingan


Do you think if the amount of money needed at the state level was reduced that it would be reasonable to reduce taxes?

So yes they are costing us all money when it increases the burden on the state and reduces the amount of money that goes to social programs or public works that could benefit the state on a greater level.

You should use more emoticons so everyone thinks your a teenage girl.