Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Energy Drink

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Recently a company (the names of both the company and the product excape me) came out with a new energy drink that can be carried around in little tubes in a powdered form and, therefore, is much more convenience and accessible than conventional canned energy drinks. The government is now cracking down on this company because the powder has an extremely remarkable resemblence to cocaine powder. I quote from one of the proponents of shutting this product down, "...you [the manufacturer] must realize that this cannot be done. There is no way that you didn't realize what this looks like... it's a moral obsenity and it sets a bad example for our children... you shouldn't be allowed to do this...[here's the part that really gets me angry] you don't need this stuff. Drop it now. You seem like a creative guy. why don't you find something else! [italics mine].

How could people be so morally crippled as to advocate this? The man is trying to support himself and just because of an apparent similarity to some drug he must be stripped of his discovery? I've drank many drinks with powders that looked that (although I've never taken his drink) but because his company has made an explosion in sales, he gets his creation stolen from him? The government hasn't taken his idea from him yet, but just the fact that this man has to deal with this is horrifying.

Any comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any comments?
Yes: when you are able to quote a person verbatim, with the vague implication that it's a quote from a government person, then it ought to be possible to recall the company name and product, and otherwise provide links so we can verify the claim. You shouldn't believe everything you read on the interwebs. And never be shocked when some chatroom idiot say something totally stupid. That's why they invented anonymity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes: when you are able to quote a person verbatim, with the vague implication that it's a quote from a government person, then it ought to be possible to recall the company name and product, and otherwise provide links so we can verify the claim. You shouldn't believe everything you read on the interwebs. And never be shocked when some chatroom idiot say something totally stupid. That's why they invented anonymity.

I didn't remember the names involved because they are not important. The important part is that any one would condone and perpetrate such an immense violation of human rights.

What the hell? The FDA is claiming it is a drug? It is no more a drug than sugar and other energy boosting substances are as far as I can tell.

They are not claiming its a drug, they are attacking it becuase it looks like a drug and it's, therefore, a "bad influence" that would have people clamoring for cocaine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not claiming its a drug, they are attacking it becuase it looks like a drug and it's, therefore, a "bad influence" that would have people clamoring for cocaine.

The government is right to outlaw this evil product. Everyone knows caffiene and sugar are gateway drugs. They always lead to harder substances like coke. I drank a Red Bull once...had a meth problem ever since...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government is right to outlaw this evil product. Everyone knows caffiene and sugar are gateway drugs. They always lead to harder substances like coke. I drank a Red Bull once...had a meth problem ever since...

I drink Red Bull before every single wrestling match, and I never have had any substance other than that. I have never drank alchohol, smoked anything, injected, snorted or anything; I just like having energy before I go on the mat. The government can't outlaw a substance simply because it could lead to people make bad decisions. According to what you are saying, we should outlaw knives because, even though they have practical applications, they can be a "gateway tool" towards assault and murder. I am certainly not saying that you advocate this, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument; that people aren't smart enough to avoid making stupid decisions when tempted by objects and, therefore, must be regulated by an all knowing, all powerful government. That producer spent his time, his effort, and the risk of maybe his livelihood to produce that powder and people are willing to pay for it; it is simply evil to force him to give it up because some people might get the "wrong idea". That is the same mentality that almost took Spongebob Squarepants off the air because some stupid kid drowned himself looking for a "pineapple under the sea" under the supervision of his/her irresponsible parent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I drink Red Bull before every single wrestling match, and I never have had any substance other than that. I have never drank alchohol, smoked anything, injected, snorted or anything; I just like having energy before I go on the mat. The government can't outlaw a substance simply because it could lead to people make bad decisions. According to what you are saying, we should outlaw knives because, even though they have practical applications, they can be a "gateway tool" towards assault and murder. I am certainly not saying that you advocate this, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument; that people aren't smart enough to avoid making stupid decisions when tempted by objects and, therefore, must be regulated by an all knowing, all powerful government. That producer spent his time, his effort, and the risk of maybe his livelihood to produce that powder and people are willing to pay for it; it is simply evil to force him to give it up because some people might get the "wrong idea". That is the same mentality that almost took Spongebob Squarepants off the air because some stupid kid drowned himself looking for a "pineapple under the sea" under the supervision of his/her irresponsible parent.

I was actually being facetious. I agree with you 100%. I was just playing on the standard opinion people have about weed being a "gateway" drug and how they seem to be extending that concept to include this product.

btw, I do the same thing with Red Bull. I always chug one before I go to work out. That stuff works wonders. :pimp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the important part is that you first establish that the alleged action happened.
Here's a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services, to the marketer of Blow. After establishing that it is being marketed as a "street drug alternative", they explain that it is "drug" under a legal definition they provide (page 2). They ask the firm to rectify the violations that they cite. The marketer has 15 days to tell them what actions have been taken to rectify the situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, thanks again. Judging by the letter, the FDA seems to believe the drink is a drug. By including the list of bullet points about how the drug is marketed, they seem to be warning that the drug application/license will be denied/revoked if such marketing practices are continued/resumed in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services, to the marketer of Blow.
Thanks for finding that. It confirmed my belief that the government absolutely did not say

you ... must realize that this cannot be done. There is no way that you didn't realize what this looks like... it's a moral obsenity and it sets a bad example for our children... you shouldn't be allowed to do this... you don't need this stuff. Drop it now. You seem like a creative guy. why don't you find something else

The letter shows that this is an ordinary FDA enforcement; thus it's analogous to the FAA's 1 inch not 1.25 inch spacer requirement, the IRS's claim to a moral right to take money and goods from citizens, the DEA's claim to have a right to arrest people for possession or sale of cocaine or marijuana (inter alios), the INS's supposed right to throw people out of the country, Homeland Security's right to prohibit the in-cabin transport of fluids, numerous local government's claimed right to restrict the color that you can paint your house, or the legality of certain kinds of plumbing connections, anti-trust laws in general, laws regulating the use of steroids, laws against gambling and dog-fighting, and so on and on.

There are many things that one can get justifiably angry about: I was trying to determine if there was anything at all new about this, and it doesn't seem to me that this moves into new territory. I get a bit angry when people misrepresent the facts, and also when the government oversteps the boundaries of its proper function. The problem is that unless you're doing a Lewis Black shtick, being in a perpetual state of rage is not a viable lifestyle. Wherein lies the quandry -- what is the proper emotional response to improper law, especially when it is so wide-spread. That's what makes improper law so evil, because it leads to this paradox, that one should advocate the rule of law, but in these cases one should not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wherein lies the quandry -- what is the proper emotional response to improper law, especially when it is so wide-spread. That's what makes improper law so evil, because it leads to this paradox, that one should advocate the rule of law, but in these cases one should not.
I've thought about this before. Traffic cops still get my blood boiling, though I know it is mis-channeled anger. I simply do not know how best to respond to evil laws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not claiming its a drug, they are attacking it becuase it looks like a drug and it's, therefore, a "bad influence" that would have people clamoring for cocaine.

Actually, according to the Wikipedia article intellectualammo linked to above the FDA is claiming it is a drug.

FDA Action

On January 31, 2008, the Food and Drug Administration sent a "warning letter" to Blow. According to the FDA, Blow is a drug under 21 U.S.C. §321(g)(l) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and violates the Act because it was not approved by the FDA. [3]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services, to the marketer of Blow. After establishing that it is being marketed as a "street drug alternative", they explain that it is "drug" under a legal definition they provide (page 2). They ask the firm to rectify the violations that they cite. The marketer has 15 days to tell them what actions have been taken to rectify the situation.

From your brief description it sounds a lot like what happened with BZP based party pills here in NZ. We have no equivalent of the FDA, but things started much like that. They were marketed as a "legal high". Then the government - and a lot of the public - got upset and the government told the industry to make some changes, such as restricting them only to those over 18 (they were suggesting a market restriction not a government one), which most of the market already done. The market agreed to the government's terms and abided by them (this is where the simularities end, since this situation hasn't progressed (or is that regressed given what I am about to say?) so far).

Then two people got very sick after taking them. However, they ignored the warning labels, which stated not to take them with other recreational drugs, alcohol, or medicinal drugs. One took them with medicinal drugs, the other with alcohol. This caused a huge uproar to ban them. The government refused to do that and instead created legal restrictions of them, eg, a minimum age of 18.

However, eventually two people died from it and no more have since. The government has now banned them, classifying them as a "Class C1 drug" under the drug laws. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar pattern happens with Blow. Things have already started following a similar pattern, except that party pills are strictly speaking a drug unlike Blow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

laws regulating the use of steroids

I have to wonder why they would bother. Sporting bodies forbid the use of steroids from their competitions, so why bother? But more importantly, they shouldn't be doing it. It should be left to sporting bodies to determine whether or not to make it a rule that has to be met to be eligable for their competitions.

As for how to deal with such evil laws, they are so common here in NZ that I've got to the point of expecting them and not expecting good ones except as rare exceptions and tend to only feel minor fustration at most evil laws, except the worst ones which get me angry, but I get that emotion a lot less than I used to. I have even decided to move to the US as soon as possible. Unless the Democrats are in power, in which case I will move to Australia instead.

Gladly it is nowhere near desensitisation and shows no signs of going anywhere near that. It actually seems to work quite well for me since I recover from anger quickly and my frustration, though often exaggerated, doesn't last long. I can often get myself back in a good mood from either one easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to wonder why they would bother.
Don't: it's very simple. There is some danger in using steroids, and it the purpose of government is to protect people, then there has to be a law to prevent the unsupervised use of steroids. Notice the "if" there. It's so close to correct -- from "protect people's rights" to "protect people", an almost imperceptible shortening of the phrase, and yet see what it gets us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for finding that. It confirmed my belief that the government absolutely did not say

you ... must realize that this cannot be done. There is no way that you didn't realize what this looks like... it's a moral obsenity and it sets a bad example for our children... you shouldn't be allowed to do this... you don't need this stuff. Drop it now. You seem like a creative guy. why don't you find something else

It was a lawyer working for the government during an interview on fox news saying this directly to the producer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't: it's very simple. There is some danger in using steroids, and it the purpose of government is to protect people, then there has to be a law to prevent the unsupervised use of steroids. Notice the "if" there. It's so close to correct -- from "protect people's rights" to "protect people", an almost imperceptible shortening of the phrase, and yet see what it gets us.

Well, actually I don't notice the "if" because you but "if". :P

On a more serious note, tt isn't their job to protect us from taking substances. Really that is a form of protection from otherselves, which falls outsidelegitimate government jurisdiction. We cannot violate our own rights after all. That requires other people.

Anyway, my point was that their steroid laws are redundant since sporting bodies self-regulate against steroid use and that I wonder why they would bother with redundant laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a lawyer working for the government during an interview on fox news saying this directly to the producer.
What was the lawyer's name? Where can I see the interview? You're not making a very credible argument. How about helping us out by putting forth some substantive evidence where we can actually see in order to believe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...