California outlawing caffinated beer

[DosEquis]

Demolition Man - All the Swearing and Getting...

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Not to quibble Lou, but your own self-identified political party and ideology has made its entire modern existence doing this exact thing.



Who is to decide what is negative? Rhetorical, I know, but it brings up a valid question. It's partly subjective and partly objective. You can observe the effects something has on people and society and need not be an expert to discern whether it is a negative or positive consequence. You can use scientific data to confirm, reject, or guide decisions. And society itself, through its various legal processes, decides using the above criteria. It's really not that offensive when you think about it.

For example, let's look at one hypothetical example. Say many people throw trash and chemicals into the ocean. No one seems to really care. But concerned citizens and scientists study the issue, learn about it, and conclusively prove that disposing of the trash and chemicals kills a certain kind of fish that both people and seals eat. This not only causes people to become ill with negative health effects, but causes seals to come closer to shore to feed on alternative fishes. That in turn causes sharks to come closer to shore to feed on the seals, which in turn causes more shark attacks against people because sharks not only mistake people for seals, but also because seals are dying off because they are not getting enough food.

I'm completely comfortable with society fashioning a rule via government that prohibits dumping the trash and chemicals into the ocean to prevent the consequential negative outcomes. I know you are too. So why the disagreement?



While I agree with this (esp. the last sentence), several facts answer this question for us. First, the cigarette lobby is more powerful than the caffeinated beer lobby. Second, millions of more people smoke cigarettes than drink caffeinated beer. Third, cigarettes generate billions more dollars in tax revenues than caffeinated beer, which legislators are wont give up. As I said above, I am not sure it makes good public policy to balance government ledgers on the backs of addicts, but the practical reality is that it is what we do and we cannot stop doing unless we start identifying substitute revenue streams (and good luck doing that).

The pollution example is a case where a persons actions effect a large number of other people in a serious and negative way. My deciding to drink a can of 4Loko doesn't impact anyone else. That is the real difference. The person who should decide whether or not drinking 4Loko is something that is in their best interest is the individual, not government. With the case of pollution, individuals have said they don't want to consume food with cancer causing pollutants. They have a right to life so they are entitled to ask for the government to prevent such pollutants from entering the food supply. ( This is a discussion about externalities ). The consumption of 4Loko has no such negative externality associated with it. It is not a case of society deciding what is best for society, it's society deciding what is best for the individual based on a subjective assessment of what is in a person's best interest.

Whenever you are going to say to someone "you can't do that" , you should be balancing the needs of society against the freedoms of the individual. You need to look at the degree of infringement against the benefits of the ban.
In this case, the ban has the goal of preventing "ignorant" persons from consuming the beverage. Ignorant in the sense that they are unaware of what is in the beverage. What is the real concern? That people will consume too much caffeine while drinking? Caffeine doesn't make you feel not drunk. Caffeine just keeps you awake. You'll simply be a wide awake drunk. We all know that drinking and driving is dangerous. All of the dangers associated with 4Loko are shared by all alcoholic beverages. The benefit to society here is virtually nil. People can still drink and people can still consume caffeine. Infact you can go to a bar or a restaurant and have a drink provided to you with both alcohol and caffeine in it. In this way the ban is arbitrary and capricious. It's OK if you are sold such a beverage as long as it's mixed on site? That doesn't seem to be inline with the original goal to keep people from consuming caffeinated alcoholic beverages. The real problem was with the marketing and product labeling ( The same reason we don't have Joe Camel anymore).

The proper response to the problem of underage people from buying and consuming this sort of drink is to impose similar regulations on the alcohol industry as we have already imposed on the tobacco industry. Educate kids about alcohol. Require product labeling that clearly discloses caffeine content.

[DosEquis]

I would argue that carcinogens in food doesn't have much externality to it, much like chewing tobacco, or consuming 4loco. It's all a choice to eat or drink those things and it would have no influence on my well being. I would agree that if there were a food that knowingly caused cancer it should be labeled as such.

Smoking however does introduce carcinogens into the air and I should be able to go to certain public places without breathing the smoke. If a bar wants to have smoking indoors that should be fine (not legal here) because I can choose to go to the bar. I can't choose to go to court if required. Per wiki "Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemical compounds, many of which are carcinogenic or otherwise toxic. One of these is a compound marketed as a rat poison."

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Smoking however does introduce carcinogens into the air and I should be able to go to certain public places without breathing the smoke. If a bar wants to have smoking indoors that should be fine (not legal here) because I can choose to go to the bar. I can't choose to go to court if required. Per wiki "Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemical compounds, many of which are carcinogenic or otherwise toxic. One of these is a compound marketed as a rat poison."

I think it's banned from bars to protect the employees.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I would argue that carcinogens in food doesn't have much externality to it, much like chewing tobacco, or consuming 4loco. It's all a choice to eat or drink those things and it would have no influence on my well being. I would agree that if there were a food that knowingly caused cancer it should be labeled as such.

Smoking however does introduce carcinogens into the air and I should be able to go to certain public places without breathing the smoke. If a bar wants to have smoking indoors that should be fine (not legal here) because I can choose to go to the bar. I can't choose to go to court if required. Per wiki "Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemical compounds, many of which are carcinogenic or otherwise toxic. One of these is a compound marketed as a rat poison."

Of course there are externalities. If you make a living by producing watches with glow in the dark dials, and you use uranium or something to make the things glow, and you dump all your waste in the stream outback, that has an externality. You don't bear the costs that you impose on society. The costs may not be apparent to those bearing the costs right away. Cancer clusters appear in such places years after the pollution has taken place. Often the polluter is already gone. So we preclude the polluter from ever dumping such waste in the first place. There is no way to label food as containing carcinogens if no one knows they are there until it's too late.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

These two things are somewhat different. Wearing a seat belt has few, if any, effects on society. If you do not wear your seat belt, the absolute only person you're likely to hurt is yourself. After all, it's use will only directly save your own life.

If you have passengers in your car is the glaring exception here because if you become a projectile, you are obviously affecting others.

[WickedLou9]

Seatbelt laws are sort of questionable. The complication is that driving on public roads requires that you agree to the laws of the roads first. If you want to build your own track and drive the car there, you don't need to wear a belt. Same with helmet laws. Although some states like NH, that have more libertarian views, don't require helmets on motorcycles. individual choice.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Seatbelt laws are sort of questionable. The complication is that driving on public roads requires that you agree to the laws of the roads first. If you want to build your own track and drive the car there, you don't need to wear a belt. Same with helmet laws. Although some states like NH, that have more libertarian views, don't require helmets on motorcycles. individual choice.

Well if you don't wear your helmet and you get in a crash and die, it's not just you affected. You are stealing time and gas money from me because I have to sit there and wait while they scrape you off the pavement.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Well if you don't wear your helmet and you get in a crash and die, it's not just you affected. You are stealing time and gas money from me because I have to sit there and wait while they scrape you off the pavement.

That's a little tenuous. Even with a helmet you probably still get scraped off the pavement. There is always the issue of medical costs incurred but then you are treading on some thin ice because that same justification could easily extend to any other risky activity where injury is likely. Skiiing, snow boarding, football, etc.

[The Great Catpiss]

Perhaps they will make a law that states everyone must wear a helmet at all times.

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

My my, testy tonight huh?

Apologies. As I recall, I wrote this when I had a quite shitty day.

Well, this is demonstrably false. Whether you "give to shits bout what society thinks of [you] or what [you] do with [yourself]" is completely irrelevant. If you decide to get fucked up on crack or booze and drive a car, you make what you do with yourself society's business.

I didn't mean that from a legal sense.

And I am sorry to say, but too many humans are too stupid to not make it society's business.

Being very tired and driving is nearly equal to getting drunk and driving. Are we going to ban being sleepy too just because you shouldn't drive while exhausted?

I'm not advocating allowing people to shoot up heroin and fly a jet, but doing so in your home should not be an issue. Ever.

I never said anything about legalization (good or bad); I was speaking in very general terms about heavy regulation. And I did not imply either way what I think might happen were the government to relax prohibitions. I just said the state has a legitimate interest in regulating controlled substances.

And I wasn't referring to you exactly, merely people who actually fear that scenario.

And the government has a legitimate interest in a lot of things. It would be easier for a government if it could censor the news to make themselves look favorable after events that make them look bad. Doesn't mean they should.

Two things. First, whether sentencing guidelines are racist is beside the point, not least for the reason that if alleged victims of these "racist" sentencing guidelines simply stopped using illicit narcotics, they'd easily evade negative or racist consequences.

Jim Crow laws.

Second, you ignore that society has changed. It might have been okay to be an opium addict back in the 19th century when riding a horse was the primary way to transport one's self from point A to point B, but it's completely unacceptable to be one today with planes, fast trains, and automobiles every where you look. The idea that society should make it easier to obtain these substances, or not attach significant penalties against using these substances when the user puts everyone around them at risk when intoxicated, is untenable in modern society.

And you're ignoring crimes that are committed because of penalties on drugs. Warlords ravage Latin America because they make boatloads of money from the illegalization of drugs by our government and use the profits to build fucking armies. Our laws are getting people (innocent or otherwise) killed daily on the Mexican border. At least my way of doing things would get rid of, if not at least severely cut back these negative consequences, while only slightly (I'd argue decreasing though), if at all increasing drug usage. Seriously now, these drugs are already on the market, in all forms. Who's going to shoot up tomorrow just because it's legal?

Should you be able to smoke crack and drive? I'd say no. But smoke crack and not drive? I say yes. Largely for the same reasons I'd say for alcohol. Copy/Paste. Same concept.

First, you're blaming the wrong issue. Sentencing isn't the problem; using/abusing is the problem.

I abuse cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol. I'm hurting no one. The problem isn't me, it's the government telling me what is ok for me

Second, I've never quite understood the theory that says if you legalize harmful substances and make them easier to get, not only will that not increase their use, but society will benefit by not punishing users. I mean, if that were true, why not re-legalize toxic dumping into drinking water sources? Because really, what's the difference between consuming cocaine and mercury in the long run?

What? I think you have the theory wrong. As stated above, the theory that making it easier to get drugs won't affect usage rates is based on the idea that people who want to snort coke are already doing it...making it illegal isn't stopping people. People don't smoke heroin because of the dangers involved to themselves, not because it's illegal.

Also, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm willing to bet you've never had a good friend who's also a very serious drug dealer or had to go see a serious drug dealer before. I've done both. If you go to someone to buy lady jane, and he's out, he'll try and get you to buy something else. That's how a lot of people get addicted to other shit. They'll try whatever else the guy has. You eliminate the dealer, you eliminate anther route of getting the hard stuff.

For example, you go to Best Buy looking for a flat screen. Sales associate says they're out. They may try and sell you a different kind tv, but they aren't going to send you to the video game section. A drug store would be similar. You go in to buy OG Kush right? They're out. The clerk might suggest Alaskan Thunderfuck, but he's not going to say "Well how about some Molly?"

Even if he does for whatever reason, it will be nowhere near as forceful as a drug dealer. I would stake my life on that.

Once again, your ire is misplaced. After all, it is the legislative department that writes the allegedly racist sentencing laws the judiciary is obliged to enforce. In short, call your legislator. Additionally, if both were legal, you'd just have more users on the streets causing problems.

You don't see the crack vs. cocaine sentencing problems as racist?

I don't have a specific cite for you to check the numbers but a quick google gave me this

Furthermore, and getting back to my original point, nothing about legalization conflicts with heavily regulating controlled substances, which was my original point. I never once made an argument that substances should be banned or allowed; just that they should be regulated.

Again, I've hard a less-than-wonderful Christmas vacation so at the time I was probably just angry at the world and took it out on your post and took things out of context. My bad.


For the record, I'm for legalization of everything...but yes it needs to be regulated. If I found crack sprinkled on my pot I'd be pissed.

The idea, which seems to underlie your post, that people should be free to get fucked up whenever and however they want with no interference from government (or society), is completely unreasonable.

Well see, I disagree, largely because people already do and we're fine. If I choose to go to work everyday, come home, and get stoned and go to bed, that's my choice. I can understand why people would see it as stupid, but that's not their problem nor their concern. As long as I'm not out hurting people or driving, I have no problem with it.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's a little tenuous. Even with a helmet you probably still get scraped off the pavement. There is always the issue of medical costs incurred but then you are treading on some thin ice because that same justification could easily extend to any other risky activity where injury is likely. Skiiing, snow boarding, football, etc.

Well my point is just that when people claim "it only affects you" it's never really true. You can think your way around to the various ways using drugs or not wearing your seatbelt or whatever affect others.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If you have passengers in your car is the glaring exception here because if you become a projectile, you are obviously affecting others.

Haha, yes well, clearly an extreme example. I am not sure I'd rest a policy argument debating such a bill as a legislator on that example, but I suppose not bashing into passengers in the event of an accident is a (somewhat) reasonable point.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's a little tenuous.... There is always the issue of medical costs incurred but then you are treading on some thin ice because that same justification could easily extend to any other risky activity where injury is likely. Skiiing, snow boarding, football, etc.

....leaving the house....

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

I'm rather running out of time tonight, but wanted to at least give your post a quick answer so you don't think I am ignoring it.

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

Apologies. As I recall, I wrote this when I had a quite shitty day.

No problem, we've all been there, and we've always had a good relationship, which is why I didn't go-off the deep end like I do with others.

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

I didn't mean that from a legal sense.

Well, whether from a legal or nonlegal sense, the idea that society has zero input in how people conduct themselves - even in private - is one I increasingly find intolerable. That is not to say society must dictate via legislative fiat all conduct, but general rules are not only necessary but even desirable. That being said, it is just a matter of policy as to what rules we create and enforce and for what purpose. We have a general framework (Federal and State constitutions) to work under, which both empowers and places limits on what society can and cannot do via government, and we go from there. I assume you'd agree with that premise (in reality, you have little choice, because that is our system). So we are just arguing about what proper rules are and should be, and not really whether society has the power to establish the rules.

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

Being very tired and driving is nearly equal to getting drunk and driving. Are we going to ban being sleepy too just because you shouldn't drive while exhausted?

Well, I am not sure you can prohibit people becoming tired/sleepy, as it is a naturally occurring thing the body must do (and, in fact, will do automatically). Becoming intoxicated is not an automated bodily function. Further, while there is no criminal ban on driving while sleepy, there are private actions in law whereby if you are tired and drive, and fall asleep and cause an accident, the individual(s) you injure can bring tort claims against you. And depending on the laws of the jurisdiction, the government may even bring criminal negligence or vehicular homicide charges against you. After all, you have a duty to drive carefully as a reasonable person would, and if you cannot by reason of being sleep deprived, you have a duty to pull over and stop operating the vehicle.

So really, we already kind of do prohibit sleepy driving.

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

I'm not advocating allowing people to shoot up heroin and fly a jet, but doing so in your home should not be an issue. Ever.

Well, I am glad you are not advocating the legalization of flying while junkie. That makes two of us. However, I disagree with your premise that doing heroin at home is not a public issue. As I've stated above in other posts in this thread, the problem is the fact that heroin (and many other hard drugs) are highly addictive, and their negative side effects influence conduct and competence in every respect of one's life outside the home (even when not high). I know from personal experience; a member of my immediate family has been a heroin addict for over 30 years. Thankfully, he's been clean for over a year now, but the cost of his private use? Lost jobs, car accidents (private and at work), a divorce, chronic related health problems, all leading to a host of other issues. In short, when you use drugs, your life isn't really the only one you are destroying; there is much collateral damage.

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

And the government has a legitimate interest in a lot of things. It would be easier for a government if it could censor the news to make themselves look favorable after events that make them look bad. Doesn't mean they should.

Well, the First Amendment takes censoring the news off the public policy debate table. Second, debating on whether government should regulate (even to the point of prohibiting) substances is a far different question than whether government/society has the power to do so. Clearly it does, which is the primary point and disagreement (from my point of view) touching off our debate.

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

Jim Crow laws.

I am not sure Jim Crow laws truly encompass national drug policy and punishment, and nothing in the link you provided leads me to conclude otherwise. Jim Crow laws were designed specifically to deny African Americans their fundamental rights under the Constitution (of which intoxication due to narcotic ingestion is not one). But, if you'd like to provide additional information I am willing to consider it. My further point here is that becoming ensnared in judicial punishments due to drug use is very easy to avoid; stop breaking the law, and stop using drugs, and you won't be incarcerated.

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

And you're ignoring crimes that are committed because of penalties on drugs. Warlords ravage Latin America because they make boatloads of money from the illegalization of drugs by our government and use the profits to build fucking armies. Our laws are getting people (innocent or otherwise) killed daily on the Mexican border. At least my way of doing things would get rid of, if not at least severely cut back these negative consequences, while only slightly (I'd argue decreasing though), if at all increasing drug usage. Seriously now, these drugs are already on the market, in all forms. Who's going to shoot up tomorrow just because it's legal?

Again, I am not sure I buy the argument that taking away stiff criminal penalties for use of a substance will decrease its use. That isn't to say you'll see widespread increased use of formerly illicit narcotics, but the intuitive logic here is that if you make something once illegal perfectly legal and acceptable for use, people are probably going to use it more than when it was illegal with severe penalties attached to its use.

And I refuse to agree to the idea that our laws are to blame for other people knowingly, intentionally, and uncaringly murdering innocent people. That is not US law making that happen; that is evil people doing evil things for greed-money making that happen. If in fact the US (and other countries) completely legalized drug use, then those warlords may leave the drug business because it may become less profitable, but they'd simply go into other avenues of black market savagery where they could continue their savage ways. Our laws are not the problem; the people are the problem. Don't deflect blame here. That'd be like saying guns kill people.


Okay, have to go for tonight. I might come back and finish up later, but I think you get the bottom line of my arguments.

Hope things are going better for you, bud.