Banning consumption itemsFollow

Yes. When you're looking at kiddie pics in the back bedroom, you're contributing to those kids being abducted and molested.

Aside from the obvious public versus private property issue. The other difference is that *you* can ban smoking in your own house, not the government. So the government saying you can't smoke in your own home or car is a massive infringement of property rights.

You mean things like banning gay marriage? Or just things you don't personally approve of.

Never personally tried Four Loko, but I'm the alumni advisor for my fraternity and this drink has become pretty huge on campus in the last year. It comes in an extra-large can (16 - 22 oz), and contains 12% alcochol, so it's the equivalent to 3-4 beers plus at least a cup of coffee's worth of caffeine. The problems are that it's ultra cheap ($2.75/can), and that it's clearly not designed to be a beverage that you sip slowly (hence the nasty flavor). It's meant to be chugged or at least consumed in the same amount of time that it would take to drink a beer.

You can't really compare Four Loko to wine since wine is more expensive, and is usually consumed more slowly (and wine doesn't contain caffeine). Red Bull and vodka is another bad comparison, since that also costs a lot more, and people don't usually mix 4 shots of vodka with 2 cans of Red Bull to make a single drink. Cost is really the biggest reason that Four Loko is so popular - it really is just about the cheapest way possible to get drunk quickly. I've seen guys using Four Loko to play Beiruit and other drinking games, and that is what worries me - they're going to get fucked up far worse doing that than they would if they were drinking the usual watered down piss-flavored beer. And that, I suppose for them, is the point.

College kids are always going to get drunk on cheap alcohol, sometimes to the point of passing out and/or requiring medical attention. 9 kids getting hospitalized in Washington state isn't nearly enough evidence to show that Four Loko is by itself increasing the rate at which this happens, so I'm hesitant to buy into the panic that seems to be gripping the media and many campus administrators right now. Educating kids and teaching them that there's a fine line between being pleasantly sloshed and puking/passed out, and that that line is different for everyone, is always going to be more effective than banning a particular beverage.

You've got a point about the caffeine, but there are some cheap wines out there. When I was that age, Thunderbird and Boones Farm wines were the cheap drink of preference. And they were *really* cheap. But then again, we used to be able to buy wine coolers in 2 liter bottles, so I suppose that's something too!



Nah. They mix two shots of vodka with 1 can of Red Bull to make a single drink and then have several of them. I have a friend who drinks that all the time. He can usually get two glasses out of a single Red Bull + vodka (about a shot or so plus half a can for each drink). It's not uncommon for him to go through 4 of them in an evening while we're playing cards and whatnot.

And when you buy in bulk at Costco, I'm pretty sure it's cost equivalent.


The real difference is that you have dumb young college kids drinking. And guess what? Just like we did when I was that age, they're going to drink too much and too fast and get sick and do stupid things. There is nothing new about that. Blaming the drink of choice is just dumb.

It's not so much barking at shadows as observing that we should avoid adopting methodologies to deal with social problems which may be used later as precedent to make social changes we don't agree with as much as the one that's right in front of us. Doubly so when there are more direct and honest means by which we could address those things.

It's not about starting with an assumption of some grand schemers, but with the rather sensible fact that when you open yourself up to manipulation you increase the odds that someone will do so. Whether someone intends for such things to happen down the line or not is less relevant than the reality of what will tend to happen. If legitimate banks used methodologies for handling estates which required the recipients to first forward some amount of cash to the bank in order to free up the assets to which they are entitled, one could reasonably conclude that this would increase the odds of people falling for Nigerian type scams, right? Same deal here. If we make the process of banning things like cartoon characters and toys a "normal" means of manipulating society, then people will be more likely to accept similar such methods in the future.


It does not require some evil plot to set in motion, but does increase the odds that someone will take advantage of it after the fact. This is why the methods we use to do things do matter as much if not more than the goals we have when doing them.

They don't? Oops.

In my defense, it takes me a loooong time to drink one drink. And I hate how Red Bull and Vodka tastes, but if you had some triple sec, it's not so bad.

Ahhh, Boones Fuzzy Navels - bringing back (some) memories of my childhood.

four loko is basically made to be drank alone without additional alcohol.

One can is all anyone should need to feel the effects of alcohol unless they are an extreme alcoholic.

Edited, Nov 10th 2010 8:43pm by Bardalicious

I can understand that and maybe I'm weird but I'd rather spend those $2.75 on two good beers than on one can of filth that's twice as potent.
I personally drink because I enjoy the taste, the entertaining side effects of alcohol in said beers are just that, side effects.

Edited, Nov 11th 2010 8:17am by Aethien

I disagree with the Happy Meal ordinance, not because it's ethically wrong but because I don't believe it's going to be effective. Require full disclosure of nutritional information in plain English in readable font and let it go at that. The parents who are worried about nutrition aren't the parents who are taking their kids to McDonald's as more than an occasional treat, anyway.

I have an acquaintance who used to reuse the McDonald's packaging. He'd ladle some mac and cheese or whatever into a Big Mac container (this was back when they used Styrofoam) and the kids would yum it up. I wonder when they figured it out.

Death Penalty!

Youtube would disagree with you.

In other tangentially related news, Colbert did a bit about Four Loko and other caffinated alcoholic drinks last night, and even took a few swigs of the stuff on camera.

He described it as akin to "drinking the contents of a Duracell battery." I thought he was being too kind.

Why not have them just slap a label on it saying it is potentially harmful, like cigarettes do?

Where's an over-payed lobbyist when you need one?

My point is that we don't ban things just because they are bad for you.

And oddly enough, they have half the calories of a Big Mac!

He meant a BIG MAC.

Wait a second. We've already got this. Is it working? Last number I heard was 1/4 drivers are handicapped in the way of either drugs or alcohol. I can't link source, boss's friends (who are cops) gave it to him. The depressing part about drunk drivers, is more often then not the drunk will survive and the people in the other car won't.



But consuming substances in the privacy of your own home or on your own time doesn't always just affect you. As nice as that would be, it doesn't. Alcoholics, do they affect their family? Friends? Drug addicts/the drug trade. This is by design private because they are illegal. Yet they're still pervasive and debilitating to anyone involved. You might say that it's because these people are taking it too far, but is it possible to not take crystal meth too far? Alcohol, stupid people doing stupid things happen because of it. I don't care for the bans on food.

The idea of as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights is fine by me, and it follows John Locke's ideas. Only he was a bit of a joke in this regard, because he could never pinpoint that fine line. Only way to follow it would be to ban doing just about everything.

Edited, Nov 18th 2010 8:49pm by manicshock

The other main statistic was 1/8 people simply aren't fit to drive. Do you believe that?

I feel as though you could use a course in fractions.

Yes, but 1/2 is greater than 1/8.

I got it. Doesn't change the fact that it was fail.

So, what's your point? We should ban alcohol? If so, f'uck you, you're an idiot. If not, shut up, grown folks is talkin.


The amount of stupidity in this paragraph could choke a small elephant. Abuse of a substance leads to destructive behavior and the consequence of that destructive behavior (violence, etc.) can and should be criminalized because it then becomes an infringement on the rights of others. That doesn't even begin to address the idea that the criminalization of consensual acts, in which the participants are all adults free to make the choice, is ridiculous. Your comments about the drug trade's illegality go so far as to argue the opposite using the problem as the evidence. Maybe you should step back from the keys and kill yourself. It would save the rest of us from your need for a controlling government to keep you safe.


The fine line isn't fine at all. It is very clear and easy to spot. If you're violating someone else's rights, you're wrong. If not, the government has no place telling you you can't engage in an action.

/yawn.