Post User Polls

Should alcoholic energy drinks be banned?

"Blackout in a Can," "Liquid Cocaine," "Alcopop:" Four Loko has gone from college drink du jour to national headline after reports that the caffeinated, malted beverage hospitalized nine freshmen in Washington state in October.

The company that makes Four Loko said it would remove caffeine from its alcoholic drinks as federal officials are reportedly planning to crack down on the increasingly popular beverages.

By Abha Bhattarai  |  November 17, 2010; 8:30 AM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Do you use the residential, paper-based white pages? | Next: Which would you choose: a full-body scan or a pat-down?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I don't see what good banning an alcoholic beverage due to it being packaged with caffiene or other energy ingredients would do when people are mixing drinks like Irish Coffee, or Red Bull & Vodka. If people enjoy the combination of energy with alcohol they'll find ways to create a drink even with just plain alcoholic beverages.

Posted by: RazorGirl | October 27, 2010 2:25 PM

You can ban Four Loko, but people will just go back to mixing Red Bull and vodka. Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by: SilverSpring8 | November 17, 2010 10:28 AM

I don't know that "they're fine" is the right way to put it, but these drinks should not be banned or made illegal. Prohibition did not work. People need to educate themselves on the effects of drinking and particular drinks so that they can make informed decisions for themselves.

Posted by: PostID2 | November 17, 2010 10:35 AM

The nanny state steps in. Didn't America just vote against this kind of big government intrusion into people's lives?

Posted by: guitar1 | November 17, 2010 10:45 AM

Why wasn't there a poll choice for "No, and the question of banning them is inappropriate because this is a free country"

Posted by: pkccb | November 17, 2010 11:42 AM

This is dumb. The college kids were underage. Why are they drinking at all? Duh! They could very well drink grain alcohol and die of an overdose! So what. People do stupid things.

Posted by: johng1 | November 17, 2010 12:53 PM

The issue is complicated. Someone here said "didn't we just vote on less government intrustion?" I assume that's a reference to Obama and health care - and the truth of that has been greatly lied about with language used to incite fear and anger among the uneducated. But to this individual and to this mindset I might ask - IF you really think that this last election was all about less government intrusion into your life, particularly as you THINK it applies to healthcare, then you must be willing to apply it to every other incidence, as well.

IF you truly want less government interference in your lives, then you must acknowledge that abortion is one of those areas in which Democrats and progressives have been screaming that there needs to be less government interference in a woman's private life.

You cannot say you want less government intrusion and then believe that the government ought to ban abortion and gay marriage, for example, because that's government intrusion into the private lives of its citizens. Republicans also want to do away with Social Security - and they'll do that first by raising the age limits, then by reducing benefits - including capping the amount and ending cost of living increases.

How many of you, or your parents, rely on Social Security to fund your retirement? THINK.

So...is it REALLY less government interference that you want? Or just less in certain areas and MORE in others?

Because most progressives want LESS government interference in those areas in which interfering would hurt the greatest amount of people, like cutting Social Security and favoring the profits of pharmaceutical companies over the weekly paychecks of hardworking Americans.

Most progressive also favor more government interference in areas that would benefit the most people - like making sure Social Security remains an option for our aging population. Or by ensuring a healthier, more productive, and therefore more globally competitive population via universal healthcare. That's not socialist - that's SMART.

It all depends on the point of view and the motive behind it. Anything done for the reasons of greed, selfishness, or pure meanness is bad. Any Christian that reads the Bible, any Jew that reads the Torah, any Muslim that reads the Qu'ran, should know that.

On the other hands, those same individuals should also realize that anything done for reasons of fairness, good will, compassion, and love is good.

"The Bible/Torah/Qu'ran tells me so."

Stop llstening to other people and start listening to your own heart and your intuitive knowledge of what is right and wrong.

Use critical thinking skills - and if you don't know what they are, find out! - to analyze what's being said for its truthfulness.

And the rest just depends on whether you are, deep down, a good person - or not.

Do you favor compassion, understanding, love, and helpfulness? Or do you favor "dog eat dog", "making sure you get yours", etc.?

Simple.

Posted by: kentuckywoman2 | November 17, 2010 1:06 PM

Er... Hey, KY chick2: Nice attempt to hijack a discussion board.

Back to the topic at hand -- booze and caffeine. No, it shouldn't be banned at a state or federal level; the health angle is bogus as has been noted with the history of mixed drinks.

My thoughts -- and, while I enjoy a variety of libations, I doubt I'll run out and purchase a 4 Loko or the like -- are that it's a convenience factor, specifically for the under-age crowd. All that trippy goodness being in one can is, in itself, a selling point. Otherwise it's back to lugging a bottle of vodka, cranberry juice and 5-hour Energy drinks to the on-/off-campus party.

Posted by: LastCommaFirst | November 17, 2010 1:44 PM

Go bury your child that was killed by a drunk or died rom this drink, and then come back and say it's all fine.

Posted by: BringYourOwnBags | November 17, 2010 2:13 PM

Or merely witness the funeral, as I did today. If only the makers of this liquid crack could have attended.

Posted by: rick18 | November 17, 2010 2:45 PM

Poor phrasing of the choices. And seriously, KY2Woman, you appear to have placed your giant soap box in the wrong discussion.

I simply fail to see the logic in outlawing a combination, which is exactly what this is; the proposal is to outlaw the combining of two freely-available and wholly-legal products. To me, it's akin to trying to reduce smoking by prohibiting stores from selling cigarettes and a lighter in the same transaction.

Posted by: 1ofamillion | November 17, 2010 4:07 PM

This is just back door prohibition.

Posted by: DJMonet | November 17, 2010 4:42 PM

Hey BRINGYOUROWNBODYBAGS - has cocaine prohibition stopped people from dying from coke? Of course not. Has prohibition given rise the to mafia and global drug lords? Yup. We'll need those body bags for the drug war in Mexico, my friend.

Posted by: DJMonet | November 17, 2010 4:49 PM

Won't that be discrimination against all the wide-awake drunks out there? They're the backbone of the American economy, or at least K Street after lunch. Put it in historical perspective; some cadgy Cro-magnon noticed the bears dancing around the fermented blueberry bushes 30K years ago. That Ethiopian goatherd kid figured out about the coffee berries maybe 1200 years ago. It took until 1942 for Irish Coffee to debut, and now the FDA wants to dash it all and turn us all primitive and sleepy again? Please reconsider.

Posted by: singlecheek | November 17, 2010 5:46 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company