A True Government Outrage

[Sarvis]

http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 72eb2.html


So some Democrat (I think, this article doesn't say) wants to get drinks that are combinations of alcohol and caffeine banned because 9 people got sick from Four Loko. This could affect coffee beers as well as other mixed drinks. Not to mention the retardedness of banning something because 9 people got sick... not even killed. :(

[kiryan]

There is an incident involving someone shooting themselves as well. I'm sure there are many more, statistically significant over drinking in general... I doubt it.

Caffeniated alcoholic drinks have been drunk.. forever? Rum and coke? Malibu and coke? An Irish coffee? What we have here is a fad and a deceptively delicious alcoholic beverage. One article I read complained that the effects of adding caffeine made the drinks more dangerous because it counteracted the sedative affect of alcohol... so "wide awake drunk" which was more dangerous than a sleepy drunk... its interesting, but again if it hasn't been a problem for 200 years, I'd be hard pressed to agree these manufactuers came up with some magical formula thats significantly more dangerous. More than likely our college aged kids are significantly more stupid than they were 10 years ago.

I agree with you its fucking retarded. I also think its retarded that the FDA who as I understand it approves products for sale in America is going to these manufactuers and saying well we never said it was safe, prove to us its safe... the legal liability will put these companies out of business if congress doesn't.

[Sarvis]

More than likely our college aged kids are significantly more stupid than they were 10 years ago.

Nah, more likely that there is more media attention to relatively trivial events. The media makes money by inventing things for people to panic about. By people I mean parents. College has been about partying for a long, long time... see any number of movies like Animal House for reference.

I agree with you its fucking retarded. I also think its retarded that the FDA who as I understand it approves products for sale in America is going to these manufactuers and saying well we never said it was safe, prove to us its safe... the legal liability will put these companies out of business if congress doesn't.

Yet cigarettes are ok... proof of how important a strong lobbying group is?

[kiryan]

well, i think the equivalent for cigarettes was selling candy cigarettes and the practice of putting sweet flavors on cigarette butts...

I'm pretty sure they banned both of those or at least introduced so much regulation it wasn't something they could actually do.

[kiryan]

Why would lobbying groups buying politicans matter if the constitution limited what laws they could actually write?

[Sarvis]

Why would lobbying groups buying politicans matter if the constitution limited what laws they could actually write?

Sure, and if the Constitution gave me magic powers I'd be living in the Playboy Mansion. What's your point?

[Ragorn]

Caffeine increases your absorption rate of alcohol. Drinking a Redbull and vodka gets you drunk faster than taking a shot of vodka (and you sober up faster, since the alcohol is absorbed faster and your liver starts processing it sooner).

Four Loko is a 23 oz. can of 12% ABV beverage. For comparison, a standard bottle of wine is 25 ounces of 12% ABV... so drinking one can of Four Loko is nearly the equivalent of drinking an entire bottle of wine. The caffeine/taurine content in Four Loko is not disclosed, so it's hard to compare it to Redbull or Coke in terms of increased alcohol absorption rate.

It is incredibly stupid to drink this crap. Should it be banned? Eh... probably not. I think it's a product that has a surprising ability to kill or do serious harm to its consumer. You do a shot and chase it by shotgunning one of these, you'll probably have so much alcohol crash into your bloodstream that you'll black out within an hour. But ban it? Alcohol's a legal substance, caffeine's a legal substance... I can't really see the grounds for banning it.

I'm of mixed opinion. I'm kinda glad it's banned, because I do think it's deceptively dangerous and I don't mind having fewer college kids doing stupid shit as a result of drinking it. But I'm not on the side of government banhammering consumer products indiscriminately.

"You're stupid if you drink this and if you do something retarded and kill yourself, it's your own fault" is not public policy I support.

[Kindi]

the CDC fact sheet says some bad things about it

"Drinkers who consume alcohol mixed with energy drinks are 3 times more likely to binge drink (based on breath alcohol levels) than drinkers who do not report mixing alcohol with energy drinks.

Drinkers who consume alcohol with energy drinks are about twice as likely as drinkers who do not report mixing alcohol with energy drinks to report being taken advantage of sexually, to report taking advantage of someone else sexually, and to report riding with a driver who was under the influence of alcohol."

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/cab.htm

that said i've found our laws regarding stuff we put in our body to be particularly crappy laws (why can't i legally order good scotch online?! so hard to find) so i don't want to see more "bans" - i'd much prefer more study, education, and support for responsibility

[kiryan]

I agree with you and will add there are lots of things that increase your absorption rate of alcohol... first and foremost of which is simply consuming it faster. Drinking on an empty stomach or holding it in your mouth works too. When I want to get drunk fast, I hold each mouthful 10 or 15 seconds before swallowing, especially when I'm drinking Cognac or whiskey. If there is a problem with absorption rate, its alcohol and how people drink it, not a specific product.

On the otherhand, Tylenol with Codeine is legal over the counter, but a higher percentage doses of Codeine are controlled. Pretty much all pain relievers have do not drink alcohol and take these written on them too... it would be a stretch to ban alcohol or aspirin or outlaw drinking and popping pills beacues both have normal legal uses... on the other hand its something entirely different to produce a bottle of liquor with aspirin predissolved in it and market it to college kids? or sell a liquor + tylenol "party pack"?

I see the viewpoint of those who would seek to regulate / outlaw it, but I am one of those if you kill yourself so be it.

[Sarvis]

"Drinkers who consume alcohol mixed with energy drinks are 3 times more likely to binge drink (based on breath alcohol levels) than drinkers who do not report mixing alcohol with energy drinks.

Was there ever a more clear case of correlation != causation? Binge drinkers are more likely to drink anything, and jaegerbombs are a very popular shot... especially if you're drinking with some girls.

[Kindi]

"Drinkers who consume alcohol mixed with energy drinks are 3 times more likely to binge drink (based on breath alcohol levels) than drinkers who do not report mixing alcohol with energy drinks.

Was there ever a more clear case of correlation != causation? Binge drinkers are more likely to drink anything, and jaegerbombs are a very popular shot... especially if you're drinking with some girls.

i guess the difference is, i'm ok with saying that it's a bad thing to do, while also saying that we shouldn't ban it. i don't see a contradiction in thinking not all bad things should be banned, so i guess i don't have a need to attack the fact that it's bad.

[kiryan]

Good point sarvis.

I take great issue with your statement Kindi. Who determines what is good and bad? Government? Who decides which bad products are allowed to sold for profit and which ones aren't?

Whimsical standards for the exercise of power is a recipe for corruption. Why is mj illegal and alcohol legal? Why is talking on the phone illegal without handsfree when stats say you are almost exactly as distracted whether you are hands free or not? Why are you prevented from hiking mountain tops in some states without satelite transponders, but you are allowed to go down to a bar and drink 3 beers and get into your car?

Its all politics and politics occur because someone is going to exercise power to choose a winner and a loser. I can accept a ban on all alcohol much easier than I can accept a ban on caffeniated alcoholic drinks.

[Sarvis]

Good point sarvis.

I take great issue with your statement Kindi. Who determines what is good and bad? Government? Who decides which bad products are allowed to sold for profit and which ones aren't?

Whimsical standards for the exercise of power is a recipe for corruption. Why is mj illegal and alcohol legal? Why is talking on the phone illegal without handsfree when stats say you are almost exactly as distracted whether you are hands free or not? Why are you prevented from hiking mountain tops in some states without satelite transponders, but you are allowed to go down to a bar and drink 3 beers and get into your car?

Its all politics and politics occur because someone is going to exercise power to choose a winner and a loser. I can accept a ban on all alcohol much easier than I can accept a ban on caffeniated alcoholic drinks.

You forget that we are a representative democracy. Things are illegal because not enough people care to keep them legal. That's all there is to it. If enough people cared to make pot legal, it would be.

[Kindi]

I take great issue with your statement Kindi.

i guess you missed the 'not' in my statements since i typically capitalize it. how's this: i think they should NOT be banned. NOT all bad things should be banned. even if they are bad. like alcohol. it should NOT be banned. ok. you still strongly disagree with my statement?

[Teflor Lyorian]

Things are illegal because not enough people care to keep them legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Government should not be allowed to make any law it pleases, lest it creates outlaws of good people, and fail to preserve the liberty for which government is singularly tasked with protecting.

[Kindi]

i think that's what the constitution's for

[Sarvis]

Things are illegal because not enough people care to keep them legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Government should not be allowed to make any law it pleases, lest it creates outlaws of good people, and fail to preserve the liberty for which government is singularly tasked with protecting.

:roll:

The other option is tyranny of the minority, and humans have tried THAT throughout history. We have democracy, you can rename that tyranny of the majority if you want... but it's the preferable state. We have freedom of speech to convince the majority of what is right. It's not the fastest or most pleasant process, but it's what keeps us from ending up with ACTUAL tyrants.

[Ragorn]

On the otherhand, Tylenol with Codeine is legal over the counter, but a higher percentage doses of Codeine are controlled. Pretty much all pain relievers have do not drink alcohol and take these written on them too... it would be a stretch to ban alcohol or aspirin or outlaw drinking and popping pills beacues both have normal legal uses... on the other hand its something entirely different to produce a bottle of liquor with aspirin predissolved in it and market it to college kids? or sell a liquor + tylenol "party pack"?

Yeah, I think you're right. While 151 proof rum, caffeine pills, pseudoephedrine, and aspirin are all legal, I don't know that I'd support selling a product that mixes all four to get college kids fucked up as fast as possible.

One of the things I look to my government for is to regulate safety. I'm ok with car makers being required to include seat belts in cars. I'm ok with regulating electronics to ensure I don't get electricuted by my iPod. And so I'm ok with regulation of a product which poses a clear and present safety risk to its consumers. Who determines that? Yes, the government does... because I don't always have the means to make that determination myself.

[Corth]

As an adult human being, I appreciate it when someone gives me good advice and guidance. However, it bothers me when I am told that I'm not allowed to do something because I might harm myself. Being an adult human being, I think that decision is ultimately mine to make. As far as I'm concerned, you should put a warning label on the heroin - but you have no business telling me that I can't use it if I want to. Same thing with seatbelts.

[Ragorn]

As an adult human being, I appreciate it when someone gives me good advice and guidance. However, it bothers me when I am told that I'm not allowed to do something because I might harm myself. Being an adult human being, I think that decision is ultimately mine to make. As far as I'm concerned, you should put a warning label on the heroin - but you have no business telling me that I can't use it if I want to. Same thing with seatbelts.

As an adult human being, I'm glad I don't have to drive on the roads at night worrying that the guy coming at me in the oncoming lane might not have read the warning label on his syringe of heroin.

[kiryan]

I'm with Corth but your point is valid and the unfortunate result and the necessary consequence of having freedom.

The quote "I'm willing to die for your right to say that". Its amazing how many people are willing to fight for and die for freedom in the military, but no one is willing to die via drunk driver for freedom.

[Sarvis]

I'm somewhere between Rags and Corth on this one. I think in this case we're talking about someone simply using a product that they can, or should, know to use in moderation and it will be fine. On the other hand, sometimes industry does need to be told not to do something unsafe or people get hurt. But that's usually a case of simply manufacturing something unsafe or in unsanitary conditions that makes it inherently dangerous AND not obvious before using the product. For instance cheap wiring which could lead to fire, or not wearing gloves when preparing food. Actually my favorite example would be ice cream being sold in unwashed glass containers that spread tuberculosis... since the product and method of delivery were new people had no real way to protect themselves.

There's another line that gets crossed when using a product can put you in a position to hurt others, such as via drunk driving... HOWEVER drunk driving is the dangerous action, not the product. Trust me Rags, a college student who wants to get fucked up as fast as possible will do so... regardless of the existence of Joose or any other product on the market.

[Teflor Lyorian]

i think that's what the constitution's for

Exactly correct, it's just too bad the constitution's been circumvented by incredibly loose interpretations of the interstate commerce clause.

[Teflor Lyorian]

We have freedom of speech to convince the majority of what is right.

Oh yes, and if we put a sign that says "please don't steal my car," the majority of people won't steal it.

Government when working has a monopoly on violence. Violence isn't something you can take back. That's why it's called the _Tyranny_ of the majority.

You can roll your eyes at the concept, but feel free to understand that you are rolling your eyes at James Madison, Ben Franklin, and a number of the other founding fathers of the United States of America. Roll away.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Yeah, I think you're right. While 151 proof rum, caffeine pills, pseudoephedrine, and aspirin are all legal, I don't know that I'd support selling a product that mixes all four to get college kids fucked up as fast as possible.

But the real question is, do you support the violence of the government to enforce a prohibition of anyone doing so?

[Sarvis]

Government when working has a monopoly on violence.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No, they don't.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Government when working has a monopoly on violence.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No, they don't.

You don't really understand what the word monopoly means, do you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly Read more.

[Sarvis]

Government when working has a monopoly on violence.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No, they don't.

You don't really understand what the word monopoly means, do you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly Read more.

No, Monopoly is a board game where you buy and sell property.

Yes, that makes just as much sense as your rebuttal. What happened to the "new Teflor" exactly? You're back to the same old misdirection, ambiguity and trolling.

The government isn't a tyranny of the majority because they have an army. Hell, you're the one who told us we can beat tanks with a shovel. You're the one who thinks armed rebellion has a chance in this country.

You're arguing against yourself. Which is it, does the government have a monopoly on violence or can we take out all their military with some shovels?

All of which skirts the issue anyway, which is that the REAL power you have over government is the ability to sway peoples' opinion to elect representatives that will run government in the way you want it to.

Frankly, tyranny of the majority is a complete misnomer in this country anyway since we're run by a small number of representatives. So we still really have a tyranny of the minority, but we have the power to kick their asses out of office.

[Teflor Lyorian]

You really don't understand what a monopoly is. Seriously, read the article. Your mischaracterizations of me are false, just as an FYI.

[Sarvis]

You really don't understand what a monopoly is. Seriously, read the article.

I assume since you're stuck on that you're stymied on the actual shit we're talking about? I'll just count this as a win then.

[Teflor Lyorian]

You really don't understand what a monopoly is. Seriously, read the article.

I assume since you're stuck on that you're stymied on the actual shit we're talking about? I'll just count this as a win then.

Yes, you certainly just defeated Max Weber, Murray N. Rothchild, and President Barack Hussein Obama. Congratulations.

"what essentially sets a nation-state apart... a monopoly on violence."
-President Barack Hussein Obama

You win the internet, and America, Sarvis. Congratulations.

[Sarvis]

If only that actually had anything to do with what we're talking about. Fine, you win with your red herring that the government has a monopoly on violence.

We were actually talking about your retarded tyranny of the majority crap and government regulation of certain kinds of beverages. But you certainly proved the government has a monopoly on violence. Good job!

[Teflor Lyorian]

If only that actually had anything to do with what we're talking about. Fine, you win with your red herring that the government has a monopoly on violence.

We were actually talking about your retarded tyranny of the majority crap and government regulation of certain kinds of beverages. But you certainly proved the government has a monopoly on violence. Good job!

Actually, it was your red herring and I said you won. You quoted a supporting sentence from a statement about violence being hard to take back and why that the tyranny of the majority important.

Dude, it was your own red herring.

[Sarvis]

Nope, sorry Teflor. I said Freedom of Speech and you responded with monopoly on violence. Just look at the quote below. It was even YOU who said violence was hard to take back. You can't even get the last 3 hours straight, and we're supposed to believe anything you say about history, politics and government?

We have freedom of speech to convince the majority of what is right.

Oh yes, and if we put a sign that says "please don't steal my car," the majority of people won't steal it.

Government when working has a monopoly on violence. Violence isn't something you can take back. That's why it's called the _Tyranny_ of the majority.

You can roll your eyes at the concept, but feel free to understand that you are rolling your eyes at James Madison, Ben Franklin, and a number of the other founding fathers of the United States of America. Roll away.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Nope, sorry Teflor. I said Freedom of Speech and you responded with monopoly on violence. Just look at the quote below. It was even YOU who said violence was hard to take back. You can't even get the last 3 hours straight, and we're supposed to believe anything you say about history, politics and government?

You have clearly misread and did not understand what was said.

"You (sarvis) quoted (the verb) a supporting sentence (that I wrote) from a statement (that I also wrote) about violence being hard to take back and why that the tyranny of the majority important."

Let me be clear: you are the one that can't keep it straight.

Let me be even more clear:

You manufactured an argument about a supporting sentence to a statement I made about the tyranny of the majority - an important concept when talking about the majority.

[Sarvis]

Teflor, whatever. It doesn't matter. We were talking about government regulation. You brought in tyranny of the majority and we were talking about that. Then you switched things up to a monopoly on violence and tried to drop the rest. That was your red herring. Now you're forcing this into an argument about who said what. Another red herring.

There are 538 Senators and Congressmen that write the laws governing the 307,000,000+ citizens of the United States of America. That is NOT majority

Every one of those citizens has the protected right to speak to their representatives and affect the course of this country through voting. That is NOT a tyranny.

The government should regulate some things and not others.

But do go on about how the government holds a monopoly on violence. That's so very interesting and relevant to the debate!

[Teflor Lyorian]

*this post edited to be less offensive

We were talking about government regulation. You brought in tyranny of the majority and we were talking about that.

Most educated economists, scholars, philosophers, and anthropologists have developed an understanding that in a democracy GOVERNMENT REGULATION COMES FROM THE MAJORITY.

Then you switched things up to a monopoly on violence and tried to drop the rest.

I was explaining to you WHERE THE MAJORITY DERIVES ITS POWER.

Step 1) "We have freedom of speech to convince the majority of what is right." < you brought up the majority. this is where you initiated the issue as being important
Step 2) discussing the majority - the tyranny of the majority
Step 3) tyranny of the majority is largely due to the monopoly of violence, hence the mention to establish HOW the tyranny of the majority is important to the discussion of the majority

It's pretty damned clear that these are all connected and essential to the argument, particularly when I was ESTABLISHING that free speech alone is insufficient to the limitations of government where it regulates. But you've decided that somehow, none of this applies - but the fact and the truth in the matter is that it is all incredibly relevant.

That was your red herring. Now you're forcing this into an argument about who said what. Another red herring.

You created this argument, first by denying something you later admitted was true. Then by calling my related, relevant argument supporting my initial idea as being a red herring.

There are 538 Senators and Congressmen that write the laws governing the 307,000,000+ citizens of the United States of America. That is NOT majority

FYI, this is a red herring. The tyranny of the majority is a concept that is applied when discussing American politics by just about EVERY scholar and you're wrong to think that they're not right to do so. READ THE ARTICLE. This is not MY idea. This is THE idea that is discussed (not necessarily agreed upon, but acceptable as an idea or applicable concept) by the ENTIRE academic community.

Every one of those citizens has the protected right to speak to their representatives and affect the course of this country through voting. That is NOT a tyranny.

The government should regulate some things and not others.

But do go on about how the government holds a monopoly on violence. That's so very interesting and relevant to the debate!

Government must be limited, free speech in a democracy is NOT a sufficient limitation BECAUSE of the tyranny of the majority. They have that tyranny because government possess a monopoly of the violence. This is important because you don't want government to wield that violence just because most people agree. There have to be further protections!

THAT's the WHOLE FREAKIN ARGUMENT. NO RED HERRING.

[Kindi]

i like alcohol

[Teflor Lyorian]

i like alcohol

yup.

[Sarvis]

*this post edited to be less offensive

We were talking about government regulation. You brought in tyranny of the majority and we were talking about that.

Most educated economists, scholars, philosophers, and anthropologists have developed an understanding that in a democracy GOVERNMENT REGULATION COMES FROM THE MAJORITY.

Really? Then how did Prohibition happen?

Then you switched things up to a monopoly on violence and tried to drop the rest.

I was explaining to you WHERE THE MAJORITY DERIVES ITS POWER.
[/quote]

Even if that were true, your dropped the rest of the argument to focus on the monopoly of violence crap. And no, that is NOT where the majority derives it's power. In fact, the majority doesn't have any real power... because, as I know you've said before, we aren't in a pure democracy we are in a representative democracy. Representatives have the power. The 500+ people we elect to run things. NOT the majority. The majority can only influence things by talking and voting. They do not control anything.

Step 1) "We have freedom of speech to convince the majority of what is right." < you brought up the majority. this is where you initiated the issue as being important
Step 2) discussing the majority - the tyranny of the majority
Step 3) tyranny of the majority is largely due to the monopoly of violence, hence the mention to establish HOW the tyranny of the majority is important to the discussion of the majority

A minority of people, the government, controls the violence. Not the majority. Hell, with Bush he went to war without even congressional approval. Talk about tyranny? One single person with full control over whether we go to war or not? THAT'S tyranny.

It's pretty damned clear that these are all connected and essential to the argument, particularly when I was ESTABLISHING that free speech alone is insufficient to the limitations of government where it regulates. But you've decided that somehow, none of this applies - but the fact and the truth in the matter is that it is all incredibly relevant.

So connected that you dropped everything except for one single point?

You created this argument, first by denying something you later admitted was true. Then by calling my related, relevant argument supporting my initial idea as being a red herring.

I created this argument, yes. The author at the top is clearly me. YOU, however, are the one who brought in the idea of tyranny of the majority and monopoly of violence. Fine, discussions happen and topics change. But don't blame me for thinking you're just trolling if you stick on a single point and ignore everything else that was said. Which is exactly what you did. I posted a lot of stuff about tyranny of the majority and you just went into a two-year-old's tantrum of monopoly of violence. Great, I get it... the government has a "monopoly" of violence. You know, if you go by the strict literal definition instead of by how everyone understands the term. If you ignore the fact that we have the right to bear arms specifically so that we can fight against government violence. Whatever.

The point is that was a minor point and you switched up to make it the main point of your argument because you were slightly more technically correct. Congrats on proving one point that's so minor it doesn't even matter because the government is STILL a minority of the people.

FYI, this is a red herring. The tyranny of the majority is a concept that is applied when discussing American politics by just about EVERY scholar and you're wrong to think that they're not right to do so. READ THE ARTICLE. This is not MY idea. This is THE idea that is discussed (not necessarily agreed upon, but acceptable as an idea or applicable concept) by the ENTIRE academic community.

Good for you. What's your point? It's still inaccurate as all hell since we are NOT controlled by a majority. We are, as you say, a representative democracy and are actually controlled by about 500 people.

Government must be limited, free speech in a democracy is NOT a sufficient limitation

Never said it was, there are a lot of other bits to the constitution that protect us from over-reaching government. Freedom of Speech is damn important though, and one of the things that actually protects the minority from the majority. (Representatives instead of direct democracy are, in fact, another important protection from "mob rule.")

BECAUSE of the tyranny of the majority. They have that tyranny because government possess a monopoly of the violence. This is important because you don't want government to wield that violence just because most people agree. There have to be further protections!

In case you didn't notice during the Bush years, the government started a war when a very large portion of the population did not agree. Even when the representatives of the population did not agree.

That's the minority. Not the majority.

It works in reverse as well. Every single civilian in America could be calling for war and the President can just say no.

We do not have a tyranny of the majority.

THAT's the WHOLE FREAKIN ARGUMENT. NO RED HERRING.

Your whole freakin argument, then, is flawed.

Funny actually, since your "whole freakin argument" talked very little about "monopoly of violence," which is what I called the red herring, and a lot MORE about tyranny of the majority... which is what we were actually talking about. Almost as if I was right when I called the monopoly ploy a red herring.


THAT said, please explain why pot is illegal if we are under a tyranny of the majority? Why is drinking under 21 illegal?

These are all things that damn near everyone did at one time or another, and there generally aren't a lot of people you can find who think it should be illegal.

Not to mention lobbying, which is what I mentioned when I got into this topic. We've had THAT discussion before and you think corporations affecting laws is just fine. That, again, is a minority having a louder voice than the majority. For instance, of the people who support ethanol (enough to get some legislation passed to support it) MOST do NOT support using corn. Yet the government subsidizes corn based ethanol as opposed to other kinds. Perhaps because the corn lobby has loud enough of a voice to affect that legislation, even though they are actually the minority.

Now back to the actual topic at hand. Joose is something most Americans have probably not heard of at all, yet our legislators are attempting to ban it. If most Americans have not heard of it you certainly can't say the majority wants it banned, so how can you say the banning is a tyranny of the majority?

It isn't. It's the tyranny of a small group of legislators.

The minority.

If there's a flaw in this country it's that the voice of the People is not loud enough compared to the voices of corporations and special interests, or even of the legislators themselves.

Monopoly of violence has got jack shit to do with anything.

[kiryan]

Tyranny is not about how many people make the decision. Tyranny is about power and forcing your will on others against their will.

The fundamental concern of democracy is that the majority will get together and remove rights from the minority. That is what is known as "tyranny of the majority" and why the founders gave us a constitutional republic.

seriously.

[Sarvis]

wtf is a matter with you.

Tyranny is not about how many people make the decision. Tyranny is about power and forcing your will on others against their will.

The fundamental concern of democracy is that the majority will get together and remove rights from the minority. That is what is known as "tyranny of the majority" and why the founders gave us a constitutional republic.

seriously.

Are you addressing me or Teflor? I'm pointing out that we do not have a tyranny of the majority. Whether we have a tyranny or not is a different argument, but if we do it is not of the majority... of that I'm certain.

[kiryan]

Someone was questioning how much caffeine was in the drinks vs redbull etc... 1 can of 4loko is apparently 4x the caffeine of a redbull and 1/5th the alcohol. Sounds inaccurate to me... you're comparing a 8.3 ounce can of redbull to a 24 oz can of 4loko (33 oz?). if you drank 3 cans of redbull with 3 shots of vodka its pretty much the same thing... not quite the same thing, but pretty damn close.

http://www.latimes.com/health/os-caffei ... ory?page=2

One 8.3-ounce can of Red Bull contains 80 milligrams of caffeine. By contrast, a 12-ounce serving of Coke contains 34 milligrams of caffeine. Four Loko contains about 260 milligrams of caffeine in each can.

"Comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges because the alcohol content of a Red Bull plus vodka is only about one-fourth or one-fifth of what is found in a Four Loko," Goldberger said. "And Red Bull doesn't really contain that much caffeine. You'd have to drink three Red Bulls to get the same caffeine you'd find in an alcoholic energy drink. There's a big difference."

---

The real difference is a can of 4loko at $3 bucks will barely buy you a can of redbull without the alcohol. There is probably a valid public health issue here if it can cause 10% of people to blackout after 1 can... but it could probably be "solved" just by selling 4loko in smaller cans...

I read somethign that inferred this was classism... and I almost agree... almost like crack offenses being 20x stiffer than cocaine. Poor college kids drink 4loko, rich bar hoppers do jager and redbull.

yea smaller cans would be a good compromise that wouldn't require a bunch of bs regulation and arbitrary bans that favor some manufactuers over others.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Are you addressing me or Teflor? < really?

I'm dropping this pissing contest because others that have read this thread have understood my argument and considered the premise of it to be valid. I don't understand where you are going with the boy who cried red herring routine, so I'm just going to have to let this one go, sorry. Will revisit if it seems productive later.

[Sarvis]

Are you addressing me or Teflor? < really?

I'm dropping this pissing contest because others that have read this thread have understood my argument and considered the premise of it to be valid. I don't understand where you are going with the boy who cried red herring routine, so I'm just going to have to let this one go, sorry. Will revisit if it seems productive later.

Your argument that we have a tyranny of the majority?

Yeah, I'm sure lots of people are backing you on that.

[Ragorn]

Jesus you guys post a lot. Seriously, go outside.

[Kindi]

Jesus you guys post a lot. Seriously, go outside.

i have a sprained ankle and it's cold out

[Sarvis]

Jesus you guys post a lot. Seriously, go outside.

My boss would love that! At least if I'm on here it looks like I'm working... ;)

Plus it's cold out.

[Corth]

As an adult human being, I appreciate it when someone gives me good advice and guidance. However, it bothers me when I am told that I'm not allowed to do something because I might harm myself. Being an adult human being, I think that decision is ultimately mine to make. As far as I'm concerned, you should put a warning label on the heroin - but you have no business telling me that I can't use it if I want to. Same thing with seatbelts.

As an adult human being, I'm glad I don't have to drive on the roads at night worrying that the guy coming at me in the oncoming lane might not have read the warning label on his syringe of heroin.

I didn't say that people should be allowed to drive under the influence. As far as I'm concerned you can beef up those statutes. Throw 'em in jail for 10 years on a first offense. Nobody should be allowed to put other people's lives in danger. But what business does the government have if someone shoots up in the safety and privacy of a private home?

And what about seatbelts? Unless you are prepared to argue that bodies being ejected from vehicles cause an undue risk towards pedestrians, I don't exactly see how you can say that failing to wear a seatbelt harms anyone but the person making that poor decision. Well, there is the social healthcare cost argument. But then you should outlaw stuff like coffee and donuts and salt as well. And mountainclimbing.

[Sarvis]

As an adult human being, I appreciate it when someone gives me good advice and guidance. However, it bothers me when I am told that I'm not allowed to do something because I might harm myself. Being an adult human being, I think that decision is ultimately mine to make. As far as I'm concerned, you should put a warning label on the heroin - but you have no business telling me that I can't use it if I want to. Same thing with seatbelts.

As an adult human being, I'm glad I don't have to drive on the roads at night worrying that the guy coming at me in the oncoming lane might not have read the warning label on his syringe of heroin.

I didn't say that people should be allowed to drive under the influence. As far as I'm concerned you can beef up those statutes. Throw 'em in jail for 10 years on a first offense. Nobody should be allowed to put other people's lives in danger. But what business does the government have if someone shoots up in the safety and privacy of a private home?

And what about seatbelts? Unless you are prepared to argue that bodies being ejected from vehicles cause an undue risk towards pedestrians, I don't exactly see how you can say that failing to wear a seatbelt harms anyone but the person making that poor decision. Well, there is the social healthcare cost argument. But then you should outlaw stuff like coffee and donuts and salt as well. And mountainclimbing.

Actually seatbelts help you maintain better control of the car in certain situations. Essentially the seatbelt holds you in place, whereas without it you might be flung into another seat... so in a spinout situation or something you're actually more dangerous towards other drivers without a seatbelt on because you might not stay in your seat.

Maybe not a spinout specifically, but I know I've heard that as a reason for using seatbelts beyond just the actual effects of an accident.



In other news, I'm having some Joose right now. Not that great tasting, but I do feel pretty buzzed after only a few sips. (I did have some rum earlier...)

More research on the way!