[quote]Were Coke and Pepsi "banned" before they ever set their sites on schools? Would keeping them out of schools drastically cut the companies' payroll jobs? With large-scale goals as the one below their profit margin can't hinge on school vending machines:[/quote]

Please don't twist my words. I was referring to the suggestions made in this topic that we completely ban caffeine consumption by those under 18.

[quote]Profits made by aggressive marketing techniques are harder to quantify. Coke and Pepsi are shelling out millions over years for exclusive advertising rights. The consumer--formerly called "students"--sales made at vending machines and cafeterias may not offset the cost of the contract. The company has to consider this possibility and make conservative adjustments in their return on investment estimates.

One way for the company to increase its chances of turning a profit is applying pressure on schools after the contract is signed. Would you have a problem with this?:[/quote]

Who wouldn't have a problem with stuff like this? But is the solution banning the product from the schools or over-site by those that elect the school board that controls the schools? Seems to me, if a school enters into a contract with Coke or Pepsi, or whomever and that contract adversely affects the school then the school officials should be held accountable.

[quote]One problem with caffeine is that it increases the excretion of calcium in urine. Drinking 12 ounces of caffeine-containing soft drink causes the loss of about 20 milligrams of calcium, or two percent of the U.S. RDA (or Daily Value). That loss, compounded by the relatively low calcium intake in girls who are heavy consumers of soda pop, may increase the risk of osteoporosis.[/quote]

Interesting, this problem would appear to be limited to those that consume "Heavy" amounts of soda and only have a "low intake" of calcium.

What about moderate soda drinkers? The kids that have milk with breakfast? etc?

[quote]Caffeine can cause nervousness, irritability, sleeplessness, and rapid heart beat. Caffeine causes children who normally do not consume much caffeine to be restless and fidgety, develop headaches, and have difficulty going to sleep. Also, caffeine's addictiveness may keep people hooked on soft drinks (or other caffeine-containing beverages). One reflection of the drug's addictiveness is that when children age six to 12 stop consuming caffeine, they suffer withdrawal symptoms that impair their attention span and performance.[/quote]

Interesting how this source picks and chooses the health concerns. the first one listed was for "Heavy Consumers", this one is for "children who do not consume much caffeine".

[quote]Swiss scientists studying caffeine’s effects in a small group of people report markedly elevated blood pressure and increased nervous system activity when occasional coffee drinkers drank a triple espresso, regardless of whether or not it contained caffeine.  Surprisingly, people who drank coffee on a regular basis showed increased stimulation of sympathetic nerve pathways – but no increase in blood pressure.[/quote] -- AHA on Swiss study

[quote]Many studies have been done to see if there's a direct link between caffeine, coffee drinking and coronary heart disease. The results are conflicting. This may be due to the way the studies were done and confounding dietary factors. However, moderate coffee drinking (1-2 cups per day) doesn't seem to be harmful.[/quote] -- American Heart Association

Seems to me the problem with caffeine and kids, as with most things in this country is excess use and a failure of parents to monitor and control their kids intake. It is so much easier to blame Coke then to consider the fact that if your failure to monitor and control you children is the issue.

Excess use is the problem here. So, should we ban Alcohol all together because SOME people choose to drink it in excess and then do something stupid under it's effects like start a fight or drive a car? Or should we hold the fool who drank too much accountable?

Should we ban cars from those under 18 because some kids choose to drive at excessive speeds and make crazy maneuvers that frequently result in injury or death? Or should we just hold the kid responsible for his / her choices made behind the wheel?

[quote]Several additives used in soft drinks cause occasional allergic reactions. Yellow 5 dye causes asthma, hives, and a runny nose. A natural red coloring, cochineal (and its close relative carmine), causes life-threatening reactions. Dyes can cause hyperactivity in sensitive children...[/quote]

OK, so we should ban soft drinks now because some people have allergic reactions to them? Then we should ban peanuts, flowers, and anything else some people have allergic reactions to as well? Or could we just suggest to those that have these reactions stop using the products that they reacted negatively to?

[quote]Several additives in soft drinks raise health concerns. Caffeine, a mildly addictive stimulant drug, is present in most cola and "pepper" drinks, as well as some orange sodas and other products. Caffeine's addictiveness may be one reason why six of the seven most popular soft drinks contain caffeine. Caffeine-free colas are available, but account for only about 5% of colas made by Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola. On the other hand, Coca-Cola and other companies have begun marketing soft drinks, such as Surge, Josta, and Jolt, with 30% to 60% more caffeine than Coke and Pepsi...[/quote]

[quote]Caffeine-habituated individuals can experience "caffeine withdrawal" 12 to 24 hours after the last dose of caffeine. It resolves within 24-48 hours. The most prominent symptom is headache. They can also feel anxiety, fatigue, drowsiness and depression.[/quote] -- American Heart Association

Not quite as debilitating as some would have us believe. As I have expressed earlier in this topic I was forced to give up caffeine for almost two months when I was deployed. The effects were gone in just a few days and I typically consume 2-3 POTS of strong coffee a day.

Also, as it says, Caffeine free versions are available but account for only 5% of the sales. That is because people CHOOSE the caffeine version because that is what they like.

Every high school student has to take at least 1/4 of a year in a health class. When I was in school each quarter focused on something different. My freshman year health quarter focused on nutrition. Kids are educated on the issues, they choose to ignore them, just like their parents and other adults.

Rather then accept the fact that people will make the wrong choices in their lives on occasion we are suggesting that we take away their choices. Once again, big brother to the rescue. Thanks but no thanks.

[quote]The major companies target children aggressively (though, to their credit, they have not gone after 4-year-olds by advertising on Saturday-morning television). Pepsi advertises on Channel One, a daily news program shown in 12,000 schools. Companies inculcate brand loyalties in children and boost consumption by paying school districts and others for exclusive marketing agreements. For instance, Dr Pepper paid the Grapevine-Colleyville, Texas, School District $3.45 million for a ten-year contract (it includes rooftop advertising to reach passengers in planes landing at the nearby Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport). To reach youths after school, Coca-Cola is paying $60 million over ten years to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America for exclusive marketing rights in more than 2,000 clubs.[/quote]

Environmental PACs make coloring books available to kids. Should they be banned? We are a FREE society (mostly), people are free to say or do what they choose as long as it is legal. Please, leave people to their choices, and the consequences of those choices. It is their right as Americans.

It was the leadership of these organizations that choose to sign these deals. I guess the money from them did nothing for the kids right?

[quote]-- Liquid Candy[/quote]

Nice "non-biased" source there.

Heres on Recommended by both the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association: IFIC.org


[quote]I couldn't find the percentage of school vending machines that carry caffeine-free drinks. I'm curious to know. Arguably less addictive, caffeine-free soda's prospects to turn profits seems less likely and gives companies fewer incentives to make them available to kids. [/quote]

There is no reason not to make them available. A sale is a sale. The companies make these products because they do in fact sell, those at less volume then the caffeinated variety.

What about all of the soda machine you see everywhere that have water in them? The companies will provide anything that will sell, even plain old bottled water.

[quote]You could argue free economy, unemployment, corporate welfare, parents give kids money to spend in the first place, but none of the defenses addresses why schools are starved for funding and have to pimp soda to stay on operating target.[/quote]

Well, first of all, where / when I went to school the money from these machine went into a school fund that supported clubs and other non-sports activities. It appears that these days schools have found a founding source in the soft drink companies. My answer: SO? Is the money benefiting the schools? Yes. Are the schools not full of educators who could educate the children on nutrition? If they choose to push soda rather then educate kids are they not neglecting their duties at educators? Should they not be held accountable for that choice? And who has the ultimate say in all this? The voter.

Don't like soda contracts and teachers being asked to push soda in schools, well bring it up at the school board meeting. Oh you don't go to those? Well start. If you bring it up and they don't address it to your satisfaction then vote the members out. What? you couldn't do that because the other candidates are from that evil (fill in political biased here) party? Then you are not just part of the problem, you are the problem.

Personal responsiblity people. I know it is a lost concept but if America is ever going to stop it slow decent towards destruction we as people, as Parents, and as Professionals are going to have remember what those words mean.

[quote]why schools are starved for funding and have to pimp soda to stay on operating target. [/quote]

Why are the schools starving for funds? We keep increasing the money they get and they keep starving. It couldn't possibly be mis-management could it?

Before I twist your words again and write a lengthy post... are you saying you have no problem removing vending machines from the grounds? Because you cannot realistically expect parents to "monitor and control their kid's intake" the 5+ hours they're in school daily. Giving kids a soda for lunch is not the problem. Similarly John Doe's Quicki-Mart around the corner is another matter, but schools shouldn't circumvent a parent's right (that goes hand in hand with responsibility) to decide if their child can have access to sodas on public property funded with property taxes.


What's wrong with parents coming together and pressuring towns/cities to ban sodas from schools?


I prefer holding them accountable to their choices. On the other hand... issuing licenses to drink caffeine is one symbolic way Suzy with her pigtails can let the world know the 12oz Mountain Dew in her hand ain' nothin' but uh thang.


You could very well be right. It could very well be mismanagement. How about we stop pressuring schools to continue operating on budgets that don't take rising costs and inflation into account, come to accept the painful reality that we may have to raise taxes and/or cut back programs, stop relying on short-term solutions to long-term problems, fire incompetents and call a spade a spade?

So much for a short post.

No I don't have a problem with this. On an INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. Let the various school districts come up with their own policies concerning these machines.

If it was my schools district I would oppose it, but I would support the other parents right to fight for it.



No, but I do expect parents to teach their kids and instill values in them. Not all kids will get it, some will do as they please but the big problem we have with kids in society these days is the unwillingness of so many parents to do the WORK of parenting at all.



This is where society runs into trouble. Are you suggesting that parents should not be held responsible for the actions of their children unless their children are within their sight?



So then without this license, You wouldn't feel that Suzy was responsible for choosing a dew over a bottle of water from the vending machine?

Similarly, a kid who does not have a license who chooses to get behind the wheel of a car and try to drive it resulting in injuries and property damage would not be responsible? And since his parents didn't see him committing this act they are not responsible for the damages either?




Inflation?? when have we had that in the last 10 years? Rising costs, Well lets see, what is the largest rising cost facing schools? the Payroll. And with kids test scores dropping every year can we really justify these pay raises?

How about we do as you suggest, fire incompetents. Oh wait, can't do that with teachers, theres the NEA in the way there.

When will we start putting our kids first over politics? Start a testing program for teachers, if they can't pass then they can't teach until they take a course and can pass. And they do not get paid until they can teach again. Result based pay incentives. Your students not cutting it, no more money for you. Your kids excelling, well then we are happen to bump your pay, you deserve it.

From the teachers side we need a law protecting them from ridiculous law suits. We need to return to the reform school system. If kids are so out of line that they are disrupting the class so that others can't learn they need to be gone. If they are so bold that they scare the teachers, resulting in poor education to the other kids then they need to be gone.

Weapons in school, assault and battery, drug dealing, off you go.

This whole concept of having to save every kid is resulting in tearing the education of all the kids apart. Want to save the troubled kids? put those grand efforts into the reform school, but give the kids that want to learn a fighting chance to do so.

We need laws limiting damages that schools can be sued for. In CA an 18 year old made a million manipulating the stock market through the internet. He was caught and convicted and had to give all the money back. Because of his conviction the school kicked him off the baseball team. The kid is suing the school for 50 million saying they are denying him the chance at a pro career by not allowing him to play. Now the school will surely win the suit but at what cost for their legal defense?

We need tort reform that requires the loosers to pay the winners legal fees. That will cut down dramatically on these ridiculous law suits and allow institutions like schools to keep the money they would otherwise pay to lawyers to spend on the needs of the kids.

There are FAR MORE greater concerns with public education then caffeine.

What a great topic! I just love coffee, and I especially love my new espresso machine. I stopped buying robusta beans and have progressed on to shade-grown arabica beans which are considered by many, to be superior to robustas. A friend and I are seriously considering starting a coffee-shop of our own, we're looking into machines and bean suppliers(all "fair trade" of course)

1.)I don't believe that there should be warning labels. Anything in excess of moderation will hurt you. Whether it's coffee, carrots, or cigars It is up to the individual to monitor their own intake and make a rational judgement as to what they can and cannot handle. I have a problem with the article given, it seems a little "out there" to me and contains too many generalizations, as well as little regard for other studies about coffee, most specifically:

*Coffee has 4 times the cancer fighting good guys known as anti-oxidants.

*moderate coffee consumption reduces the risk of colon cancer by 25%

* " " gallstones by 45%

* " " cirrhosis of the liver by 80%

* 25% redicution of asthma attacks
http://www.coffeereview.com/reference.cfm?ID=122

2.)I do believe that the production of drinks like "Jolt" and the like should be restricted. Though once again, a part of me says-let the parents deal with it. Not everyone is the same and different people handle different levels of caffeine.

Well, I love my caffeinated sodas. Yes, I'm very well aware that they're "harmful" for me, but I still drink, on average, three to four a day (and that can go to five when I have nothing better to do during the summer). It's not that I'm addicted to caffeine-- I CAN GIVE IT UP WHENEVER I WANT . Ahem. Well, I did manage to drop caffeine for Lent, and it went very well (of course I kicked myself the day Lent began when I realized that "caffeine" included chocolate). It's not that I have a "thing" for caffeine or anything (all right, all right... I have caffeinated cinnamons on hand right now), but I do love the taste of soft drinks. I mean, juice is acceptable, but there is something about soft drinks that's just so great. Mmmm. Anyway, on to this:

Should the public, at large, be made aware (through advertisments and
warning labels) of the health risks associated with the consumption of caffeine?

Certainly; we make people aware of the harmful side effects of everything else. I do think we should start a "Moderation is the Chief Good" campaign. Perhaps people need to be made aware that anything, yes anything, in excess will kill you. People act like they're all surprised that eating McDonalds all the time will make them fat-- it's because you eat McDonalds all the time! Common sense is better than all the warnings in the world.

Should children (under 18) be allowed to purchase/consume caffeinated
beverages, if caffeine has indeed been proven highly addictive and harmful?

I would burn the Capitol down personally if they took away my soft drinks. Banning caffeine will have the same effect on stopping kids from drinking Cokes, etc. as Prohibition did for stopping alcohol consumption. Of course they should be allowed to purchase soft drinks. All we need is another product to start a war on ("President Bush today announced a beginning of the War on Caffeine, part of the War on Drugs."). I don't think the risks of caffeine are nearly as high alcohol, marijuana, or nicotine.

O.S.,

I just wanted to update you on my "condition". It has been over a month
since I gave up coffee. For the first 2 1/2 weeks I was fatigued to the point
that I had to take a nap each afternoon. Towards the end of the 3rd week
I started to feel my energy level going up, and I was not irritable and
depressed. So, kicking the habit is not necessarily a 4 day thing. In fact,
I know people who have suffered greater withdrawal than I did.

It is obviously unrealistic to think we could ban the sale of caffeinated soda
to minors. That would not go over well with the soft drink companies
or the regulatory agencies who give them such favorable regulations.

The point I hope to make is that companies such as Coca Cola are in the
business of getting kids hooked on their products. They know that caffeine
is highly addictive, as is sugar. Yet, they are not required to acknowledge
that in the simplest way (i.e. a message on the side of the can that says
the product has tons of sugar/caffeine, and may make children hyper, etc.)

You have spent the better part of this thread rallying on the side of
such companies. You even went to so far as to downplay the dangers
of aspartame.

Yes!! Parents are ultimately the ones responsible for what their children are
consuming. But, Coca Cola and McDonald's (just to name a couple who
specifically target children) should not be allowed carte blanche in their
greedy quests to get our kids hooked on CRAP!

Apples, Oranges, Bananas, etc. They all contain large amounts of sugar. Should we stamp warning labels on all of these fruits to ensure that the public is aware of the potential of getting hooked on these sugar ridden items?

To me, it would be more beneficial to do that then to put warning labels on caffeine drinks. EVERYONE knows caffeine is bad for you, but most people see the above fruits as totally good for you with no possible problems (outside of allergies).

People can become addicted to biting their fingernails, porno websites, chewing gum, avoiding cracks on the side walk (love ya Mom ) etc. Shall we put warning labels on everything? Or should we assume that every human being is reasonably intelligent enough and intuitive enough to realize when they are doing something in excess? If they choose to ignore that fact, how will a new education campaign help the situation when they have ignored all the others to date?




No, I have been rallying to the side of the poor. People like myself have very limited budgets. Every time someone decides to start a new regulation to "protect me", "for my own good", etc it cost me money as the higher costs these regulations create get passed on to me (either in an increase i the costs of goods, or an increase in taxes to keep it simple). Furthermore, these regulations cost jobs which limit my opportunities in America. I rally to the support of the average American who is tired of being over taxed by the hidden costs of the Elite Protectionist would seek to limit our freedom and choices in life in the name of "protecting" us. If this "protection" continues my family will eventually starve to death.

If by downplay you mean I suggested that the studies on aspartame need to be fully examined and repeated to avoid the same mistakes made in the Sacarin <sp?> scare then I guess I did.

You on the other hand present links to obviously biased sites (Liquid Candy for example) as facts and ignore all the links presented from the AMA, FDA, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, etc that do not support the ideas about Caffeine.



Theres the magic "but". It seems to me that most of America would prefer to blame all of their ills on someone else, and the big mean evil corporations are frequent targets. So many people would slap so many controls on industry to "protect us" without any regard for how the sudden increase in the cost of goods, or the sudden reduction in jobs would effect us (the poor in America).

All of the warnings are already out there. Unless you don't own a TV (and more poor Americans have Cable then telephones) you cannot possibly live in America and not know that Caffeine, Fatty Foods, Sugar, etc in EXCESS is bad for you.

The important fact is that it is only in EXCESS that these things are bad and moderation in all things is the key to a healthy long life. People CHOOSE to do all sorts of things to EXCESS. The vast majority choose EXCESS even in the face of all the education they already have on the subject. To suggest that more education is the solution, when all previous attempts have failed is to be blind to the reality of how Americans live.

Those that don't know, or refuse to acknowledge history are doomed to repeat it (pun intentionally left).

Overlandsailor - there is a big difference between natural sugar (found
in fruit) and refined sugar (found in soda). If you knew anything about
nutrition you would understand that.



Oh really? Did you survey every human being on the planet?



What are you, a fruit-hating, soft-drink loving guy??


Thank you for sharing your vices with A.D.



In this thread we are discussing caffeine. Not everything.



You are assuming way too much, for starters. Secondly, helping to make
the public, at large, more aware of the hidden dangers, is a good thing.



Whose fault is it that you live on a limited budget? Aren't you the one responsible
for your income level? And, are you saying that if you were rich you would
support such public awareness proposals?



Are you aware of the fact that the FDA is a regulatory agency that is
bought and sold by big business. If you think, for one minute, they are making
regulations that are in the best interest of the general public, and not the
big businesses who are ultimately their bread and butter, you are naive.




When a product is directly targeted to kids, and that product is a horrible
one, YES, I will fight to make that company become accountable.



Here are some statistics re: soda pop

Americans drink more soda pop than ever before:
These popular beverages account for more than a quarter of all drinks consumed in the United States.

More than 15 billion gallons were sold in 2000. That works out to at
least one 12-ounce can per day for every man, woman and child.

Fifty-six percent of 8-year-olds down soft drinks daily, and a third of
teenage boys drink at least three cans of soda pop per day.

Not only are soft drinks widely available everywhere, from fast food restaurants
to video stores, they're now sold in 60 percent of all public and private middle
schools and high schools nationwide, according to the National Soft Drink
Association. A few schools are even giving away soft drinks to students who buy
school lunches

[quote]Overlandsailor - there is a big difference between natural sugar (found
in fruit) and refined sugar (found in soda). If you knew anything about
nutrition you would understand that. [/quote]

People can become addicted to natural sugar as easily as refined sugar, and they can become addicted to all sorts of behavior as I tried to point out earlier. Natural sugar can just as easily rot your teeth among other things. So my question stands, should we put warning labels on these fruits to protect the public?

[quote][quote]EVERYONE knows caffeine is bad for you [/quote]

[quote]Oh really? Did you survey every human being on the planet? [/quote][/quote]

What does the planet have to do with it. You're suggesting in this thread that America has to act to ban soft drinks from minors and created additional education programs to warn Americas of the evils of soft drinks.

[quote]Shall we put warning labels on everything? [/quote]

[quote]In this thread we are discussing caffeine. Not everything.[/quote]

And I was responding to that by illustrating the flaws in your logic, as I see them. It is a reasonable point. And one you did not choose to answer.

[quote]You are assuming way too much, for starters. Secondly, helping to make
the public, at large, more aware of the hidden dangers, is a good thing.[/quote]

It is not a good thing if it increases the costs of goods, and costs jobs, making life even harder for the poor when there is no evidence to suggest that American's would pay any more attention to it then they do to the 100s of other sources of information already out there, be it in school nutrition classes, hand outs form doctors or the never ending series of "this will kill you" stories on the nightly news.

You seem to assume all Americans are so stupid that without your help they would never survive. It is really a shame that you have such a low opinion of people.

[quote]Whose fault is it that you live on a limited budget? Aren't you the one responsible for your income level? And, are you saying that if you were rich you would support such public awareness proposals?[/quote]

Mostly it's my fault, as I have made choices for my family that have limited my income potential. However, I would be able to live much better on my low income if people would stop adding hidden costs to the goods and services I buy by enacting all manors of regulation to protect me from myself and evil corporate America.

[quote]Are you aware of the fact that the FDA is a regulatory agency that is
bought and sold by big business. If you think, for one minute, they are making
regulations that are in the best interest of the general public, and not the
big businesses who are ultimately their bread and butter, you are naive.[/quote]

OK, so for the sake of discussion lets say you're right. What about the AMA, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, etc. Are they all in bed with Evil Corporate America too?

[quote]When a product is directly targeted to kids, and that product is a horrible
one, YES, I will fight to make that company become accountable.[/quote]

And the only proof you have offered on how "horrible" Caffeine is comes from biased sources. Can you point to a credible study that clearly states that caffeine is so horribly harmful?

THen you belittle the concept that every regulation that is placed on industry harms Americans because of the increased costs of good and services as well and the decrease in jobs. Corporate America NEVER pays for these things, or taxes for that matter, out of their own pocket. The costs are always passed on to consumers and labor.


[quote]Americans drink more soda pop than ever before:
These popular beverages account for more than a quarter of all drinks consumed in the United States.

More than 15 billion gallons were sold in 2000. That works out to at
least one 12-ounce can per day for every man, woman and child.

Fifty-six percent of 8-year-olds down soft drinks daily, and a third of
teenage boys drink at least three cans of soda pop per day.

Not only are soft drinks widely available everywhere, from fast food restaurants
to video stores, they're now sold in 60 percent of all public and private middle
schools and high schools nationwide, according to the National Soft Drink
Association. A few schools are even giving away soft drinks to students who buy
school lunches [/quote]

And again I ask. Why is the answer to this extreme government intervention? Why must my purchasing power as a working poor American be further reduced? How will education programs, considering all the nutritional education already in schools possibly going to change any of this?

Although we are not discussing everything here, we are discussing the idea of labeling things that are bad for our health and wellness. Doomed Planet, why not lable Twinkies or any other candy? They're obviously bad for us in excess. And while were at it we labile things that have high fat content too; like bacon. "CAUTION: INGESTING THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF THIS PACKAGE MAY CAUSE ATRERIAL DAMAGE. HEALTH PROBLEMS MAY ENSUE." There's just a point when trying to help people doesn't accomplish much.

The other idea I'd like to mention is that education doesn't necessarily change decision making. Think of people who smoke. If you ask someone who smokes if they know it damages your health you'll probably get a yes followed by a glare. Now I know that the campaigns against cigarettes have cased a lot of people to not take it up, but I also know many people who went through the same classes and began smoking after these educational programs. So basically just because one is educated doesn't mean their choices will change.

Also I think that people view caffeine in a different light than nicotine. I believe they see it as harmless or very mildly addictive. So if there was some sort of educational campaign then it might be even less affective because caffein related health problems aren't the kind that makes news or worries people in todays society.

I'm in full agreement with Overland Sailor on this. The question boils down to-who is ultimately responsible for what happens to people? I would agree that the answer is-the people themselves! The reason why we have fat kids and people who overindulge in everything, from chocolate, to coffee, to alcohol, to drugs is because of the lack of training their own parents provided. Everyone knows that these things aren't good for them, but people are ultimately responsible for themselves and the children that they bring into this world. If we continue on this pace, what won't have warning labels? Is there anything that could be carried out in excess that won't hurt you? Even drinking too much water will kill you. Should we put labels on every bottle of Dasani to point out such a demise? We have crossed the line between normal, healthy lifestyle activism, and have crossed the boundary line into paternalistic, "big brother knows better than you" kind of society. The "warning labels" that we have for every product is called parents.

I agree with you. However, soft drink products are specifically targeted
to young people. They run ads that show young people who are skinny,
happy, popular, etc. all because they down these caffeine, sugar, toxin-
filled products. How nice it would be if our children could really get such
great benefits from a can of soda. All I'm saying is that the companies
make money hand-over-fist. They make BILLIONS of dollars off of
our kids. Why NOT be truthful about the effects of the drugs they
are dealing? Let them foot the bill for the warning labels and other
ad campaigns. Sure, they'll pass the cost onto the consumer, but
maybe the consumer will think twice before buying, or at the very
least, buy less of the product.



You know many people who went through what sort of "programs"? I'm
curious about that. And, after one is educated, and he makes a bad choice,
then that's on him. I do not believe that people really understand or know
just how bad soda is (for kids and adults). Overlandsailor seems to
think it's all well and good to down aspartame-filled pop. People have been
mislead by soft drink companies, and those companies need to be held
accountable.



Yep. Well, caffeine is a drug. I learned over the past month or so just how
hard a drug it is to "kick". And, to allow such a drug to be pedaled to minors,
with no repercussions, is unacceptable.

I've never once viewed an ad that said I or my child would be skinny, happy, popular, or whatever because they drank soda. I have seen ads that show people having fun, or doing funny thinks where that product being sold is also in use. Just like ads for cars, games, tools and even trash bags.



And when the sales drop, they reduce production and as a result lay people off what will you say to them? Sorry, but we had to force another education program for people, epecially children to ignore. Remember to eat healthy, oh wait, can't afford to do that anymore can you? Why is it so unreasonable to ask that we analysis the costs vs. the benefits of ideas like this?



All I said was that we need to analysis the studies and do more to insure they are correct so that we don't make the same mistakes we have made in the past with things like sacarin. Seems reasonable to me. But, I guess twisting my words and insulting my character are reasonable debate tactics in your eyes. After all, you're doing this "for the children" right?

Oh really, is that why you began "experimenting" with soda pop and became "addicted"? You truly believed that you would become "skinny. happy, and popular", just by drinking their product? It's all about the stupidity of the people... Right?



Oh, I get it now... It's really about the evils of Capitalism. Those big evil companies are making money off "our" kids (whose kids?). Perhaps the government should ban these evil companies (and their jobs/tax revenue) and then raise taxes on the rest of us and create a National not-for-profit soda pop agency that could distribute (free of charge) an acceptable (by you of course) amount of soda pop to each citizen after they attend and graduate the American Caffiene Academy. This could advance both your Communist agenda and your sincere health concerns simultaneously.



Actually, it is acceptable! (To all but you and a tiny minority). It's also legal! And best of all, even if you ever did succeed in creating the Caffiene Regulation/Prohibition Act, we would all still be able to get our "dope". After all, look how well the attempts at regulating/prohibiting alcohol and drugs has worked...

I don't think drugs and alcohol should be sold in vending machines at school either, even though it would probably make someone money, and perhaps create new jobs.

It's a subliminal message, OS......... In the commercials they should
show the sudden bursts of short-term, artificial energy that the soda gives,
followed by the depleted, wiped-out feeling that follows, which subsequently
leads them to opening up another can, because, hey, who wants such a great "high" to end?!!



Oppression of workers:
Coca-Cola are (in)famous for brutally and actively fighting unions on their
factories, and in the countries in which they're established.........In America,
Coca-Cola has also been accused of racial bias

Coca-cola really values its black employees.

Necessity is the mother of invention. These companies are very
resourceful. They'll invent another product to entice the masses with.
Perhaps the next product could actually have a little nutritional value.



If you really want to learn the truth about aspartame, read this whole research article.
It should clarify the whole issue for you.


Argonaut


It would behoove you to read the whole thread (or at least the first post) which
states that I was addicted to coffee, another caffeinated beverage.



Actually, it's about the deception of soft drink companies.



Ah yes. I now remember you - the "herb-lovin'" almost 40 year-old-guy.
Congrats on the pot-addiction!! Is soda another item you are proud to indulge in
on a daily basis?

In regards to other items that are "bad" for kids, such as twinkies, cupckakes,
etc. : Those items are not pushed, marketed, pedaled, you-name-it, every-
which-way-but-loose. Soft drink consumption has become an epidemic in
America (and elsewhere too).

So then the Car ads that show people having a wonderful time on a country drive in the SUV, but ignore the almost visibly dropping gas gauge, not to mention the typical accident rates should be banned as well?

What about the ads for health food stores or gyms that only show skinny happy people? It suggests (based on your logic) that simply by going there you will magically transform into these sexy people. No mention of how hard the work is, how you need to have the drive do it day in day out forever to achieve and maintain you goals.

What about the milk ads? They only show happy people with funny little mustaches. Must we ban them for failing to warn us of the fat in milk, not to mention those who might be allergic?











I tried to ignore the attacks made against me, and now they are made on others as well. It is a shame this debate was dragged down to the level of personal barbs and could not remain adult. It's a real shame, but it is typical behavior of those who believe they know what's best and must protect us all from ourselves.

I for one, will not waste my time any longer on trying to pull this topic back up from the childish level some insist on dragging down too. I am simply too old to put up with this such juvenile silliness. Have fun, try not to get sand in anyone's eye.

Jaime and Fellow-Debaters,

My apologies for my sarcastic remarks. I did not
take into consideration other people's sensitivities.
It won't happen again.

Yes the public should be made aware of the health problems. People under 18 should not be allowed to consume caffeine due to its health problems.

Does that mean that we will now accuse parents of child abuse if they allow their child to drink coke, pepsi or any other drink with caffeine in it? All I will say, if the government wants to tell me how to raise my child, then they can take FULL RESPONSIBLITY for said child.

Oh come on! The government also tells you that you have to educate your child, be it at home or in a school. The government tells you that nobody is allowed to have sex with the child until they reach a certain age.

These are just two examples. Neither of these are in defined as rights that are inherent to the child - they are parental responsibilities dictated by government. This does not mean that the government has total responsibility for the child, does it?

In other words, the government already tells you certain things about how to raise your child. Have you already taken your kids to the nearest Federal building and dumped them there, or do you accept only the government "interference" that doesn't rile you?

I'm not saying that the government should classify Pepsi as child abuse - just pointing out that the reason why they shouldn't has little to do with libertarianism.

These health risks don't look all that bad. No worse than meat or sucrose, really.

Just thought that I would add some more findings, I found the link and immediately thought of this thread.


link

The record is very different when it comes to decaf coffee. They weren't able to replicate the same liver cancer findings when it came to decaf. But decaf coffee does have it's own strength, more specifically:


Caffeine and coffee are good for you!.

Okay, how can such a claim be verified? Did the study last 30 years, and
they compared those "2-cups-of-coffee-per-day" drinkers to others who didn't
drink coffee? There is a big problem with statistics such as this. They are
absurd.

I would venture to say that many people can probably go through life,
drinking 2 cups of coffee a day and lead healthy lives. It's really all about
moderation. Though, I have found more side effects associated with the
consumption of caffeine, as opposed to health benefits. That's why I've been
off coffee for over 8 months, and I will not be returning to the habit that
was detrimental to my own health. For those who enjoy it, and have no
problems, CHEERS!

P.S. Cute kids!!!

You know what? Life is a terminal illness. 100% death rate. It's just a question of how long you want to live and how much you want to enjoy it.

There is plenty of information out there so that people know what's bad for them. Yet some people decide, you know what, I don't care, I like the soda high, the soda taste. Is it YOUR job to tell them, sorry, no, that's not good for you. How much of a parent should government be? And don't you fear that a government, beholden to business as much as consumer rights lobbies, will not do it's parenting job in full faith?

Better to have a educated consumers deciding for themselves what balance they are willing to accept between health and enjoyment.

Want to protect the children? Get together with parents and get your local school to stop selling coke and candy in school. That's educated consumerism. Teach your kids how to critically view commericals. That's educated consumerism. Want to help society? Donate to a consumer information program that advertises the bad effects of caffeine.

Personally I believe that the benefits of caffeine far outweight the costs.

I find that drinking loads of caffeine lets me think and speak roughly 1000 times faster than otherwise. Yeehaaaaaaaaah.



If there are serious and proven health risks, then surely the existing laws you have would cover the issue of labelling and allowing minors to consume it. Why single out caffeine for special treatment? It should be treated by the same standard as any other beverage.

This is an excellent point, which I think puts this whole issue in proper perspective. To support any type of labeling/ban on caffeine, one would equally have to support the same ban/restrictions on meat/sugar. Are we really ready for the government to mandate that all of us become vegetarian? The health benefits of this are well documented...the question is who is responsible for making the decision. There is already plenty of information out there on the health issues of caffeine, and any other substance. Anyone interested can research and make a determination for themselves. Why do we need the government involvement? Where exactly should this involvement stop? Stressful jobs are bad for you too (which is why we drink all that caffeine, isn't it?). Should the government then mandate that we all quit our jobs? All sorts of sticky questions come up when government is stuck into issues it doesn't need to be involved in. As OS suggested some posts earlier...government overinvolvement is far more hazardous to us than caffeine. At some point, people need to take responsibility for their own actions and choices. We simply don't need Big Brother's help on this one. As Pudrik suggests:



Given these means of addressing the problem, what do we gain from governmental involvement (besides freedom from responsibility and action)? The answer to this, of course, depends on which side of the political spectrum you fall on...do you want government involvement, or not. However, I think Pudrik examples point out the advantages of resolving such issues locally. The question isn't is caffeine bad for kids...the question is who is better able to look after your children, the government, or you?