Front Page  »  

California considers ban on caffeinated alcohol beverages

July 12, 2011

If you like caffeine with your beer, you’ll have to mix them yourself. [San Mateo Daily Journal]

The California Assembly moved to prohibit the sale and production of popular energy drinks such as Joose and Four Loko, which are laced with alcohol and caffeine and have been popular with young, college-age drinkers.

The Assembly approved the ban in a 43-24 vote. The bill, SB39, passed the Senate in April, which will now reconsider the changes made by the Assembly before it goes on to the governor.

Specifically, the bill would ban the import, production, distribution or retail of alcoholic beverages with caffeine added to them. Nearly half a dozen states have passed similar bills.

The added caffeine in these drinks “masks the effects of the high alcohol content, which can lead to binge drinking and dangerous behavior,” said Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, who sponsored the bill.

Opponents note that college students under 21 are already breaking the law, and argue that no one is trying to ban Irish coffee, which also combines alcohol and caffeine.

It doesn’t matter what your alcoholic beverage of choice, “if you drink enough of it you’re going to pass out, said Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton. “Is this really something that needs a state law?”

Federal regulators are also reviewing the safety and marketing practices of beverage makers that combine the two ingredients.


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


50 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Government doing what government does best, making crimes

more fines more fees more court costs more permits more reasons to say they

need more ……………


0

Bailey’s and coffee…makes life worth living. My, my…what will they regulate next.


0

Does this mean no more Irish coffee?

It doesn’t matter what the state does. Outlaw caffeine/alcohol drinks if you want. Kids will just pop some Vivarin and chug-a-lug whiskey.

The government needs to realize that it can’t save people from themselves.


0

Great points paperboys…

The government has tried to regulate everything and look how that has worked out. People grow up and make informed choices for themselves, no one is making them drink this stuff.


0

In most (not all) cases it’s worked out well (govt. regulation). Our food, cars, meds, planes, homes etc. are safe because regulation. Many lives are saved due to the standards that our govt. has set.


There appears to be this new right wing phenomenon that’s evolved over the last decade. It’s this militia attitude that the right has embraced. It’s like they want to go backwards to the old west or like third world countries with lynch mobs, few laws and people dying younger due to a lack of good medical care. That’s not progress and hopefully enough people are smart enough not to let our country go down like this. I miss the old days when our country used innovation and intelligence to be more advanced than most other countires.


0

Our food is NOT safer due to regulation, it is because of expensive regulation that causes a great deal of people to become sick from factory farming. When was the last time you heard of thousands of cases of e-coli sickness from a farmers market?

http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/Everything-Is-Illegal1esp03.htm


0

The person on your link wants to slaughter his own beef and sell it without regulation. Ewww, who would know what they are getting. At least we can find out what we are eating. Of course when we’re feeding millions of people bad things will happen. All it takes is a wild pig to poo on some crops to cause e coli, it can’t be 100% protected but I feel that over all they do a pretty good job. So you think without regulation that some farmers wouldn’t use even stronger substances than they already do to help get rid of the bugs, you don’t think some ranchers wouldn’t use even more steroids than they already do to plump up thier livestock. It’s been reported that food from China has melamine, mercury, lead and probably other toxic substances in it. You wouldn’t mind if those things were in our food? You wouldn’t mind eating in a restaurant that doesn’t have to keep their food at safe temps and store thier food in clean storage rooms? I wouldn’t like the idea of eating meat that wasn’t butchered in a clean environment, are they all clean, no but over all they do a pretty good job a regulating them. I like being able to read the ingredients in my childrens cereal so I know what they are eating. I”m not saying that sometimes things don’t get past the inspectors, that there aren’t some scrupulous manufacturers and farmers out there but if you consider how many people actually get sick and how good our food supply is it could be much much worse. The last time I was in Cabo (quite awhile ago) the OPEN sewers were running from the restaurant bathrooms in ditches behind the restaurants, right behind some of the kitchens. I like being able to go to the health dept. website and being able to see what was found in my fav. restaurants (I’ll never eat at Vallartes in Pismo again). Are there issues with our food, yes, they use too many chemicals, steroids, dyes etc. and there’s a lot of room for improvement but over all I’d rather have some regulation than none.


0

If you took the time to read the article you would find that slaughtering his grass fed beef on his own ranch is far safer than the government regulated abattoirs, why? Because he has integrity and that is something you can not regulate. Have you ever been to a factory slaughterhouse? I think you might be singing a new toon if you did. Bottom line is that we have to TRUST that our food providers don’t want to poison us even the factory/government regulated suppliers are only barely inspected, they pack stuff closely together and cross contamination is common, yet you feel safer eating a burger from Wall Mart than a Steak supplied by a farmer that you can meet, talk too, go to their farm and see for yourself how the food is handled. I’m sorry to break this to you but the FDA is not necessarily primarily looking out for your benefit, follow the money, it leads the mega conglomerate farming and paid lobbyist.


0

“It’s been reported that food from China has melamine, mercury, lead and probably other toxic substances in it. You wouldn’t mind if those things were in our food?”

Yes, that’s my point exactly and that stuff got here under the “purview” of Federal regulation, so again I ask, How is onerous regulation of regional food providers insuring a safe food supply?


0

But they didn’t those substances here. I believe it was melamine that the tried to pass off in our dog food and I believe in some human food as well. But they were caught due to our regulation. If there wasn’t any regulation they we’d be eating that stuff but we’re not.


0

Personally I have mixed views on this. I would like to know more statistics before I make a judgement. These drinks are geared towards younger people. Have they died from them, if so how many? Are they causing an influx that’s clogging up our ERs? Are the rates of alcoholism increasing due to these drinks? Are there more car accidents because of these drinks? If not then it’s none of my business and the people that drink them are entitled to drink them (if over 21). If they are causing issues that have a negative impact on the rest of us then by all means get rid of them if not then the govt. needs to step out of this.


0

Personally, I don’t think the government should regulate everything on Earth regardless if it causes some problems with some people. Personal responsibility.


0

Remember when everyone thought it was no big deal that the tobacco companies used cartoons to sell their product? Adults wanted the government to back off. Until they realized that the cartoons were specifically targeted to children so they would smoke young and get hooked = long term customer. Remember when everyone thought banning smoking in restaraunts was none of the government’s business? Until studies showed that second-hand smoke was more harmful than smoking. In other words, nonsmokers were hurt more than those smoking. Everyone is now enjoying the smell and taste of the foods they purchase. Remember when…everyone wanted the rights to FREE SPEACH but it didn’t take rocket scientists to realize that your right to yell, “Fire!” in a crowded theatre when there was no fire, was not a right worth protecting because it harmed others.


Now, we have a multitude of drinking drivers who are killing and maiming almost everyone but themselves because they are rubbery when drunk and bounce around, while to rest of them stiffen up at impending doom and are doomed.


These drinks are aimed toward children. I don’t care of those children have pubes, have sex, sign contracts at 18 years of age, can get married at 18 and sometimes younger. I don’t want these youngsters who don’t know their limit, don’t have much judgment in the first place, drinking these drinks that mask the effects of alcohol, drinking and driving and hurting YOU or me, or your kids, or your relatives driving to see you, or you neighbors and friends and coworkers who share the roads, soberly.


I am behind this law and hope you will be too.


0

Nope, I would be for banning advertising, but banning something that is easily concocted (jolt cola and 151) Will do nothing to stop the problem. You would have to ban caffeine drinks and alcohol. And what about coffee infused stout beer? Prohibition almost never works.


0

There wasn’t so much use of caffeinated drinking prior to the production of these drinks so I don’t believe that there would as much consumption if they stopped producing them. Yes, some people would continue to mix them up but they wouldn’t use them as much as they do now. As I said, if there is an accurate study that shows that these drinks are dangerous to the general public then they should be banned, if not then they shouldn’t. I don’t trust the alcohol companies to be honest about the effects of these drinks and I’m sure they’re out in force telling us how safe they are. For all of the anti law group, why regulate anything? I suppose you feel that any age of drinking should be okay, no seat belts are okay, smoking at any age is fine, speed limits take away our freedom etc.. Most laws are there for a reason, to financially and physically protect the rest of us.


0

Straw man arguments, you hold up examples that don’t fit the reality. Like you said, no definitive study, and honestly i don’t think there ever could be one, your supposition that use of a caffeinated drink mixed with alcohol would decrease is a mear opinion. I say banning advertising would have a far greater effect, also an opinion. and as far as regulation of personal choices, I’m against almost all of them.


0

You might be right but I don’t believe that you are (regarding decrease sales if outlawed). I disagree that my argument doesn’t hold up. I’m all for regulation that protect the general public. Drunk driving kills thousands of people every year so I’m for laws that ban drunk driving. Just as if we made caffeinated alcohol drinks against the law some people would still drink them just as some still drink and drive. But there are a few people that follow laws and realize that laws are good for us. It might be your personal choice to drink and drive but it’s my personal choice to be safe from you. There are few laws that don’t make sense to me. Yes there are a handful but for the most part they are basic common sense, something that many people lack.


I also disagree that there couldn’t be a definitive study. How many DUIs were ticketed (and accidents) while on caffeinated alcohol drinks (CAD) as opposed to those drunk drivers that weren’t? How many people are admitted with alcohol poisoning/OD into the ERs that were on CADs as opposed to just alcohol? How many crimes are committed while using CADs as opposed to those that are just on alcohol? All of those issues along with others can be measured.


This is something that needs to be looked into further. I’m not saying that these drinks need to be outlawed, but at this point they do need to studied.


0

And it may be someones personal choice to consume these (IMO horrible tasting) drinks in a moderate fashion in their own homes, Now that is a personal choice that doesn’t effect your sense of safety in the least. Just like being able to grow some MJ in your own backyard and smoke it before bed, just like brewing beer used to be illegal in your own home (Thank you Jimmy Carter for canning that stupid law)

Again, prohibitions don’t work, if you want to change society for your preconceived “better” then passing laws trying to obtain that is the last thing that should be done.

If anything the utter failure of the “war” on drugs should have taught us something, but no the definition of insanity just keeps getting proven over and over.


0

Comparing this to the war on drugs is apples and oranges. No one said that you would get arrested if you mix your speed drinks with your booze. They are simply saying that the manufacturing for sale of it might be outlawed. I’m not even sure that I’m for that, I really don’t know if it’s warranted. As I said, I don’t have enough info to make an honest opinion on this. I simply say that there should be more research on the subject. You are right, if people are using these drinks in moderation at their homes then yes they shouldn’t be against the law. But I don’t know if that’s the case. What IF there are more car accidents by people that are on these drinks? What if people are getting alcohol poisoning from them? If people are dying more because of them is that okay with you?


0

Most laws ARE there for a reason, under the guise to “protect”…it’s called control. Someday, even you will see the reality.


0

danika danika danika. So are you against the DUI laws? Are you against these laws: Minors/smoking, minors/drinking, rape, incest, theft, speeding and all traffic laws, burning down your neighbor’s house, destruction of public property, bank robbery? I am really curious, are you against all of them, if not which ones? This must mean that you are for abortion rights and gay marriage. That’s an honest question, I am curious as to which laws are you against? It isn’t a matter of me liking govt. control (laws) it’s that we need these laws to protect society and to protect our rights, you are the one that is out of step with reality. When a crime is committed and reported here, you are one of the first ones here that is saying (in other words) hang em from the highest tree. Are you just for vigilante justice? As I said, we have laws for a reason and MOST laws ARE there for GOOD reasons. Really danika, I would love to see a list of laws that you are against. I only hope it doesn’t take as long as Obama’s ‘non’ lies that you finely came up with.


0

I can’t figure out why people think tobacco is addictive. I smoked 3-5 packs a day for 54 years and stopped smoking in one second. Been off of them since May of 2010. Hardest part of stopping is not having anymore. Stopping is easy damnit! Just stop! Bunch of kissees can’t stop without help. You’re wasting your money by paying others to help poor you to stop doing something that you know is not good for you. I have to admit I love being around people that smoke. They are enjoying life to the fullest as far as I’m concerned. Plus it smells good. Pay me your money and I will take your cigs away and force you to stop. Honest it’s really easy to stop if you want to.


0

Try the 5 hour energy Berry flavor mixed with good vodka. Yum…yum; let’s go.


0

Stop wasting time on this and start fixing the economy. Ecourage business, Stop discouraging it! We have enough laws in California, I can make my own decision on what I drink.


0

As sad as it sounds I’d rather have the lying leftist scum that runs California work on nonsense like this rather then ‘fix’ the economy. Their idea of ‘fixing’ causes more problems than solutions. We should have a 6 week per year legislative session and pay them $10k per year. A part time legislature where they would need other employment would be vastly superior to the full time problem causing fascist cabal we have now.


0

“… the lying leftist scum…”


Hate much?


0

As a competitive adenosine antagonist, caffeine affects dopamine transmission and has been reported to worsen psychosis in people with schizophrenia and to cause psychosis in otherwise healthy people. We report of case of apparent chronic caffeine-induced psychosis characterized by delusions and paranoia in a 47-year-old man with high caffeine intake. The psychosis resolved within 7 weeks after lowering caffeine intake without use of antipsychotic medication. Clinicians might consider the possibility of caffeinism when evaluating chronic psychosis.


0

The problem is the decisions you make after you drink. This combination of drugs is making the drinker unable to make good decisions as too much alcohol does, but keeps them physically feeling good to take action on their bad decisions. This is exactly society’s business and a reason to be in your face.


0

There are already enough laws on the books making even being in public when intoxicated a crime, This one is simply a feel-good effort that will accomplish virtually nothing. mixing caffeine with alcohol has been going on forever and will continue to go on regardless.

If you really want to lower the effect of these drinks on younger people, start giving them away to seniors, Instant uncool.


0

From the United States Food and Drug Administration:


http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2010/ucm234109.htm


This pretty well explains it.


0

Alcohol is not safe. Caffein is not safe. Hamburgers are not safe. Driving a car is not safe. walking your dog is not safe. WHERE DOES IT STOP?


0

We should all wear helmets and live in fallout shelters…


…maybe some of us do? ;-)


0

You are not going to kill me by eating too many hamburgers. This history of innocent people being killed at the hands of others because of excessive alcohol consumption is indisputable. Scapegoat, you must be able to see the difference here? People who drink to the point of being drunk can not be trusted to make their own decisions when it comes to alcohol consumption. What other purpose does this combination of alcohol and caffeine serve?


0

Agree! That’s why some laws are good, like drinking and driving is illegal. But, when government controls what I do in my own home and my own body….not cool. I sound like a conservative, which I am mostly not, but these nonsence laws are annoying.


0

Caffeine-induced psychosis


0

Why is walking your dog not safe? Same question with hamburgers and caffein? Boy, I’m not going to let you pick out what I need to stop doing daily. (Just kidding). I am in a smart-ass mood.


0

Your posts are making more sense then anyone else’s knee jerk responses on this topic. Their nasty responses to this make me appreciate govt. oversight. Your link makes good sense but it still doesn’t show any stats. It says that the speedy stuff makes drinks stronger, makes people not realize how buzzed they are and those are good points but do those drinks cause more accidents or any other problems that effect the overall good/safety of the general public? If it is just that they make drinks stronger and get people more buzzed without the drinker knowing it then perhaps more warning labels/education would be more in line.


0

I apologize for the typos…I am angry about this!


0

If the people of this state cannot see this as another example of government intrustion, there is no hope. Again, if you put the term “safety” on ANYTHING, people will accept it. Why not just ban any alcoholic beverages? Could be the very people who voted this in to law drink alcohol daily….food, or in this case, drink for thought…


0

Is that any worse than denying vouchers and poo-poo’ing private schools while in office, yet sending one’s own kids anywhere but the public cessschool. (I just made that word up…)


Often people who pass these silly overly-controlling laws do not want to abide by them themselves. Heck, they have no problem telling us all how to live, what to eat, what not to eat, etc. But try telling THEM how to live, and you’d be written off as a nut, or branded whatever the current ideologically-driven name is this week.


This really brings a moral quandary for us: we know that those who serve are really the bottom-of-the-barrel people, and often are so despised that most people want them replaced. Unfortunately, anyone worth anything or with any decency is often heading in the opposite direction of “running for office” – I mean, who would run for office? A sleaze ball. Always a sleaze ball.


What to do, oh what to do…


0

How does that have anything to do with school vouchers? You can send your kid to any private school you want but I’m not going to pay for you to segregate your kids. In spite of lack of funding public schools are still very good. The school voucher program is a terrible idea.


0

You can be a low-income pregnant woman and have an abortion…but I don’t want to pay for it.


You can sneak into my country and give birth to 3 anchor babies…but I don’t want to pay to educate, clothe, and feed them.


You can choose to shoot heroin…but I don’t want to pay for your needle exchange program.


You can choose to join a gang and get all tatted up…but I don’t want to pay for a laser tattoo removal program.


You can refuse to work at an entry-level job while looking for something “better”…but I don’t want to pay for you to max out your 30+ weeks of unemployment insurance.


AND if I want to use an incandescent bulb, feed some ducks in SLO, let my kid ride his bike without a helmet, NOT install a carbon monoxide detector…or, God forbid–DRINK A FLIPPIN’ CAFFEINATED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE….I should be free to do so!


My taxes–income, property, vehicle, sales, gasoline, etc–are paying for a bunch of other crazy government programs I don’t approve of so at least let me buy a Four Loko if I so choose!


0

“….I don’t want to pay…”


“My taxes–income, property, vehicle, sales, gasoline, etc–are paying for a bunch of other crazy government programs”


How funny,,,and yet you want ME to pay for you to segregate your kid.


0

Once again, you’re wrong. Nowhere in my post did I say I wanted YOU to pay for anything that I or my children have or do. Liberals like yourself look at government and expect something. I do not.


0

I agree with you completely other than the abortions. I would like to pay people not to have an abortion. Give them up for adoption. At least you won’t be butchering some poor little child. God Bless the babies.


0

Actually I believe in paying for anchor babies also. Sorry I forgot all about those poor starving babies. Shame on me.


0

Sorry but I invented that word in 1954. Please ask for permission before you use Cessschool again. And the C is always in capitals.


0
1 2