• Middlebury College Bans Energy Drinks, Linking Use to Alcohol, 'High-Risk' Sex
    131 replies, posted
So a place that raises stress substantially and may limit the amount of sleep you can get (especially if working) wants to make to harder to access drinks that can help you stay awake for class. Oh and also it makes you rape people..? Makes sense :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875236]Did I say the government should stop them? No, I didn't. So take your false equivalency somewhere else. The entire point is that they are not doing what the students want. They are attempting to compel the students to stop doing something that they want because the students aren't responsible enough to take care of themselves. Big daddy university feels that it needs to take action to save the students from their own choices.[/QUOTE] Holy fucking shit dude you realize students pay to go there, and that the college is privately owned, right?
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49882861]They're awful for anyone who drinks them, they have no place in this world of health[/QUOTE] So if energy drinks are awful, what about coffee? It seems like a somewhat hypocritical double-standard to turn a blind eye when a lot of coffee has just as much caffeine and sugar as, if not more than, energy drinks.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49882861]They're awful for anyone who drinks them, they have no place in this world of health[/QUOTE] Most energy drinks are just moderate doses of caffeine in what is essentially soda, a redbull is no worse for you than drinking an unsweetened coffee and a can of coke.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49882861]They're awful for anyone who drinks them, they have no place in this world of health[/QUOTE] Well good, the World of Health sounds pretty lame theme park.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49880922]So a place that raises stress substantially and may limit the amount of sleep you can get (especially if working) wants to make to harder to access drinks that can help you stay awake for class. Oh and also it makes you rape people..? Makes sense :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] did you read the article where the hell does it even say "energy drinks make you rape"? did you even think before writing this dumb shit
[QUOTE=axelord157;49875191]I anticipated this reponse from you or somebody else. If you read the article, you'd learned that the school doesn't want to be responsible for selling shit that has been scientifically proven over and over again to wreck your body. The college ISN'T BANNING the consumption of energy drinks. The college IS BANNING THEIR SALE of energy drinks. Their students can still get energy drinks from other sources.[/QUOTE] Better ban literally any snack that's not organic celery because it [I]literally wrecks your body[/I]. Oh wait, the ground where we grow Celery is full of pesticides that can also [I]literally wreck your body[/I]. Better ban all sales of food on college grounds.
I believe the point here is that the university wants to set a precedent that energy drinks are unhealthy and should be prohibited. They aren't trying to ban energy drinks, they know students will buy them anyway, but removing convenience of sale is going to reduce overall sales among the student population. People are free to make whatever choices they want, but some of those choices are unhealthy and sometimes people are nudged to make unhealthy choices through extensive advertising and lack of information. Anyone of age is able to smoke cigarettes, but no one is going to argue that they are healthy. Should universities sell cigarettes? After all, this would give students more freedom of choice. But that would be unhealthy, and set a bad precedent for future students. A lot of people in university (including myself) are impressionable young adults who don't have a lot of experience in the world at all, and doing something like prohibiting the sale of energy drinks promotes commentary and thought on how they affect someone's body.
Energy drinks really are terrible for you. It's not right to straight up ban their sale, in my opinion if someone wants to pay to put garbage in their body they should have that right. But they really are awful. I quit soda and energy drinks, and moved to tea and cold-pressed juices. I feel much better overall. That is, I used to slam back energy drinks. I've explored alternatives to get me through the day without feeling like shit and they work.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49884609]Yeah, coffee is awful too. It's like smoking, you're getting an addiction for the sake of relieving that addiction. [/quote] Did you know that it is possible to use caffeine responsibly [quote] Or, you know, we could just stop at energy drinks[/QUOTE] But what separates the drinks from the rest? Energy drinks are just as unhealthy as soda and coffee, let alone that processed "food" that most people put into their bodies. The thing is, we let people eat that crap because it's their choice.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;49885222]Energy drinks really are terrible for you. It's not right to straight up ban their sale, in my opinion if someone wants to pay to put garbage in their body they should have that right. But they really are awful. I quit soda and energy drinks, and moved to tea and cold-pressed juices. I feel much better overall. That is, I used to slam back energy drinks. I've explored alternatives to get me through the day without feeling like shit and they work.[/QUOTE] Man that sounds great, but I have such a weird fucking addiction to energy drinks I feel like I'm starting to understand how smoking addicts work. If I don't have one, within 12 hours I get a crippling migraine and shut down. I'm trying to quit slowly, instead of having a 16 oz energy drink I'll have a 12 ounce can of coke or something with a little caffeine in it. It sort of works, but then I just have really bad cravings.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;49886170]Man that sounds great, but I have such a weird fucking addiction to energy drinks I feel like I'm starting to understand how smoking addicts work. If I don't have one, within 12 hours I get a crippling migraine and shut down. I'm trying to quit slowly, instead of having a 16 oz energy drink I'll have a 12 ounce can of coke or something with a little caffeine in it. It sort of works, but then I just have really bad cravings.[/QUOTE] Switch to something with caffeine that isn't sweet, like unsweetened green tea.
Sgman, your arguing against something you yourself would usually hold up as a good thing The freedom for a business to make it's own decisions. That's [B]all[/B] this is. And you're lambasting them for daring to do so, calling it "Nanny state". When a private company does something like decide to change what they sell for a reason besides pure profit, you're not okay with it? That makes no sense if you care about "free market" at all
What even is "High-risk sexual activity"? Having sex whilst sky-diving? Or whilst diving in a shark cage? Because crap like that is about all I could see an energy drink habit contributing to.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;49886330]What even is "High-risk sexual activity"? Having sex whilst sky-diving? Or whilst diving in a shark cage? Because crap like that is about all I could see an energy drink habit contributing to.[/QUOTE] It probably has more to do with alcohol + energy drinks, which can cause you to black out easier and make impulsive decisions. I know this first hand because of back when four loco was a legal thing.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;49886537]It probably has more to do with alcohol + energy drinks, which can cause you to black out easier and make impulsive decisions. I know this first hand because of back when four loco was a legal thing.[/QUOTE] Also alcohol + massive amounts of caffeine wreck your heart, the combination of uppers and downers isn't good
[QUOTE=Sableye;49886733]Also alcohol + massive amounts of caffeine wreck your heart, the combination of uppers and downers isn't good[/QUOTE] Yeah, it makes you have panic attacks and anger issues and all around anxiety.
The biggest hazard I see with it is that mixing caffeine and alcohol can become extremely dangerous when you binge on the combination, much more so than either one separately.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49875205]That changes nothing. It's a legal drink and students should be allowed to make their own choice on whether to buy it. The campus store is there to provide a service to the students, not tell them what's good for them. (and that doesn't even include the private sales from franchised locations on campus)[/QUOTE] Are you saying that the state should intervene to tell a private college to sell energy drinks?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49886301]Sgman, your arguing against something you yourself would usually hold up as a good thing The freedom for a business to make it's own decisions. That's [B]all[/B] this is. And you're lambasting them for daring to do so, calling it "Nanny state". When a private company does something like decide to change what they sell for a reason besides pure profit, you're not okay with it? That makes no sense if you care about "free market" at all[/QUOTE] 1) Like I've said at least 4 times now, I have never said that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. I'm all for legally letting private business run their business freely, but that doesn't make all their decisions good. 2) Give me an alternate example and I'll happily comment to show consistency. It is good to note that this university example isn't quite as clear cut because, I assume, the students don't go to that university in order to buy from the store. In effect there's an extremely small profit motive when it comes to this university store, therefore making it more similar to a government action then a private business action. (I know technically it's a private business, but the motive and thinking behind is much more in line with some authoritative group that doesn't have to worry about failing against competition). I feel that this makes the nanny-state claim applicable.
People can just drive/walk to a gas station and buy energy drinks anyways, the college just wants to appear more healthy and promote good student habits.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49887376] It is good to note that this university example isn't quite as clear cut because, I assume, the students don't go to that university in order to buy from the store. In effect there's an extremely small profit motive when it comes to this university store, therefore making it more similar to a government action then a private business action. (I know technically it's a private business, but the motive and thinking behind is much more in line with some authoritative group that doesn't have to worry about failing against competition). I feel that this makes the nanny-state claim applicable.[/QUOTE] Let's be honest, you didn't read the article properly, thought it was a state college or that there was some government intervention, and when proved wrong, you have started back-pedalling. It's okay, we all make mistakes sometimes.
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49887587]Let's be honest, you didn't read the article properly, thought it was a state college or that there was some government intervention, and when proved wrong, you have started back-pedalling. It's okay, we all make mistakes sometimes.[/QUOTE] What? I knew it was a private college from the beginning. Unlike some others, I try to actually read the article before posting.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49887589]What? I knew it was a private college from the beginning. Unlike some others, I try to actually read the article before posting.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sgman91;49875127]Mmm, gotta love some good ol' nanny state.[/QUOTE] So what was that then?
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49887735]So what was that then?[/QUOTE] Like I explained just a few posts ago, the thinking presented by the university is that of a nanny-state. In order to clear up the confusion I tried to use the term 'paternalistic' later in the discussion because I was obviously not clear enough in my first couple posts. At this point you're just arguing semantics. Just to make it easy I'll fully admit that it was a poor choice of terms.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49887795]Like I explained just a few posts ago, the thinking presented by the university is that of a nanny-state. In order to clear up the confusion I tried to use the term 'paternalistic' later in the discussion because I was obviously not clear enough in my first couple posts. At this point you're just arguing semantics.[/QUOTE] Nanny-state interference and a private entity making a decision without government interference are literally opposite events. If this really is a genuine mix-up, don't go blaming others when your ability to express your viewpoint failed, not the other person's reading.
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49887822]Nanny-state interference and a private entity making a decision without government interference are literally opposite events. If this really is a genuine mix-up, don't go blaming others when your ability to express your viewpoint failed, not the other person's reading.[/QUOTE] You're contributing nothing to the conversation. Do you have something to add beyond personal attacks and pointless semantics? I've explained the point multiple times throughout the thread. If people are too lazy to read a couple pages and instead get stuck on a single word, then that's their problem.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49877096]Let me phrase it like this: Let's say there's a guy that needs to make a choice. He has a choice of higher utility and one of lower utility. Would you say that he ought to take the one of higher utility or just that you, personally, would take the one of higher utility? Or in other words, is he doing anything wrong by taking the path of lower utility? Please don't feel rushed to answer tonight.[/QUOTE] Ah I see what you mean now. I thought you meant "personal" and "own" in the general sense. Broadly speaking, I think the best action for anyone to take is the one that maximises total utility (that is, utility for oneself as well as utility for all others). But it’s not necessary to take this action (more on this later). It’s also complicated by the fact that sometimes (indeed often), utility to oneself often comes at the cost of utility to others. Two examples come to mind. Smoking makes me happy, but second-hand smoke makes others unhappy. Stealing makes me happy, but it obviously makes the victims of theft unhappy. Yet we allow smoking in society (to some extent at least) but prohibit stealing. Why is this? There seems to me to be a spectrum of "wrongness”: in some situations, negative utility to others can be tolerated, but in others it cannot. Society thus collectively draws a line at certain actions, implying that actions that cross this line produce enough negative utility that the positive utility of the action is cancelled out. This produces a societal concept of "right" and "wrong", and "wrong" actions become those that are specifically prohibited by law. Unfortunately this presents a difficulty: if someone values freedom of choice very highly, their view of what is the highest utility choice will be different from that of someone who values societal good more. In other words, “right” or “wrong” may vary from person to person depending on how much they value their own well-being. Perhaps there’s some sort of “buffer zone” where net utility may be negative for some but positive for others, but we err on the side of caution and allow such things anyway. One such situation that comes to mind is the consumption of alcohol, where family members of alcoholics experience great negative effects from it, but many others derive much enjoyment from it, so we allow it (with some restrictions). This still seems very fluffy to me and I don’t quite know how to resolve this yet so I will have to sit on it. To answer your question proper, I don’t think that someone is necessarily doing something wrong by choosing a non-ideal action, unless that action leads to significant harm to others. Of course this is very situational: smoking indoors in the presence of an asthmatic is probably wrong, but smoking outdoors in the wilderness doesn’t really harm anyone else (unless you start thinking of increased prevalence of lung cancer among smokers which leads to them putting strain on the healthcare system, but that’s a whole other can of worms). Much like you, I generally lean towards weighting personal freedom more highly, so to use the buffer zone described above, I allow for a fairly wide zone for most activities. If it sounds like I'm contradicting my older posts, it might very well be the case as I haven't thought about this seriously until now, so my views might actually have changed over this discourse. I also like to play the Devil's advocate and take up positions I don't necessarily agree with for the sake of argument.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49887376]1) Like I've said at least 4 times now, I have never said that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. I'm all for legally letting private business run their business freely, but that doesn't make all their decisions good. 2) Give me an alternate example and I'll happily comment to show consistency. It is good to note that this university example isn't quite as clear cut because, I assume, the students don't go to that university in order to buy from the store. In effect there's an extremely small profit motive when it comes to this university store, therefore making it more similar to a government action then a private business action. (I know technically it's a private business, but the motive and thinking behind is much more in line with some authoritative group that doesn't have to worry about failing against competition). I feel that this makes the nanny-state claim applicable.[/QUOTE] It, to me, can't be called a "Nanny State" unless the "state" part is true. In this case, it's not at all and it's entirely up to them to decide what they're comfortable selling.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49887846]You're contributing nothing to the conversation. Do you have something to add beyond personal attacks and pointless semantics? I've explained the point multiple times throughout the thread. If people are too lazy to read a couple pages and instead get stuck on a single word, then that's their problem.[/QUOTE] No personal attack, your method of conveying your view in this discussion is flawed, I am bringing it to your attention. If you were more consistently correct, there would be no issue. There is no state actor in this situation, therefore no "nanny-state".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.