Maine Rep. Troy Jackson (D-Allagash) introduced Maine LD 2034, “An Act to Prohibit the Sale of Energy Drinks to Minors.”
Minors (ie. Under 18) will not be able to purchase or receive “Energy Drinks”. It will be illegal to sell or distribute them to minors.
“Energy Drink” is defined (in the bill as):
“Energy drink” means a soft drink that contains 80 or more milligrams of caffeine per 8 fluid ounces advertised as being specifically designed to provide energy and generally including a combination of methylxanthines, B vitamins and herbal ingredients."
Such is life in the Nanny state of Maine, where politicians know better than parents.
The Left encourages the ethic “if it feels good, do it” as the sine qua non of existence…
…and then spends the rest of the time trying to create a nanny-state to “fix” the bad choices that such an ethic creates naturally (in this case, apparently kids shouldn’t feel the good of energy drinks).
It’s consistent with our national standards for drug control. Rather, it’s consistent with our lack of standards; if something is suspected of being harmful whether when used as intended our in the extreme it may be banned without further evidence of social harm as long as the majority in society is apathetic. Of course, once illegal, anyone trying to relax restrictions on said item that is illegal is obviously a fringe nutjob dope addict like the members of NORML or similar groups.
Does anyone really think it is good for minors to purchase or use energy drinks? Is it really unreasonable to put limits on what minors can purchase when they are unsupervised by parents? I have no problem prohibiting the sale of cigarettes, alcohol, or virtually anything else to minors when parents are not available to give consent.
Although, I agree with thunderbolt that the hypocrisy is staggering; the left sees minors as capable of deciding whether or not to have sex and abort a fetus, but incapable of deciding whether or not to drink a Red Bull. Amazing.
Mind you, this is the same Maine Left that just allowed distribution of birth control pills to middle school 11 year olds in a Portland Public School and voted against a Casino (because casinos are ‘immoral’).
NoDoze are still available over the counter as well as Jolt Gum and coffee is still coffee. This legislation is a farce and an assault on personal freedom.
Incidentally, in a pinch I bought Creatine at WalMart and was ‘carded’. Apparently, you must be at least 18 to purchase creatine (at least in Maine).
Minors don’t have much personal freedom. They certainly don’t have economic freedom. Let them extend this to adults, and then I’ll get riled up. Until then, I see no problem with the ban per se, only with the hypocrisy involved.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Maine Rep. Troy Jackson (D-Allagash) introduced Maine LD 2034, “An Act to Prohibit the Sale of Energy Drinks to Minors.”
Minors (ie. Under 18) will not be able to purchase or receive “Energy Drinks”. It will be illegal to sell or distribute them to minors.
“Energy Drink” is defined (in the bill as):
“Energy drink” means a soft drink that contains 80 or more milligrams of caffeine per 8 fluid ounces advertised as being specifically designed to provide energy and generally including a combination of methylxanthines, B vitamins and herbal ingredients."
Such is life in the Nanny state of Maine, where politicians know better than parents.
Seems to put the control back in the parents hands. The parents can buy them and give them to their kids, can’t they? Or is that banned too by the distribution clause?
I don’t think kids should drink that stuff. I know I don’t want my kids to drink them. I am not sure what the right age is to allow kids to buy it but parents cannot be with their kids all the time and there are a lot of unscrupulous people that will sell unhealthy stuff to kids to make a buck.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Mind you, this is the same Maine Left that just allowed distribution of birth control pills to middle school 11 year olds in a Portland Public School …[/quote]
That is criminal messing with kids hormones and actually discouraging condom use by providing an alternate thus encouraging the spread of disease.
When you have prohibition of any kind, under the guise of “protection”, it leads to very loose interpretations. Hence, asshole legislators can stretch it to anything we deem pleasurable. Chemicals aren’t supposed to make you feel good, they supposed to shrink your bladder and make your dick hard.
Seems to put the control back in the parents hands. The parents can buy them and give them to their kids, can’t they? Or is that banned too by the distribution clause?
I don’t think kids should drink that stuff. I know I don’t want my kids to drink them. I am not sure what the right age is to allow kids to buy it but parents cannot be with their kids all the time and there are a lot of unscrupulous people that will sell unhealthy stuff to kids to make a buck.[/quote]
I agree, and also with Neph.
If we want truly the issue to be “between a parent and child”, this regulation forces it right into that arena. We restrict minors all the time for their own good - and unless parents are taking to streets in protest of it, it sounds like an extension of what parents want out of public policy to help protect their kids, so I don’t get too upset at this restriction. Democratic process in action.
That might not be “no government”, per the desires of some, but it is certainly “self government” - and is entirely appropriate, I think.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Such an odd phenomenon.
The Left encourages the ethic “if it feels good, do it” as the sine qua non of existence…
…and then spends the rest of the time trying to create a nanny-state to “fix” the bad choices that such an ethic creates naturally (in this case, apparently kids shouldn’t feel the good of energy drinks).
Weird.[/quote]
Can you please not speak in abstractions and generalities. I consider myself to be left of center on most (not all issues) and this, in my liberal-eyes, is an waste of a bill. In short, do not confuse party politics with “The Left”.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Does anyone really think it is good for minors to purchase or use energy drinks? Is it really unreasonable to put limits on what minors can purchase when they are unsupervised by parents? I have no problem prohibiting the sale of cigarettes, alcohol, or virtually anything else to minors when parents are not available to give consent.
Although, I agree with thunderbolt that the hypocrisy is staggering; the left sees minors as capable of deciding whether or not to have sex and abort a fetus, but incapable of deciding whether or not to drink a Red Bull. Amazing.[/quote]
I would agree with you except that in practice too often the proponents of regulation find that simply limiting sales to minors isn’t enough to prevent them from obtaining the items in question. Then increasingly restrictive measures follow, limiting the ability of adults to get the product and leading producers to exit the market. Once restrictions are put in place, they’re seldom relaxed as nobody wants to be seen as favoring the free distribution of a dangerous restricted product, which is restricted because it’s dangerous and must be dangerous since it’s restricted.
Can you please not speak in abstractions and generalities. I consider myself to be left of center on most (not all issues) and this, in my liberal-eyes, is an waste of a bill. In short, do not confuse party politics with “The Left”.[/quote]
That is the point of the claim - to make a general statement about how the Left acts generally.
If you are a Leftie that is an exception to that general rule, no problem. If you think the general rule about the Left is incorrect, no problem, argue it differently.
The fact that you don’t see it that way says little about the validity of how the Left, as a general rule, sees it.