It’s an energy drink now.
No Real cocaine in it, but still.
You mean like Coca-Cola?
The origional actualy had cocaine in it. Of course, that was back in the old days when times were good, everybody lived in a Norman Rockwell painting, and William S. Burrows(sp?) was just a rabble rouser.
As is pointed out in the link - excellent marketing. I think the more conservative sides of the media will have a fieldday though - ‘my 11 year old just bought cocaine’ blah blah blah.
Can anyone confirm if its effective or tastey or just a can of sugar like much of the other shit thats about.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You mean like Coca-Cola?
The origional actualy had cocaine in it. Of course, that was back in the old days when times were good, everybody lived in a Norman Rockwell painting, and William S. Burrows(sp?) was just a rabble rouser.
[/quote]
Shit, they used to advertise it as a “cure-all”. It is amazing how things get demonized, especially since many early presidents were using the stuff regularly. No one refers to George Washington as a “cokehead” though.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
You mean like Coca-Cola?
The origional actualy had cocaine in it. Of course, that was back in the old days when times were good, everybody lived in a Norman Rockwell painting, and William S. Burrows(sp?) was just a rabble rouser.
Shit, they used to advertise it as a “cure-all”. It is amazing how things get demonized, especially since many early presidents were using the stuff regularly. No one refers to George Washington as a “cokehead” though.[/quote]
It was also regularly used by Sigmund Freud or as i like to call him ‘the coked up physchology guy’.
They could really jack the sales up if they played eric clapton’s cocaine song during the tv commericals.
“It’s like bad speed in a can.”
-Frankie Wild describing his new energy drink
[quote]jhomich wrote:
It’s an energy drink now.
No Real cocaine in it, but still.
it gives me wiiiiiiiings!!!
The better question is how do you buy this drink without feeling like a complete tool? “D000dz! Let’s go get sum cocaine! L0Lz!”
Man that would go great with a peanut butter and crack sandwich. haha.
Ha… without the jitters, i’m sure.
What a joke, thier marketing is that they don’t have HFCS but instead a SHITLOAD of caffeene.
I thought about posting about this, but didn’t want to give the drink free advertising on T-Nation right after the release of the Spike shooter.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
You mean like Coca-Cola?
The origional actualy had cocaine in it. Of course, that was back in the old days when times were good, everybody lived in a Norman Rockwell painting, and William S. Burrows(sp?) was just a rabble rouser.
Shit, they used to advertise it as a “cure-all”. It is amazing how things get demonized, especially since many early presidents were using the stuff regularly. No one refers to George Washington as a “cokehead” though.[/quote]
You think it shouldn’t be demonized?? Especially because past presidents used it? Are you serious? We know what it does NOW and that is destroying lives, no? The bottome line is, “It is people exploiting drugs. It is a pretty cynical tactic exploiting illegal drugs for their own benefit.”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
You mean like Coca-Cola?
The origional actualy had cocaine in it. Of course, that was back in the old days when times were good, everybody lived in a Norman Rockwell painting, and William S. Burrows(sp?) was just a rabble rouser.
Shit, they used to advertise it as a “cure-all”. It is amazing how things get demonized, especially since many early presidents were using the stuff regularly. No one refers to George Washington as a “cokehead” though.[/quote]
Not to mention Georges Dubyabush hisself…
But in the time coca-cola actually contained coca leaves extract, it was much less concentrated than in today’s toxicity-grown plants, not to mention that to be a drug in the actual sense of the word, it needs considerable refinment.
Still, I wonder how much of its popularity come from the coca extract, and to what extent Coca-cola, inc. owns his current supremacy in the soft drinks market to it. I’m not saying they are accountable for it, mind you.
[quote]allNatural wrote:
Professor X wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
You mean like Coca-Cola?
The origional actualy had cocaine in it. Of course, that was back in the old days when times were good, everybody lived in a Norman Rockwell painting, and William S. Burrows(sp?) was just a rabble rouser.
Shit, they used to advertise it as a “cure-all”. It is amazing how things get demonized, especially since many early presidents were using the stuff regularly. No one refers to George Washington as a “cokehead” though.
You think it shouldn’t be demonized?? Especially because past presidents used it? Are you serious? We know what it does NOW and that is destroying lives, no? The bottome line is, “It is people exploiting drugs. It is a pretty cynical tactic exploiting illegal drugs for their own benefit.” [/quote]
Demonized? No. It even has some benefits in medicine. The “war on Drugs” has done fuck all to truly decrease those who want to use it and that even goes for poorer neighborhoods where the negative effects of a Drug War created black market are even more apparent.
People should be educated and not lied to in the name of “saving the children”. There should be programs created in the name of that education and less money needs to be thrown down the toilet so government officials look busy when people are looking.
Should a company be stoned for naming a product after a drug now considered illegal? What if they called it “alcohol”?
Soon, people are going to run out of fingers to point at things with. This product is not a drug…therefore, you are pissed because of a name.
I was more irked by “Pimp Juice”.
[quote]allNatural wrote:
Professor X wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
You mean like Coca-Cola?
The origional actualy had cocaine in it. Of course, that was back in the old days when times were good, everybody lived in a Norman Rockwell painting, and William S. Burrows(sp?) was just a rabble rouser.
Shit, they used to advertise it as a “cure-all”. It is amazing how things get demonized, especially since many early presidents were using the stuff regularly. No one refers to George Washington as a “cokehead” though.
You think it shouldn’t be demonized?? Especially because past presidents used it? Are you serious? We know what it does NOW and that is destroying lives, no? The bottome line is, “It is people exploiting drugs. It is a pretty cynical tactic exploiting illegal drugs for their own benefit.” [/quote]
I don’t think any substance should be demonized. It takes the responsibility from the user/abuser.
If people want to go down the road of experimentation to where ever it may lead, that is their choice. By blaming a substance for the results, they are only deflecting blame for their choices from themselves.
I’m not saying blame should not be on the people who use the drugs (adults). I’m a libertarian and I actually think drugs should be legal for adults. What I’m saying is that this marketing tactic is a pretty low-life move and could have the effect the article talked about.
Maybe it shouldn’t be “demonized” but it does destroy lives through addiction and if one kid tries coke because they thought it was cool and gets hooked b/c of this ad(regardless of parenting and assuming the lack of it), it would be enough for these marketers to burn in hell in my opinion.
[quote]allNatural wrote:
I’m not saying blame should not be on the people who use the drugs (adults). I’m a libertarian and I actually think drugs should be legal for adults. What I’m saying is that this marketing tactic is a pretty low-life move and could have the effect the article talked about.
Maybe it shouldn’t be “demonized” but it does destroy lives through addiction and if one kid tries coke because they thought it was cool and gets hooked b/c of this ad(regardless of parenting and assuming the lack of it), it would be enough for these marketers to burn in hell in my opinion. [/quote]
Not to be nit picky, but what the hell, lets do it.
Look at what you wrote- "If one kid tries coke and because they thought it was cool and gets hooked because of this ad(regardless of parenting and assuming the lack of it)…
-
“tries coke because they thought it was cool”
There is already something wrong if a kid thinks coke is cool. -
“gets hooked because of this ad”
There we go. Now it is no longer the fault of the person who snorts, smokes or shots it, They get hooked because of advertisements! -
“(regardless of parenting and assuming the lack of it)”
Yea, because that whole role modeling, installation of values and judgements thing is such a minor factor.
You certainly are entitled to your opinions.
Have you ever examined how they were formed, and whether or not they are valid?
Cause those ones there realy don’t hold up under scrutiny.
The whole burn in hell thing is a nice touch though.
[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
The better question is how do you buy this drink without feeling like a complete tool? “D000dz! Let’s go get sum cocaine! L0Lz!”[/quote]
Agree. It’s obviously marketed at teenagers.
This garbage should go the way of Joe Camel.
[quote]allNatural wrote:
I’m not saying blame should not be on the people who use the drugs (adults). I’m a libertarian and I actually think drugs should be legal for adults. What I’m saying is that this marketing tactic is a pretty low-life move and could have the effect the article talked about.
Maybe it shouldn’t be “demonized” but it does destroy lives through addiction and if one kid tries coke because they thought it was cool and gets hooked b/c of this ad(regardless of parenting and assuming the lack of it), it would be enough for these marketers to burn in hell in my opinion. [/quote]
It’s the kids fault for trying cocaine, not the marketers.
I just love the way some people can place fault squarely on one party, when “it takes two to tango”.
Even if I eat a poisonous berry in the woods and die, it looked tasty, didn’t it? Nothing is ever solely the fault of one.