Might be easier to just limit the caffeine max per can.
I feel like teenagers will drink X cans per night regardless, so its easier harm reduction to reduce the caffer per drink then try to remove the drinls from teens all together.
That’s not true. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where the government awarded an extra dollar in tax benefits to any company that was able to keep caffeine within a certain range. You can literally guarantee every drink manufacturer would refactor their operations overnight.
This is not a “can’t be done” scenario, this is we don’t want to because we’re profiting from it scenario.
You’re just offering a different way to reduce caffine per drink, no?
They are, but they want a neoliberal solution that directs public money to companies instead of food regulators.
speaking as a polish person, our government enacted a similar but more restrictive law in 2024, and it’s definitely been a positive change. Obviously it wasn’t a smooth transition. Do minors still find ways to get around the system and drink energy drinks? Yeah. But because it is no longer convieniant a lot of people either switched to coffee, low caffine energy drinks or stopped drinking them all together
Yes, they are addictive and bad for your health. Full of unproven chemicals that are supposedly safe at the levels in them if they are “used responsibly”.
This is code for your only supposed to have one occasionally, but because they are addictive that is not how people consume them.
Adults shouldn’t be consuming this garbage let alone a kid.
I’m mainly concerned because of the sugar (okay the unknown shit in there is weird too.) i only really drank some monster when they still had the small can. The big cans seem insane. One can has like 97% of your daily sugar dose in it. That is crazy
England’s banning kids from doing all sorts of things and causing problems for everyone while doing it, so while I wouldn’t say this is bad per se, I do worry that it’s coming out of England.
Regardless if we ban them, we should be taxing them at a rate that helps cover healthcare costs related to heart health.
I nearly killed myself with red bull when I was 18, because I could easily buy 24 cans. Energy drinks should only be sold in places like bars.
I tried monster in my first university year, combining monster and coffee to be alert and don’t sleep over the books.
I was like Fry on 99 coffees
Had a dissociative episode, nothing to worry about but got me really scared. After that I stopped drinking Monster and toned down the coffee intake.
Maybe closer to coffee shops than bars. The use case of energy drinks is a bit different than that of alcohol. Sometimes I’ll need a little boost while driving during a long or late shift, i like the the taste of coffee so I’ll usually get a coffee. Some people don’t like coffee or it isn’t always available so energy drinks work as well. The overconsumption of energy drinks is their main issue.
Yes.
Though, I’m biased as I’m a bit pruritan when it comes to substances. I don’t coffee/tea let alone weed nor alcohol.
Personally, yes.
Just because you’re a puritan doesn’t mean everyone else should have to be the same as you. Let people decide for themselves.
Hard disagree. In short, No. I don’t think so. And it is, in fact, not so.
The question was asked if Canada should implement a law. I answered the question with my preference and stated my bias.
Ethical veganism (also started from puratin Quakers) would like people to stop eating meat.
There is a western bias against using cats/dogs for testing and for eating. Ford recently passed a law banning it.
Before legalization, weed was banned.
And currently children are not able to consume tobacco nor alcohol products.
In Canada, raw (unpasturized) milk is banned but RFK is legalizing it in the US, saying people should be able to choose what’s best for their health.
So we already have laws that prevent people from consuming substances for different reasons. And they are different in different places. You have different preferences than mine, that’s OK. You also can vote like me. But to say that your stance is to allow everyone to make their own choice is not correct nor honest. You have a different preference for food restriction laws but you don’t argue against all food restrictions.
What is legal is also what is legal to have a profit motive in. I don’t think having a profit motive (and thus marketers) for substances that can be abused or dependent is a policy we should pursue.
The only argument I respect is combating the black market. But most people still are only OK until “hard drugs”. I consider an arbitrary line but again people vote based on those preference in favour of weed legalisation but against safe injection sites.
