"Cocaine" Fights For Shelf Space

Cocaine is the latest beverage to cash in on the energy drink craze. Produced by Las Vegas-based Redux Beverages, the drink has stirred up controversy with its choice of name. It has already been forced off the shelves in Connecticut, Illinois and Texas. It is also under investigation by the FDA.

"Our goal is to literally flush Cocaine down the drain across the nation," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who announced Monday that Redux Beverages has agreed to stop selling the drink in Connecticut. "Our main complaint about Cocaine is its name and marketing strategy seeking to glorify illegal drug use and exploit the allure of marketing 'speed in a can,' as it called the product."

Those of you familiar with columns in various Connecticut Newspapers will know that I usually feel that anything Richard Blumenthal is against is probably a good idea. Here's what else Blumenthal said.

"...selling Cocaine in a can and appealing to children as the so-called legal alternative violated our consumer protection laws, even if they are properly licensed."

Read that again so you know you read it right. Blumenthal is fighting this drink because it promotes itself as "a legal alternative." Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't our elected officials supposed to be supporting legal alternatives to our kids taking drugs. Redux has stated that the energy drink has no drugs in it, the name is simply a marketing ploy. As an energy drink, I don't know that it could be considered healthy, but it's certainly healthier than drugs. This isn't even the first drink to name itself after cocaine. You might be familiar with the other one, Coca Cola. Are we going to force them off the shelves now too? (By the way, for evidence that Coca Cola is also named for Cocaine, the Coca Cola Company is considering a lawsuit against Redux for trademark infringement over the name.)

These so-called consumer protectors basically feel that the American public is too stupid to tell the difference between a drug and an energy drink. Redux Beverages has announced that it will re-release the drink under a new name and label. Keep an eye out for it and judge it on whether or not it tastes good and gives you an energy boost.

To register a complaint about the government again interfering in the lives of the public, write to the attorney generals who are behind this:

Richard Blumenthal
Office of the Attorney General

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06106

and

Lisa Madigan
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601

FCC vs Violence On Television

The FCC accepted its latest report on television violence and asked Congress to define excessive violence and give it the power to regulate it. Once again, a government agency has decided that it needs to babysit the American people.

The report (which you can download here) came from a congressional request to answer several questions, one of which was "What are the constitutional limits on the government's ability to restrict the broadcast of excessively violent programming when children are likely to be a significant or substantial part of the viewing audience? In particular, could television violence regulations, including possible time channeling requirements, be narrowly tailored to the governmental interests they are intended to serve?"

I'd like to call attention to the last part of that question, "the governmental interests they are intended to serve."

As I recall, laws aren't supposed to serve government interests, the media are not supposed to serve government interests, and certainly the people aren't supposed to serve government interests. The government is supposed to serve our interests. How is limiting what we are able to watch serving our interests? How is limiting our free speech in our interests?

What I find most interesting is that the FCC has completely failed to define "excessive violence," although they seem to like the idea of limiting when it is on television to when kids aren't around. I guess that means we won't have football games on Sunday afternoons anymore. Newscasts will have to wait until after prime time if they want to cover Iraq, Virginia Tech, or the recent prison riot.

I'm as concerned about the effects of violence on children as the next person. That's why I don't let my children watch "The Sopranos," even though I never miss an episode. But more government intrusion is not the answer. In fact, instead of giving the FCC more regulatory power, let's take some away.

The FCC was supposed to make sure that broadcasters served the public interest as part of their deal to use the public airwaves. This was because the airwaves were scarce. There were limits to them and the government had to regulate how they were used. Well guess what? There's no scarcity in television anymore. There's a lack of quality, but there's no scarcity. Also, broadcasters were held to government standards because they came into everyone homes for free. When was the last time you saw a pair of rabbit ears on someone's television set. I pay the satellite provider to bring me these stations. Without satellite or cable, I can get three stations on a good day. So if I'm paying for these stations, I don't want the government limiting them.

You want limits? Let the marketplace limit them. If people don't want a show because it's too violent, they won't watch it. In turn advertisers won't buy advertising time on it, and it will go off the air. That's the power of the people, and let's never forget that our country is supposed to be run by a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." At least according to President Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address.