Warning: Coke kills

[Ganos Lao]

Drinking Coca-Cola (the beverage) in such enormous, and clearly unhealthy, daily amounts is clearly one of the factor that led to that person's death.
So, Coca-Cola (the corp) is saying bullshit when they say that drinking Coca-Cola (the beverage) isn't involved.

But are they responsible?

Nope. They're not responsible for people not using their brains.

If this woman had a grasp of the concept of moderation, she'd still be around. People ought to know better, what with all the emphasis nowadays on healthy eating and all.

[Blouman Empire]

No, he means she drank up to 10L per day, or alternatively that she had drunk up to 10L per day. Learning basic grammar before correcting others is generally a good idea.

Drank is not a proper English word.

If it's in a respected English dictionary then it is a proper word.

[Gigaverse]

As always, long story short in America: people without knowledge drinks/eats too much of something everyone else obviously knows is harmful, then discover the fact by themselves, then sue the company, then scream in dismay that there is a law in the US preventing them from suing the aforementioned company, yaddi yaddi yadda... I'm really tired of these knowledge-lacking morons. They're the ones who've done it, they will take the consequences. Nobody in their right mind would be there to protect them from destroying themselves.

[Gigaverse]

No, he means she drank up to 10L per day, or alternatively that she had drunk up to 10L per day. Learning basic grammar before correcting others is generally a good idea.

Drank is not a proper English word.

Then what is it? Swahili?

[Ovisterra]

No, he means she drank up to 10L per day, or alternatively that she had drunk up to 10L per day. Learning basic grammar before correcting others is generally a good idea.

Drank is not a proper English word.

A corner has determined that a woman died from drinking too much coke, it is reported she drank up to 10L/day (that's just over 2.5 gallons/day for you Yanks) this high amount of caffeine and sugar which were well over recommended safe limits, her consumption was so high that one of her children was born without enamel.

You mean she drunk up to 10L/day.

Is this some sort of elaborate joke that fell flat or what?

[Dagnia]

How is it possible to drink that much of anything a day, unless you have an abnormally large stomach? If the coke didn't kill her, it is likely something else was going to kill her in just about as much time given what I am guessing about her other lifestyle choices.

I haven't had any kind of soda drink in years. I lost quite a bit of weight when I decided to cut it out completely. Tap water is pretty sweet. It's pretty much free, and safe no matter how much you drink or where you drink it. I even drank African tap water regularly when I was there and only had the runs for one night (okay, it was in Morocco, one of Africa's nicer countries, but still, there are always those horror stories about tap water outside North America and Western Europe). When tap water gets too bland for me, I drink tea (green or oolong, which have little to no caffeine).

[Blouman Empire]

Drank is not a proper English word.

You mean she drunk up to 10L/day.

Is this some sort of elaborate joke that fell flat or what?

Is that some sort of pun that was meant to have more fizz

[YellowApple]

The woman is to blame. Any chemical, even water, can be lethal if you ingest too much of it too quickly or if you ingest so much of it that it builds up to dangerous levels in your body. She must have had some signs of declining health, though. I mean would there be the possibility of stimulant psychosis if the caffeine played a significant role?

^ This sums up my thoughts exactly.

No, he means she drank up to 10L per day, or alternatively that she had drunk up to 10L per day. Learning basic grammar before correcting others is generally a good idea.

Drank is not a proper English word.

I take it you've never had grape drank?

You poor fellow.

[Central Slavia]

How is it possible to drink that much of anything a day, unless you have an abnormally large stomach? If the coke didn't kill her, it is likely something else was going to kill her in just about as much time given what I am guessing about her other lifestyle choices.

I haven't had any kind of soda drink in years. I lost quite a bit of weight when I decided to cut it out completely. Tap water is pretty sweet. It's pretty much free, and safe no matter how much you drink or where you drink it. I even drank African tap water regularly when I was there and only had the runs for one night (okay, it was in Morocco, one of Africa's nicer countries, but still, there are always those horror stories about tap water outside North America and Western Europe). When tap water gets too bland for me, I drink tea (green or oolong, which have little to no caffeine).

Nope.jpg
In fact, drinking tap water in the quantities she did would be even worse than drinking soda, due to its lack of electrolytes.

[Indira]

Dear stars, what the hell is wrong with people taking RESPONSIBILITY for their OWN actions?

[YellowApple]

How is it possible to drink that much of anything a day, unless you have an abnormally large stomach? If the coke didn't kill her, it is likely something else was going to kill her in just about as much time given what I am guessing about her other lifestyle choices.

I haven't had any kind of soda drink in years. I lost quite a bit of weight when I decided to cut it out completely. Tap water is pretty sweet. It's pretty much free, and safe no matter how much you drink or where you drink it. I even drank African tap water regularly when I was there and only had the runs for one night (okay, it was in Morocco, one of Africa's nicer countries, but still, there are always those horror stories about tap water outside North America and Western Europe). When tap water gets too bland for me, I drink tea (green or oolong, which have little to no caffeine).

Nope.jpg
In fact, drinking tap water in the quantities she did would be even worse than drinking soda, due to its lack of electrolytes.

Case in point: the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" fiasco

[Esternial]

How is it possible to drink that much of anything a day, unless you have an abnormally large stomach? If the coke didn't kill her, it is likely something else was going to kill her in just about as much time given what I am guessing about her other lifestyle choices.

I haven't had any kind of soda drink in years. I lost quite a bit of weight when I decided to cut it out completely. Tap water is pretty sweet. It's pretty much free, and safe no matter how much you drink or where you drink it. I even drank African tap water regularly when I was there and only had the runs for one night (okay, it was in Morocco, one of Africa's nicer countries, but still, there are always those horror stories about tap water outside North America and Western Europe). When tap water gets too bland for me, I drink tea (green or oolong, which have little to no caffeine).

Nope.jpg
In fact, drinking tap water in the quantities she did would be even worse than drinking soda, due to its lack of electrolytes.

Coca cola doesn't contain that much electrolytes, though.

[Esternial]

:palm: Dear stars, what the hell is wrong with people taking RESPONSIBILITY for their OWN actions?

Ask one of the many American policians and you may find out.

[Imota]

For comparison, the body of an average adult human contains about 5 liters or so of blood.

How the heck is it physically possible to drink ten liters of anything and not realize that something's wrong? That's what I don't get. She should have known something was wrong, but...

I...

[Slow-Declinesville]

I love the rampant screams for greater education and more warnings on products when someone is struck down by idiocy. She drank coke to excess- the word excess is the point here. An excess of anything is bad. It's the same as when people sue tobacco companies. Because breathing in a smokey, tarry, burning mass was just BOUND to be good for you... Moral of the story, use your brain.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

Coca-Cola, water, sleep and pretty much everything else, will kill you if the quantities are high enough.

Fools will be fools. They should have warning labels attached to them so that businesses could refuse to service them and didn't have to deal with their stupidities. *nods*

I'orry but sleep will not kill you unless you do it while doing something dangerous like driving a car.

Sure it will .

But it's really beside the point.
Even if sleep couldn't kill you, it still wouldn't change the fact that there's a long, long list of things that could - as long as the quantities are high enough.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

Coca-Cola, water, sleep and pretty much everything else, will kill you if the quantities are high enough.

Fools will be fools. They should have warning labels attached to them so that businesses could refuse to service them and didn't have to deal with their stupidities. *nods*

Yes. There should be machines installed in the house of every system that directly feed people fools the exact amount of nutrition they need.

The rest of us can think for ourselves.

[Central Slavia]

Nope.jpg
In fact, drinking tap water in the quantities she did would be even worse than drinking soda, due to its lack of electrolytes.

Coca cola doesn't contain that much electrolytes, though.

It's still better than water to drink, when , for example, you have stomach trouble or intense diarrhea. (that or pepsi, can be taken diluted with water)

[Meridiani Planum]

Drank is not a proper English word.

Yes, it certainly is a proper English word.

http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/english/2 ... k_dru.html

http://esl.about.com/od/grammarstructures/a/v_drink.htm

Base Form: drink
Past Simple: drank
Past Participle: drunk
Gerund: drinking

[Tekania]

As always, long story short in America:

This was New Zealand.

[Tekania]

I'm pretty sure this is mean to say "coroner", not "corner".

Yes well done you picked up my typo, you're a clever little boy aren't you?

Well, one could assume that everyone in here based upon their responses simply easily figured it out that you typoed and left an O out... but the truth is, until we were enlightened by this massively intelligence fly-by-night poster, we all simply though that being New Zealand and all, and some weird upside down sort of place it is; that the corners of rooms made death pronouncements.

[Free South Califas]

Aleckandor, murder in the workplace is not a joke or a game. Cut it out. Even if it were, your "joke" is severely lacking in several key traits of humor, so I would suggest you look into improving that before you joke about sensitive topics again.

Drinking Coca-Cola (the beverage) in such enormous, and clearly unhealthy, daily amounts is clearly one of the factor that led to that person's death.
So, Coca-Cola (the corp) is saying bullshit when they say that drinking Coca-Cola (the beverage) isn't involved.

But are they responsible?

To a small but significant extent, yes, they peddled an addictive substance, and use fiscal pressure to have as few restrictions on it as possible (for example, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that addictive drugs be labeled). It is more that they are responsible for the prevalence of negative outcomes related to addiction across societies in general, than that they are responsible for this one individual's dalliance, per se.

All this faulting the addict here is a little medically backwards, for one thing, but it also begs some disturbing questions. We all know that people die from heroin and cocaine overdoses, but many people don't realize that it involves as much of a calculation (etc.) error as drinking 10 L of Coca-Cola. Whether you advocate legalistic or public-health/harm-reduction approaches to drug addiction, it is insanely violent to simply wash one's hands of people who overdose on heroin because, "Well, they should have known that much heroin would kill you!" That's the thing, addiction can really distort your judgment. That's why they call it addiction:

from Latin addictus, pp. of addicere "to deliver, award, yield; give assent, make over, sell," figuratively "to devote, consecrate; sacrifice, sell out, betray" from ad- "to" (see ad-) + dicere "say, declare" (see diction), but also "adjudge, allot." Earlier in English as an adjective, "delivered, devoted" (1520s).

So here's the question: those of you who say this is 100% the addict's fault, do you also blame heroin addicts for their overdoses, or do you have some measure of concern about the systemic problem of overdose deaths caused by the addictive drug in question?

Apart from your invisible hand rubbish do you believe that Coca-Cola is to blame for her death? If so why?

Drinking Coca-Cola (the beverage) in such enormous, and clearly unhealthy, daily amounts is clearly one of the factor that led to that person's death.
So, Coca-Cola (the corp) is saying bullshit when they say that drinking Coca-Cola (the beverage) isn't involved.

Frankly, to a rational observer it is obviously true that drinking Coke was directly involved and that it was either her fault or, perhaps, society's fault for not recognizing and treating a deadly mental illness.

Anyway, I maintain that Coca-Cola corp is spewing UTTER bullshit.

Arguing that the amount of Coke she drank did not contribute to her death was stupid yes, but doesn't change the fact that nothing Coca Cola Company itself did in any way contributed, nor was it the product itself, it was the womans ridiculously irresponsible consumption of it. No amount of warning labels can make something idiot proof.

Really? Not in any way? You think that marketing an addictive drug as a harmless lifestyle product has literally nothing to do with this? That it would have been exactly as likely to happen if they were merely pushing flavored water?

A corner has determined that a woman died from drinking too much coke, it is reported she drank up to 10L/day (that's just over 2.5 gallons/day for you Yanks) this high amount of caffeine and sugar which were well over recommended safe limits, her consumption was so high that one of her children was born without enamel.

You mean she drunk up to 10L/day.

No, and don't be a pedant, especially if you're not sure you're right.

No, he means she drank up to 10L per day, or alternatively that she had drunk up to 10L per day. Learning basic grammar before correcting others is generally a good idea.

Drank is not a proper English word.

Oh wtf. The ignorance, it burns. Stop being a pedant, you're fucking terrible at it. The English language changes, hence why Chaucer is now nigh-incomprehensible. It is an especially pliant language and allows for extensive modification of its verbs. Even if you hate "drank", even if it was once inconceivable, it is now a common and central word. Threads about liquids are not your signal to whip out your vendetta against the word "drank". /notamao

Oh, for the love of sports entertainment.

Frivolous lawsuits seem to be everywhere nowadays. Or maybe it's just me.

It's propaganda. The GOP has been trying to push "tort reform", i.e. corporations being less and less accountable for the actual serious harm they literally directly cause, under the banner of stopping "frivolous lawsuits", which is not a real problem. Thing is, frivolous suits are thrown out. While no judge can have a perfect record, you can't really claim there is some epidemic of frivolous lawsuits being allowed to take place, unless you back it up with specific evidence about a lot of judges.

Many people are unemployed and there is much money in the cause of removing legal hindrances for large corporations; therefore, if they thought they could prove an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits even in one judge's courtroom, it would be sensible and rational for designers and manufacturers to hire and quickly train some people to compile evidence for a complaint and have that judge removed. That there is no wave of judges being contested and/or removed, I think it is safe to conclude that the court system is probably no more insane than it has ever been.

Finally, while I really don't want to be condescending, it's just objectively true that at 15 years old it's difficult to believe you have much of an alternative in mind to compare "nowadays" to. People were using the exact same 'argument' you just made (with the word "nowadays" and everything) in the 1980s and 1990s before you were born. And for the same reason as they use it now: it is a compelling propaganda campaign.

But are they responsible?

Nope. They're not responsible for people not using their brains.

If this woman had a grasp of the concept of moderation, she'd still be around. People ought to know better, what with all the emphasis nowadays on healthy eating and all.

So, are addicts to blame for all negative outcomes of addiction, or only the sensational ones? Heroin makers and pushers are not at all responsible for overdose deaths, for example?

Drank is not a proper English word.

If it's in a respected English dictionary then it is a proper word.

Actually, English is much more liberal than this.

I love the rampant screams for greater education and more warnings on products when someone is struck down by idiocy. She drank coke to excess- the word excess is the point here. An excess of anything is bad. It's the same as when people sue tobacco companies. Because breathing in a smokey, tarry, burning mass was just BOUND to be good for you... Moral of the story, use your brain.

They pushed an addictive product and lied about it. You can be reductionist about it now, because we know a lot more in science and medicine than we did back when smoking was popular and the makers were lying about it, but people from that time do not have the same privilege. Historicism. Read about it. Long story short, cigarette manufacturers jacked up the product with all kinds of other things, made it more addictive than smoking pure tobacco would necessarily be otherwise, and intentionally directed a propaganda campaign to instill lies about both in the public consciousness. They frankly did a ton of evil things, and it smacks of pointless self-defeat and rank hypocrisy to loudly insist that addicts take responsibility for their actions while corporations which intentionally push for the most people to be as ignorant about their product as possible while intentionally making and marketing massive quantities of an addictive substance should simply go on their merry way, lying again and again. You're actually arguing that there should be no accountability, disguised as an argument for so-called personal responsibility.

[Central Slavia]

Aleckandor, murder in the workplace is not a joke or a game. Cut it out. Even if it were, your "joke" is severely lacking in several key traits of humor, so I would suggest you look into improving that before you joke about sensitive topics again.

But are they responsible?

To a small but significant extent, yes, they peddled an addictive substance, and use fiscal pressure to have as few restrictions on it as possible (for example, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that addictive drugs be labeled). It is more that they are responsible for the prevalence of negative outcomes related to addiction across societies in general, than that they are responsible for this one individual's dalliance, per se.

All this faulting the addict here is a little medically backwards, for one thing, but it also begs some disturbing questions. We all know that people die from heroin and cocaine overdoses, but many people don't realize that it involves as much of a calculation (etc.) error as drinking 10 L of Coca-Cola. Whether you advocate legalistic or public-health/harm-reduction approaches to drug addiction, it is insanely violent to simply wash one's hands of people who overdose on heroin because, "Well, they should have known that much heroin would kill you!" That's the thing, addiction can really distort your judgment. That's why they call it addiction:

from Latin addictus, pp. of addicere "to deliver, award, yield; give assent, make over, sell," figuratively "to devote, consecrate; sacrifice, sell out, betray" from ad- "to" (see ad-) + dicere "say, declare" (see diction), but also "adjudge, allot." Earlier in English as an adjective, "delivered, devoted" (1520s).

So here's the question: those of you who say this is 100% the addict's fault, do you also blame heroin addicts for their overdoses, or do you have some measure of concern about the systemic problem of overdose deaths caused by the addictive drug in question?

Drinking Coca-Cola (the beverage) in such enormous, and clearly unhealthy, daily amounts is clearly one of the factor that led to that person's death.
So, Coca-Cola (the corp) is saying bullshit when they say that drinking Coca-Cola (the beverage) isn't involved.

Frankly, to a rational observer it is obviously true that drinking Coke was directly involved and that it was either her fault or, perhaps, society's fault for not recognizing and treating a deadly mental illness.

Arguing that the amount of Coke she drank did not contribute to her death was stupid yes, but doesn't change the fact that nothing Coca Cola Company itself did in any way contributed, nor was it the product itself, it was the womans ridiculously irresponsible consumption of it. No amount of warning labels can make something idiot proof.

Really? Not in any way? You think that marketing an addictive drug as a harmless lifestyle product has literally nothing to do with this? That it would have been exactly as likely to happen if they were merely pushing flavored water?

You mean she drunk up to 10L/day.

No, and don't be a pedant, especially if you're not sure you're right.

Drank is not a proper English word.

Oh wtf. The ignorance, it burns. Stop being a pedant, you're fucking terrible at it. The English language changes, hence why Chaucer is now nigh-incomprehensible. It is an especially pliant language and allows for extensive modification of its verbs. Even if you hate "drank", even if it was once inconceivable, it is now a common and central word. Threads about liquids are not your signal to whip out your vendetta against the word "drank". /notamao

Oh, for the love of sports entertainment.

Frivolous lawsuits seem to be everywhere nowadays. Or maybe it's just me.

It's propaganda. The GOP has been trying to push "tort reform", i.e. corporations being less and less accountable for the actual serious harm they literally directly cause, under the banner of stopping "frivolous lawsuits", which is not a real problem. Thing is, frivolous suits are thrown out. While no judge can have a perfect record, you can't really claim there is some epidemic of frivolous lawsuits being allowed to take place, unless you back it up with specific evidence about a lot of judges.

Many people are unemployed and there is much money in the cause of removing legal hindrances for large corporations; therefore, if they thought they could prove an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits even in one judge's courtroom, it would be sensible and rational for designers and manufacturers to hire and quickly train some people to compile evidence for a complaint and have that judge removed. That there is no wave of judges being contested and/or removed, I think it is safe to conclude that the court system is probably no more insane than it has ever been.

Finally, while I really don't want to be condescending, it's just objectively true that at 15 years old it's difficult to believe you have much of an alternative in mind to compare "nowadays" to. People were using the exact same 'argument' you just made (with the word "nowadays" and everything) in the 1980s and 1990s before you were born. And for the same reason as they use it now: it is a compelling propaganda campaign.

Nope. They're not responsible for people not using their brains.

If this woman had a grasp of the concept of moderation, she'd still be around. People ought to know better, what with all the emphasis nowadays on healthy eating and all.

So, are addicts to blame for all negative outcomes of addiction, or only the sensational ones? Heroin makers and pushers are not at all responsible for overdose deaths, for example?

It is all a question of common sense. Heroin, taken in quantities that ensure , well, the effects its users seek, is harmful, and rather badly so. It also produces an intense addiction in most of its users.
This is not true with, for example, coke, which millions of people drink without well, substituting most of their nutrition with it and then dying.
But all that is besides the point. The problem with illegal drug manufacturers is that well, they are illegal. The state has decided that the social outcome of having those substances broadly available to public is undesirable, and has banned them. Those who manufacture and sell them are therefore guilty of a crime regardless whether we can blame the addict for their effects or not, in other words, it's pointless to raise it.
Caffeinated beverages are not such a product; most people can and do use them responsibly and to their benefit , and the occassional outlier has only themself to blame.

[Yes Im Biop]

Damn. Well...I have melted Battery corrosion and a hole in 1/2 inch steel with the shit...

[Tekania]

Damn. Well...I have melted Battery corrosion and a hole in 1/2 inch steel with the shit...

Orange Juice or Lemon juice would be more effective, they have stronger acids in higher concentrations than what is found in coke.... or just using straight carbonated water, since it would not leave a sticky sugar residue.