Warning: Coke kills

[Aethelstania]

The most sensationalist headlines of all time are comming! I think if you consume that amount of anything a day something will happen to your body!

[Central Slavia]

The most sensationalist headlines of all time are comming! I think if you consume that amount of anything a day something will happen to your body!

Heh. Reminds me of a brilliant quote by a particular slovak doctor, nutritionist and vegetarian, MUDr. Igor Bukovsky.
When he was asked whether soy can be dangerous by someone, he responded "Of course. For example, if a sack of soy falls on you, it might even kill you."

[Union of Confederate Socialist Republics]

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) 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.

Coca-Cola of course deny the accusations citing other lifestyle choices helped to contribute.

One noticeable line in there was that the deceased and the family didn't think there would be anything wrong because there were no label warnings on the bottles. Personally I don't see the need to have warning labels on soft drink, surely people are educated enough to know a lot sugar and caffeine is bad for your health. And considering she would have mood swings, lack of energy and the shakes surely that would've been the first sign of trouble. While warning labels are needed for some things they certainly shouldn't be needed for everything or what should be common knowledge, we probably need it on water bottles too since water can also cause death.

So who is really at fault here? The woman for consuming that much soft drink and thinking there was nothing wrong with it? Coca-Cola for selling the product? The Government for not having an education system that informs how deadly caffeine is? Society for allowing this "blame someone else" mentality? Or something else?

I must also say that I have noticed a few stories on soft drink (pop, soda etc) and how morons have caused themselves harm by drinking too much, which makes me think the anti-soft drink lobby is making headway and the media are quickly finding their next agenda to push on people and manipulate public opinion. Hopefully it quietly dies before the politicians start to look for knee jerk reactions to gain popularity and start to impose further taxes on soft-drink and other sugary drinks. for you anks)

it is reported she drank up to 10L/day (that's just over 2.5 gallons/day)

it is reported she drank up to 10L/day (that's just over 2.5 gallons/day

Okay what the fuck.

[Minenotyours]

Ok here's the plan, I'm going to consume Coins, Lots and lots of coins, then when I die we sue the government for not writing on them that they were harmful if swallowed. I WILL BE A MARTYR

[Dakini]

What the hell is wrong with her family and friends that they weren't having an intervention for this? Seriously.

"Oh hey honey, I noticed some of your teeth rotted and fell out because you're drinking nothing but sugary drinks all day and one of our children was born with birth defects. However, there's clearly nothing wrong with having some more sugary drinks in ridiculous quantities, so let's go pick up some more."

I mean really, you're hardly even supposed to drink caffeine while pregnant (I had a friend give up her morning coffee because she wanted to be able to have a bit of chocolate later in the day and she couldn't do both without being over the limit for caffeine while pregnant) and the amount she was drinking is unhealthy and horrible for anyone. When I was writing up my MSc. thesis, I was going through 2L of Dr Pepper every other day and I felt crappy. I can't imagine what drinking 10 times that amount would have made me feel like. :S

[Dakini]

The most sensationalist headlines of all time are comming! I think if you consume that amount of anything a day something will happen to your body!

Heh. Reminds me of a brilliant quote by a particular slovak doctor, nutritionist and vegetarian, MUDr. Igor Bukovsky.
When he was asked whether soy can be dangerous by someone, he responded "Of course. For example, if a sack of soy falls on you, it might even kill you."

What's actually interesting is that a lot of the "soy is bad for you" "studies" are case studies involving single individuals who are consuming ridiculous amounts of soy. There was one where some guy was experiencing some problems (I think infertility) and the study attributed it to soy. However, the guy's diet was entirely processed foods from fast food restaurants (which happen to have soy) so when he changed his diet and the situation remedied itself, he didn't just cut out soy: he stopped overconsuming a lot of other crap that's definitely terrible for you too.

[Free South Califas]

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.

Cite? My understanding of the US statistics is that generally no more than 8-10% of respondents who have used cocaine or heroin in a 12-month period have actually used it recently at the time of the survey; hardly the mark of something merely popular among "most of its users", let alone "produc[ing] an intense addiction in" them, and the US has a lot of desperate people who you would think would be more vulnerable to addiction.

The difference is less about intensity of addiction, IMO (as someone who has used at least 5 times all of the potentially addictive drugs I've seen mentioned in the thread; and who was addicted to only caffeine); and more about intensity of the drug's normal acute symptoms (whether or not the user is addicted), withdrawal, the tragedies motivated by the material difficulties of scoring dope (even someone on welfare can generally afford to use at least the cheapest coffee every day, not true of heroin; I got mine for free at work and was encouraged to drink up), and the criminalization and subsequent 'undergrounding' of the world of politically unpopular drug use.

Now, don't get me wrong, heroin addiction is a huge problem, individually much bigger than caffeine addiction - where it is present, and it is not as common as it once was. On a social scale, however, first we must ask why it is a bigger problem--part of that answer, like I said above, is about the strength and intoxicating effect of the drug, which is obviously not a factor that suggests a 'liberal' approach but is part of a comprehensive understanding; but there are other factors. Second, we must consider that in fact caffeine addiction is a big problem too, and its exponentially larger numbers--due to the productive impact of the drug's normal acute effects, not just because it is legal and accepted--make it reasonable to withhold judging one as causing broadly more harm than the other until all the data are taken into account. For example, in the U.S. we have epidemics of harmful/excessive/persistent stress, anxiety disorders and depression; caffeine can exacerbate the first two and isn't as helpful with the third as one would think - dealing with my addiction required a major, largely unpleasant lifestyle change including devastating headaches, having embarrassing conversations with managers about regular work disruption from anxiety attacks, and having to spend all day selling a fresh aromatic product I could not partake in myself.

I do not at all mean to compare this to the scourge of heroin addiction, yet, it briefly hospitalized me and the impact on my anxiety disorder (exacerbated by the usual anxiety-driving effects of autism in adulthood) has been nothing short of devastating. The anxiety disorder is no small part of why I flunked out of college and am struggling to prepare my readmission packet while scraping together a few hours of work a week today.

I recovered from my caffeine addiction six years ago and I still have these problems. (The headaches are less intense and probably unrelated now, but who knows, considering the stress factor?)

Also, not a mod, but please quit with the mammoth quoting. My post was long enough the first time; no one needs to be wrung through it a second time. Just quote the part you're responding to, so it's clear what you mean; or if you absolutely must quote it all, use the spoiler tag.

The most sensationalist headlines of all time are comming! I think if you consume that amount of anything a day something will happen to your body!

Heh. Reminds me of a brilliant quote by a particular slovak doctor, nutritionist and vegetarian, MUDr. Igor Bukovsky.
When he was asked whether soy can be dangerous by someone, he responded "Of course. For example, if a sack of soy falls on you, it might even kill you."

[The Emerald Dawn]

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) 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.

Coca-Cola of course deny the accusations citing other lifestyle choices helped to contribute.

One noticeable line in there was that the deceased and the family didn't think there would be anything wrong because there were no label warnings on the bottles. Personally I don't see the need to have warning labels on soft drink, surely people are educated enough to know a lot sugar and caffeine is bad for your health. And considering she would have mood swings, lack of energy and the shakes surely that would've been the first sign of trouble. While warning labels are needed for some things they certainly shouldn't be needed for everything or what should be common knowledge, we probably need it on water bottles too since water can also cause death.

So who is really at fault here? The woman for consuming that much soft drink and thinking there was nothing wrong with it? Coca-Cola for selling the product? The Government for not having an education system that informs how deadly caffeine is? Society for allowing this "blame someone else" mentality? Or something else?

I must also say that I have noticed a few stories on soft drink (pop, soda etc) and how morons have caused themselves harm by drinking too much, which makes me think the anti-soft drink lobby is making headway and the media are quickly finding their next agenda to push on people and manipulate public opinion. Hopefully it quietly dies before the politicians start to look for knee jerk reactions to gain popularity and start to impose further taxes on soft-drink and other sugary drinks. for you anks)

it is reported she drank up to 10L/day (that's just over 2.5 gallons/day)

it is reported she drank up to 10L/day (that's just over 2.5 gallons/day

Okay what the fuck.

She was a Kiwi.

[The American Nuclear Fallout Zone]

TEN LITERS A DAY? What an idiot.

Anyways, this should show how bad soft drinks are for you. Since I (mostly) phased them out of my diet, I feel so much better (although I occasionally have one or two a month).

[Samozaryadnyastan]

If a woman drinks 30 cans of coke a day, she has a problem.
Don't blame the fucking corporations if you're too thick to realise that quantity is a danger of itself.

[Free South Califas]

If a woman drinks 30 cans of coke a day, she has a problem.
Don't blame the fucking corporations if you're too thick to realise that quantity is a danger of itself.

Coca-Cola knowingly pushed an addictive product, marketed it as a harmless lifestyle accessory, and lobbied to display the least amount of consumer information possible on the label. For other addictive drugs, the same actions (lobbying might or might not be in the fiscal picture) is considered sufficient to justify violent raids in neighborhoods and at ports and bars. How are they not even slightly culpable for what happens when people get addicted? What drugs does this blanket amnesty apply to, exactly?

[Central Slavia]

If a woman drinks 30 cans of coke a day, she has a problem.
Don't blame the fucking corporations if you're too thick to realise that quantity is a danger of itself.

Coca-Cola knowingly pushed an addictive product, marketed it as a harmless lifestyle accessory, and lobbied to display the least amount of consumer information possible on the label. For other addictive drugs, the same actions (lobbying might or might not be in the fiscal picture) is considered sufficient to justify violent raids in neighborhoods and at ports and bars. How are they not even slightly culpable for what happens when people get addicted? What drugs does this blanket amnesty apply to, exactly?

For Bast's sake, get over yourself.
The product is not extensively addictive nor harmful , as evidenced by most of the world's population using it safely and to their benefit.
And this "blanket amnesty" applies to everything that isn't declared illegal.

[YellowApple]

If a woman drinks 30 cans of coke a day, she has a problem.
Don't blame the fucking corporations if you're too thick to realise that quantity is a danger of itself.

Coca-Cola knowingly pushed an addictive product, marketed it as a harmless lifestyle accessory, and lobbied to display the least amount of consumer information possible on the label. For other addictive drugs, the same actions (lobbying might or might not be in the fiscal picture) is considered sufficient to justify violent raids in neighborhoods and at ports and bars. How are they not even slightly culpable for what happens when people get addicted? What drugs does this blanket amnesty apply to, exactly?

Pardon, but do you have any source indicating that Coca-Cola's flagship product is in and of itself addictive? I've yet to see any peer-reviewed and reputable study indicating cola addictiveness characteristics similar to niccotine, methamphetamine, or any other such truly-addictive drug. In fact, the only substance which is a drug is caffeine, and if you're going to go on a labelling crusade against caffeinated products, then I suppose we should include warning labels on cola, coffee, tea, chocolate, energy drinks, mate, and anything containing guarana, because those edibles are caffeinated, too.

[Free South Califas]

Coca-Cola knowingly pushed an addictive product, marketed it as a harmless lifestyle accessory, and lobbied to display the least amount of consumer information possible on the label. For other addictive drugs, the same actions (lobbying might or might not be in the fiscal picture) is considered sufficient to justify violent raids in neighborhoods and at ports and bars. How are they not even slightly culpable for what happens when people get addicted? What drugs does this blanket amnesty apply to, exactly?

For Bast's sake, get over yourself.

I don't know who that is, but this has nothing to do with my self.

The product is not extensively addictive nor harmful , as evidenced by most of the world's population using it safely and to their benefit.

Ah, I think I see the problem. You don't do science, do you?

And this "blanket amnesty" applies to everything that isn't declared illegal.

The question of a substance's broad legality has nothing to do with being accountable for the consequences of pushing it if it is addictive. Manufacturing a great many perfectly-legal food products has consequences like fines, regulations, etc.

Coca-Cola knowingly pushed an addictive product, marketed it as a harmless lifestyle accessory, and lobbied to display the least amount of consumer information possible on the label. For other addictive drugs, the same actions (lobbying might or might not be in the fiscal picture) is considered sufficient to justify violent raids in neighborhoods and at ports and bars. How are they not even slightly culpable for what happens when people get addicted? What drugs does this blanket amnesty apply to, exactly?

Pardon, but do you have any source indicating that Coca-Cola's flagship product is in and of itself addictive?

Yes, the common knowledge that it contains caffeine, an addictive drug. Of course, it is certainly true that there ought to be proportionally less accountability for pushing this addictive drug products than certain other addictive drug products which exist in the world, in the sense that it is less harmful than, say, heroin, after adjusting for use; I conceded that from the start.

I've yet to see any peer-reviewed and reputable study indicating cola addictiveness characteristics similar to niccotine, methamphetamine, or any other such truly-addictive drug.

My question was, "How are they not even slightly culpable for what happens when people get addicted?" I'm pretty sure "even slightly" covers the gap there.

In fact, the only substance which is a drug is caffeine, and if you're going to go on a labelling crusade against caffeinated products, then I suppose we should include warning labels on cola, coffee, tea, chocolate, energy drinks, mate, and anything containing guarana, because those edibles are caffeinated, too.

For fuck's sake, I'm not a child, I know what caffeine and labeling are. I didn't "go on a labeling crusade against" (against ) the products, I said that labeling addictive drugs is one reasonable alternative. Obviously, the point is to label products with caffeine in them, if one does this; I'm not sure what you think I was endorsing as reasonable, exactly.

[Central Slavia]

For Bast's sake, get over yourself.

I don't know who that is, but this has nothing to do with my self.

The product is not extensively addictive nor harmful , as evidenced by most of the world's population using it safely and to their benefit.

Ah, I think I see the problem. You don't do science, do you?

Nope, I do engineering.
You also failed to address anything of what I said. If you choke on bread , the breadmaker isn't responsible. If you die of malnutrition because eating nothing but buttered bread (once again, some pensioners get into trouble like that), the breadmaker isn't responsible, again.
So why, if you substitute most of your nutrition with a caffeinated sweet beverage, and over the course of a few /years/ doing it, it leads to your death, should the beverage maker be responsible?

[YellowApple]

-snip-

1) "common knowledge" =/= scientific conclusions. It's "common knowledge" that Coca-Cola's acidity is supposedly lethal, even though that "knowledge" has been repeatedly refuted. So, I reiterate: do you have any verifiable scientific documentation backing up your claims of caffeine addictiveness? For someone who replies to legitimate refutations with "You don't do science, do you?", you seem to have a similar lack of scientific basis for your claims.

2) Coca-Cola isn't "even slightly culpable" because they are not the ones to blame. The woman drank several times the upper limit of safe consumption of any fluid, let alone a carbonated beverage. If I sell someone a wrench so he/she can fix a car, am I liable if that person proceeds to bash his own head in with it repeatedly?

[The Emerald Dawn]

-snip-

1) "common knowledge" =/= scientific conclusions. It's "common knowledge" that Coca-Cola's acidity is supposedly lethal, even though that "knowledge" has been repeatedly refuted. So, I reiterate: do you have any verifiable scientific documentation backing up your claims of caffeine addictiveness? For someone who replies to legitimate refutations with "You don't do science, do you?", you seem to have a similar lack of scientific basis for your claims.

2) Coca-Cola isn't "even slightly culpable" because they are not the ones to blame. The woman drank several times the upper limit of safe consumption of any fluid, let alone a carbonated beverage. If I sell someone a wrench so he/she can fix a car, am I liable if that person proceeds to bash his own head in with it repeatedly?

I drink over three gallons of water a day.

I'm not seeing it.

[Great Nepal]

I drink over three gallons of water a day.
I'm not seeing it.

You sure? That would be about 14 litres which is two litres more than amount healthy kidney can excrete (ignoring sleeping time, stress etc).

[The Emerald Dawn]

I drink over three gallons of water a day.
I'm not seeing it.

You sure? That would be about 14 litres which is two litres more than amount healthy kidney can excrete (ignoring sleeping time, stress etc).

I'm in a quite warm environment all day, I sweat like a mofo at work.

[Divair]

If you drink too much of something, you die? No fucking way.

[Wind in the Willows]

Deleted.

[Great Nepal]

You sure? That would be about 14 litres which is two litres more than amount healthy kidney can excrete (ignoring sleeping time, stress etc).

I'm in a quite warm environment all day, I sweat like a mofo at work.

That probably has something to do with it... If they get AC and you drink three gallons a day, we will hear about it in news.
Anyway, this women drank coke roughly equal to water you drink in a day and probably doesn't sweat as much and doesn't have perfect kidneys.

[The Zeonic States]

Honestly this is just bleach being poured into the genepool.

Needs to happen occasionally.

[Central Slavia]

You sure? That would be about 14 litres which is two litres more than amount healthy kidney can excrete (ignoring sleeping time, stress etc).

I'm in a quite warm environment all day, I sweat like a mofo at work.

I refuse to believe you drink as much water per day as a friggin' donkey.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm in a quite warm environment all day, I sweat like a mofo at work.

I refuse to believe you drink as much water per day as a friggin' donkey.

I have three gallon jugs I bring to work, 14 hours later they are empty.

I make several trips to the restroom, whereupon I am forced to endure the humiliation of the communal toilet, and other than that I am fine.

You can refuse to believe if you wish, but that is up to you.