New topic on Mill!

[Jay Levine]

J.S. Mill also is known as a fierce proponent of individual rights; do
you think the government had any right to ban "Four Loco"? (it was an
acoholic "soda" that combined alcohol and caffeine and was responsible
for sending many college kids across the country into the ER). Isn't
it all about personal responsibility,though?

[Emily Lawler]

YES. 1000% THEIR RIGHT.

[George Bonner]

4loco is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it has enough alchohol content to power a car.

[Zachary Brown]

i think that it is right to ban 4loco. The government is saving
people's lives by banning it

On Feb 15, 1:01 pm, Jay Levine <jaymlevin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Maia Johnson]

yes they have right to, people died from it.

[Emily Lawler]

george, please tell me u r kidding...

[whitney milewski]

Four Loco was an unhealthy kind of substance and people were drinking it unresponsibly but I don't think they should've banned it. Now people are more than likely just going to miz alcohol and energy drinks such as Monster to get an equivalent to Four Loco.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jay Levine <jaymle...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Misa Tran]

It's usually always our decision to whether drink or not. It's our
responsibility to take care of ourselves.

On Feb 15, 1:01 pm, Jay Levine <jaymlevin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[bridget stemmler]

The government did not have a right to ban Four Loco. The label
indicated what the drink contained, if somebody is stupid enough to
drink it then that is there decision and their right

On Feb 15, 1:01 pm, Jay Levine <jaymlevin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Calé Frost]

Well, since it ended in so much...badness....it should be banned. Like
the toy recall thing from China, I think it was? It's the same kind of
deal, sorta.

On Feb 15, 1:01 pm, Jay Levine <jaymlevin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Phil Sasso-Flanagan]

umm i think just because it could kill you, it was probably a good
idea to ban it

On Feb 15, 1:01 pm, Jay Levine <jaymlevin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Rhianna Waterman]

If it is causing physical damage and harming college kids then yes, they should ban it. It is like the Pinto case, the company knew the car was unsafe, but yet, they still put it on the market even when they knew the damage it could cause. The Four Loco could kill and harm students, yet they still want to sell it? It is wrong.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jay Levine <jaymle...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Emily Lawler]

People may say that if the government can sell cigarettes, then it is fine for them to sell four loco. I think that it is wrong because people know that cigaretteswill kill you and that is almost inevitable. the purpose of alcohol, even though it can kill you, is not to kill you. if it is not supposed to kill you, that that shouldn't happen.

[George Bonner]

whitneys got a good point. banning it wont stop people who really want
to mix energy drinks and alchohol.

and M, it can really power a car

> > it all about personal responsibility,though?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Egan Davis]

Yes I agree that Four Loko is very dangerous for anyone to be drinking, but I also think it is the peoples choice wether they want to harm themselves or not. Ps. Four Lokos are my favorite drink!...... jk

[Nick Roy]

I think the government has the right to intervene if the product has the potenetial of killing some one. Because then, on the subject of utilitarianism, if people are dead, not only is the dead person unhappy, but his/her family and friends are also unhappy, decreasing overall happiness.

[Stephanie Pelletier]

personal responsiblity is probably a good point but not everyone is
capable of abiding by these rules. it is good to ban four loco because
it is harming people in severe numbers. people can't handle it

[Austin Ratkevicius]

Why must we get rid of legitimate taxable products from our store
shelfs and then question why we have a budget deficit?

On Feb 15, 1:03 pm, Emily Lawler <elawle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> george, please tell me u r kidding...
>

> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:02 PM, George Bonner <georgecbon...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > 4loco is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > it has enough alchohol content to power a car.
>
> > On Feb 15, 1:01 pm, Jay Levine <jaymlevin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > J.S. Mill also is known as a fierce proponent of individual rights; do
> > > you think the government had any right to ban "Four Loco"? (it was an
> > > acoholic "soda" that combined alcohol and caffeine and was responsible
> > > for sending many college kids across the country into the ER).  Isn't

[Calé Frost]

So should we get rid of traffic lights just because it's our
responsibility to drive safely?
Yeah, I challenged you.

[bridget stemmler]

if people can't handle it then they shouldn't drink it

On Feb 15, 1:06 pm, Stephanie Pelletier

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Emily DelDotto]

I agree because we can choose whether or not to drink.

On Feb 15, 1:04 pm, Misa Tran <fupa...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jaclyn Solimine]

Four loco wasn't just dangerous to the people drinking it, but to others who could be harmed because of a drunk driver or something....Sure, people should have the right to make decisions on whether or not they want to drink it, but by banning it the government is protecting the people who have no say in that decision. 

[bridget stemmler]

exactly

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Calé Frost]

Always the devil's advocate, Austin....

On Feb 15, 1:06 pm, Austin Ratkevicius <kma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Michaela Pierro]

I don't think the government should have the right to ban it because
it a personal choice to purchase and consume the product.

On Feb 15, 1:01 pm, Jay Levine <jaymlevin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Stephanie Pelletier]

people may not know the dangers, i mean its not like the ad companies
explain all the risks involved in drinking it. the only thing they
have to say is "drink responsibly"

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Emily Lawler]

people are npt always responsible in America and we all know that, so to give them just another thing to harm themselves is not needed.

[Phil Sasso-Flanagan]

you just discovered a new energy source c ya later BP!

[George Bonner]

jackie, by that rule, shouldnt alchohol be banned too?

On Feb 15, 1:07 pm, Jaclyn Solimine <jvsolim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Four loco wasn't just dangerous to the people drinking it, but to others who
> could be harmed because of a drunk driver or something....Sure, people
> should have the right to make decisions on whether or not they want to drink
> it, but by banning it the government is protecting the people who have no
> say in that decision.
>

> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:03 PM, whitney milewski <wmilewski...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Four Loco was an unhealthy kind of substance and people were drinking it
> > unresponsibly but I don't think they should've banned it. Now people are
> > more than likely just going to miz alcohol and energy drinks such as Monster
> > to get an equivalent to Four Loco.
>

> >  On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jay Levine <jaymlevin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> J.S. Mill also is known as a fierce proponent of individual rights; do
> >> you think the government had any right to ban "Four Loco"? (it was an
> >> acoholic "soda" that combined alcohol and caffeine and was responsible
> >> for sending many college kids across the country into the ER).  Isn't

[whitney milewski]

Emily has a really good point. The government sells cigarettes which, we all are well aware, cause some serious health problems, but people still smoke anyways. So if the government is willing to sell cancer sticks then why to they have the right to ban an alcoholic drink? It's purely one's own decision to smoke a cigarette or drink an alcoholic beverage.

[Misa Tran]

i agree

[Lucille Sirois]

Companies that have a product to be consumed must have requirred a FDA
approval. Even if the consumer sees the FDA warning about it having
serious health problems and they still chose to drink it,
responsibility lies on their shoulders.

On Feb 15, 1:04 pm, bridget stemmler <bridgetstemm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Jaclyn Solimine]

good point

[Zachary Brown]

misa, which subject do you agree upon?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Austin Ratkevicius]

We have cars that they can harm themselves in. What is the difference
between a car going at 65mph and an alcoholic drink?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Calé Frost]

I was kinda wondering... why is it exactly that this alcoholic
beverage in particular has caused so many deaths and not every other
kind in the country? Just saying, is it poisoned or something? :P

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Egan Davis]

I agree with widg. Very good point

[Phil Sasso-Flanagan]

i agree with emily

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Maia Johnson]

i think that in some cases government intervention for the good of the nation is necassary, this is one of those cases.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, George Bonner <george...@gmail.com> wrote:

[George Bonner]

austin

one can kill you now, and one can kill you later

[Emily Lawler]

it has an INSANE amount of alcohol per can.. and people don't take into that into consideration when they drink one can and go for another as opposed to beer.

[George Bonner]

cale, its pretty much a red bull mixed with vodka. does that answer
your question?

[Rhianna Waterman]

In a way, one could argue that if you are aware of the chemicals and alcohol content in the bottle and still are willing to drink it, then the consequences of your actions fall on you. It is put on the market to sell, it is a matter of making money and those who buy the drink should consider the consequences.

[Nick Roy]

Just saying, everyone who says that the government shouldn't have intervened would you like to tell me the last time you looked to see the ingredients in things?

[Zachary Brown]

emily, it actually doesn't have that much as per say hard alcohol. it
is the caffine mixed with it that is the killer. just saying...

[Emily Lawler]

thanks phil!

[Austin Ratkevicius]

George,
Technically they both can kill you now or later, but why do we worry
about one more than the other?

[Misa Tran]

I agree with whitney. It's our personal decision if we want to drink
or smoke.

[bridget stemmler]

well they should because it says so on the label

[whitney milewski]

Each can clearly labels (or should) how much alcohol is in it. If someone is dumb enough not to check that out before they chug one down, they shouldn't be drinking in the first place. They need to realize and recognize their alcohol consumption when they drink.

[Calé Frost]

Hahahaha, I just saw Mr. F walking by.

On Feb 15, 1:14 pm, whitney milewski <wmilewski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Each can clearly labels (or should) how much alcohol is in it. If someone is
> dumb enough not to check that out before they chug one down, they shouldn't
> be drinking in the first place. They need to realize and recognize their
> alcohol consumption when they drink.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Emily Lawler <elawle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > it has an INSANE amount of alcohol per can.. and people don't take into
> > that into consideration when they drink one can and go for another as
> > opposed to beer.
>

[Nick Roy]

If that's your argument Whitney, then you're telling me every time you try something new, you make sure you know everything that's in it?

[George Bonner]

they both have age restrictions. (that few abide by.)