It has nothing illegal in it, but contains more sugar and caffine.
Now people want it banned because of the name.
Should it be banned?
2006-09-26 01:49:20 · 17 answers · asked by leftturnclyde152521 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I think the issue is not whether the *drink* should be banned, but whether the *name* should be banned. Names are banned all the time anyway. One cannot infringe on someone's trademark or trade name. Names probably cannot use racial epithets.
Recently, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (my former employer) denied a trademark for "White Pride Country Wide" as being offensive. Yet they allow trademarks for "Black Pride" and "Black Power."
I am sure that if they tried to sell the soft drink using the innocuous label "White Pride," the Government would immediately ban the label. How could anyone be shocked to see a repugnant, and perhaps dangerous, label like "Cocaine" banned?
People vary significantly in intelligence, maturity, and level of sanity. I am sure that there are people who are stupid enough that if there were a good tasting soft drink called "Racism," they would conclude that racism is OK. Just as Michael Jordan can sell a soft drink, perhaps a soft drink could sell racism. The same argument goes for the label "Cocaine."
I favor banning the name "Cocaine" because the cost to society of banning it is far exceeded by the potential cost to society of not banning it.
2006-09-26 08:34:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Banned because of the name? That hardly seems like a good enough reason. Should we then go after everything else that sounds drug-related? Ford has a vehicle called the "Escape". People use drugs to escape their problems, so let's make Ford rename their car. What about sex? Should GM be allowed to market an SUV called the "Hummer"?
Cocaine is a pretty stupid name for a product, but I would hope that the free market will kill it by leaving it on the shelves. Many stores won't carry it because of the name and that's fine too. But banning a product because of the name isn't right.
2006-09-26 01:55:09 · answer #2 · answered by Joe B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Didnt Coca Cola have cocaine in it years ago when it first came out? Cocoa plant, caffiene, sugar --what a genius. Yes it should be banned. I havent heard of it but it doesnt sound like I want to be drinking something that has that name. Too many bad memories. I'll stick to coffee
2006-09-26 01:53:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the name is a really poor choice. I also think something with mega caffeine and mega sugar is a poor choice. However, I don't know that banning it is necessary. We can make a statement and impact sales by not buying something that has very little value on any level!
2006-09-26 01:58:00 · answer #4 · answered by clarity 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. There is nothing illegal in the drink, so it should not be banned.
2006-09-26 02:17:41 · answer #5 · answered by Tony M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Shouldn't they ban coke for the same thing then? That has got to be one of the stupidest ideas, ever
2006-09-26 02:09:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
wooow they truly named an power drink COCAINE??? with slightly of success it do not have the same after-impacts as cocaine...egh. have not heard of that drink yet. i am going to likely attempt it if I see it although.
2016-12-02 02:25:01 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I personally wouldn't support or purchase such a product, but I don't think it should be banned. I think the government needs to let the people make their own decisions. We don't need our decisions made for us.
2006-09-26 01:53:36 · answer #8 · answered by Writer of Truth 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No . If they ban it they would have to ban Coke. Thats how it got it's name .
2006-09-26 01:52:56 · answer #9 · answered by cottoncandyn2000 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if all the soccer moms have their way it will be banned.
whats up with that anyway. i think it's like putting ratings on
games and music that just entices impressionable young
minds to buy it just on that pretense. it's just a sales gimic
at our kids expense
2006-09-26 02:01:19 · answer #10 · answered by Enigma 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋