abraxas @ abraxas @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

780

Joined

2 yr. ago

due to poor labeling by Panera

Having seen the labeling, I would say it's the opposite of poor. They're far more focused on the caffeine in this lemonade than I would have expected on first reading the story.

Either signage was missing, or she did the food equivalent of driving the wrong way up a one-way because she was texting.

There's a fairly massive sign right in front of it with caffeine content and advertising targeted at caffeine fans.

It's less caffeine than a large ice coffee at most establishments, straight-out. 400mg caffeine is downright reasonable. And the articles have been claiming her family's side is that she thought it wasn't caffeinated at all.

It's actually about 2/3 the caffeine of any of the most popular coffee blends in the US. It's also only ~2/3 of the caffeine of Panera's own Light Roast. That's why they explicitly compare its caffeination to their dark roast.

Ironically, this new warning is a lot smaller than the label, and less visible. It's just CYA protections from a company it seems that for the first time in a long time, didn't actually fuck up.

I’m sure a lot of people don’t know off the top of there head what is and is not a lot of caffeine.

"As much caffeine as our coffee" She was sucking down 30oz cups of it (still under the FDA safe limit) on multiple days, and her family's claim is that she thought it wasn't caffeinated at all.

The one possible claim is that in SOME stores the signage was missing for various reasons. That doesn't seem to be the case with her store.

I'd like to point out the irony that these enhanced warnings are a tiny sign that will easily be missed if you ignore the MASSIVE signage and marketing that remind the consumer that the beverages are caffeinated.

The silly part is that "see, it's a WAaaaarrrrning" might hold more protective weight in court than "HEY LOOK WE GOT A FUCKTON OF CAFFEINE" billboards.

You can’t stop people from doing stupid things, but you can make it harder. We also don’t give in to emotional blackmail when hedonists threaten self harm to get their way.

We have centuries of evidence that banning drugs doesn't make it harder to get. It makes it easier to get.

And I'm not sure what you mean by emotional blackmail. You're saying you don't care that the Drug War is a net harm because you "think it's right"? Or something altogether different.

I used to support legalizing weed, but I’ve seen how damaging it is to the type of vulnerable people who think it’s a miracle drug.

They legalized weed where I live. Here's what it did:

1. Dramatic economic improvements
2. A lot of people from being criminals who couldn't get jobs to being successful professionals because the weight of "possession" in criminal records went down for them
3. Similarly, a lot of people went from being deadbeat addicts to functioning members of society because they could get jobs despite failing marijuana tests

Factually speaking, states (I'm in the US) where pot is legal are overall better off than demographically similar states where it is illegal. And states that chose to legalize pot improved in many ways with virtually no negative side-effects except gen-Xers complaining "I can't go anywhere without getting a whiff of someone that smells like they smoke pot"

It sounds like you are happy to make a million people suffer because of a few so-called "vulnerable people" who disagree with you on the medicinal value?

We already have governments that are passing laws against junk food. I don’t think that’s appropriate, but I think it would be acceptable to impose government intervention on people who demonstrate that they are incapable of taking care of themselves. Food stamps should not cover junk food.

Agreed with everything but the last part. That's just an opening to politicize what is "junk food". Well, actually, I think I'm a bit concerned with "demonstrate that they are incapable of taking care of themselves" on the topic of junk food. Are you suggesting monthly weigh-ins and anyone over 10lbs overweight gets put in jail?

I support extensive welfare, but only for people who are productive with it.

Translation - your idea of welfare is to give big businesses more power by forcing the poor to work for them? I think I'll avoid responding further on your "extensive welfare" point because that's just not what this topic is about and I'm getting tired of the anti-evidence stance most people take on the topic.

then that government will come back and tell you what to do.

Ironic. Since everything above this point, you are encouraging the government "come back and tell us what to do" wrt drug laws. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too? Is the hypocrisy of that lost on you, or do you embrace it willingly?

What does that do about the illegal sources of drugs? Are they not dangerous criminal elements like in most countries? It also seems to make all health-related responses reactionary. I still hold that having dispensaries that provide those hard drugs in as safe a manner as possible would alleviate both of those concerns. The gangs distributing drugs suddenly have one fewer tool, and the dispensaries could also be trained (and even incentivized) on addiction handling

I don't know Coca very well, but I have known marijuana growers and the lengths they're willing to go for their crops even now suggests to me coca could be profitable. I knew a guy a few years ago who had a license to wholesale (whatever they call it) in his own state. Small warehouse that's fully temperature and humidity-controlled with grow lights, with a carbon dioxide injection system. His electric bills were massive, but his profit margins were more than sufficient.

Would you say cocaine has tighter margins than pot? I would believe that maybe, but I don't know for a fact.

That is not evidence trump is involved

Wrong

because he very much could have not been involved.

Correct

...welcome to how evidence works. The legal definition for evidence is "Evidence an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable" It is incredibly rare that "no evidence" exists for some claim. People who assert otherwise are either confusing evidence with proof OR arguing from a position of such extreme bias they cannot see. I still haven't figured which of the two you are, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by correcting the former.

You’re misusing the word evidence. There is absolutely evidence that he is guilty.

No there isn’t. There is just evidence that this guy bought some hotel rooms to suck up to trump.

Suggestion: Look up what "evidence" means as a legal term. The paper trail of the guy buying hotel rooms is evidence that Trump was involved. Doesn't make Trump guilty. Doesn't make him innocent either. Evidence isn't proof, and evidence exists of things we are not yet convinced are true (or that actually aren't).

St Judes is not the same as the Clinton Foundation and you know that.

I really don't know that. The name of the founders on it shouldn't affect the charity. Except for Trump foundation, but only because he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and had it taken away.

Sure! This is where you conceded the only point I cared about discussing here.

Given she had a heart condition, any amount seems to have been “excessive”.

I think you just made the mistake of conceding my whole point. Yes, if she shouldn't have had ANY caffeine, we have a problem. And the problem is that she walked to a self-service area where over 90% of the beverages are caffeinated (they have maybe 2 or 3 things that aren't, tops?), and she filled her cup with the ONLY one that explicitly advertised being caffeinated.

Back to your question:

How many people are confusing a large iced coffee with a shot of espresso as a caffeine free beverage?

Yet again, I don't think this question is relevant ESPECIALLY now that you conceded that the amount of caffeine is irrelevant and not problematic. But here's the key quotes of the thread, and why I felt your question was out-of-touch:

1. "More caffeine than two energy drinks combined seems very excessive to me." <--topic is amount of caffeine
2. "What coffee are you drinking that has almost 400mg of caffeine in it? Most have around 100mg." <--topic is amount of caffeine
3. "How many people are confusing a large iced coffee with a shot of espresso as a caffeine free beverage?" <--topic is "caffeine-free beverage"

Note, you just accepted my side of the underlying discussion as fact because it didn't matter to your new point. That's how I know your reply was a context-switch.

I think you're agreeing with me, here? It seems like you meant to reply to a comment below or beside mine, very similar to what I posted but not a direct response.

But yeah... the fact that you can't make most drugs is why decriminalizing will empower organized crime.

People aren’t responsible enough to go in and buy weed and only use it for medicinal purposes.

People aren't responsible enough to not drink enough water to kill themselves, too. What's your point? Are you planning to have the government regulate food intake as well? Ban hamburgers?

Luckily you can't OD on weed, and the psychosis rate even at high dosages is extremely low compared to other drug acute reactions (like coffee). If we're going to legalize anything, it should be weed. Even before fried food.

If we did that, Trump supporters would use it to get ivermectin for their kids.

I'd rather they give their kid ivermectin (with a pharmacist telling them they shouldn't) than them giving them a spoonful of lysol. Or are you suggesting we stop people from being able to buy lysol and bleach?

We cannot stop a bad parent from having access to things that harm their kids, we can only educate them and take the children from them if they are unfit to parent their child.

I wouldn't count the Known to the State of California warnings for much. They added that warning to coffee cups despite the link being weak and contrived.

And as others said, no study has linked consumption of weed edibles (or weed vaping) to causing cancer. In fact, it's the opposite. Several (preliminary) studies show that marijuana retards of reduces the risk of some cancers. It is often prescribed to cancer patients for appetite-gain and pain reduction (with fewer side-effects than other prescriptions for the same), but is also now being prescribed for its potential anti-carcinogenic properties.

I mean, not really. I've never bought drugs like that, but I could have a bag of coke in about 5 minutes because only an idiot wouldn't know a dealer when they drive past one.

It'd be risky, but otherwise easier than walking into the local dispensary or liquor store. And I don't have to show ID if I'm buying shit on the street (which is why minors are more likely to take illegal drugs than legal ones)

Honestly, decriminalization is possibly worse a drug war (if only barely). Where legalization creates a regulated environment with research and controls, decriminalization increases the use by individuals without giving a legal way to acquire - which just empowers organized crime to get bigger and sell more.

Pot is a weird magical exception because a lot of individuals started growing for their friends and family. But that wouldn't happen with actual hard drugs.

Yeah, because this system of "I know this is a life-saving medicine. But if you don't come have a physical and pay my copay, I'll cut you off and let you die" works wonderfully now.

I prefer the Home Depot variant of drug sales. If you're sure you know what you're doing, you can go in and buy that mainline electric wire to install your own panel without once showing them a license. You don't need to be trained if you buy a chainsaw despite the fact it will absolutely kill you if you screw it up. Pharmacies should be the same way. If you know what Xgeva (random drug name) does and are 100% sure it's for you, you can buy it with or without a prescription. But the rest of us would go to a doctor first just like you go to an electrician.

But if you're on something long-term, and you have no reason to go to a doctor, it shouldn't be a contingency. I had a friend told she wouldn't get diabetes meds if she didn't get her annual female exams.