Topic: Keer Stourmer: "We will ban kids from buying energy drinks!"
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #120,020
KS: These sugary drinks are rotting teeth! 😠
Average Brit: So you will regulate sugar in drinks? 🤔
KS: No, we will ban drinks with too much caffeine 🙂↔️
AB: What does caffeine have to with teeth? 🤨
KS: This will protect wourking class kiddos! 🥴
AB: So high-caffeine and high-sugar Starbucks deserts will be banned for kids too because they are identical to energy drinks? 😅
KS: Wrong! Those are exempt. This only applies to energy drinks in aluminum cans 😵💫
AB: 😕???
Labour is the party of irrationality and stabbing apologists.
Average Brit: So you will regulate sugar in drinks? 🤔
KS: No, we will ban drinks with too much caffeine 🙂↔️
AB: What does caffeine have to with teeth? 🤨
KS: This will protect wourking class kiddos! 🥴
AB: So high-caffeine and high-sugar Starbucks deserts will be banned for kids too because they are identical to energy drinks? 😅
KS: Wrong! Those are exempt. This only applies to energy drinks in aluminum cans 😵💫
AB: 😕???
Labour is the party of irrationality and stabbing apologists.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,314,309
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,311
*Keir Starmer
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 39 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,313
Lol op is pro energy drinks
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,315
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 23 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,316
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,317
@1,314,313 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
If you are against sugar, regulate sugar, not something else.
If you don't want kids to drink energy drinks, don't make it dependent on the container.
Kids shouldn't be drinking them, but this proposed law is not thought through.
If you are against sugar, regulate sugar, not something else.
If you don't want kids to drink energy drinks, don't make it dependent on the container.
Kids shouldn't be drinking them, but this proposed law is not thought through.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 39 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,318
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,319
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 52 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,320
@1,314,318 (B)
Exactly!
Kids can still rot their teeth out with coca cola, or a frappucino with even more caffeine.
If a 15 year old wants to buy a sugar-free red bull, they can't because of their teeth, which will be unaffected by the drink.
No one in labour considered that? And the media hasn't mentioned this once? Not one journalist asking why it's okay if it's in a plastic cup instead?
It's just wild how lazy everyone is.
Exactly!
Kids can still rot their teeth out with coca cola, or a frappucino with even more caffeine.
If a 15 year old wants to buy a sugar-free red bull, they can't because of their teeth, which will be unaffected by the drink.
No one in labour considered that? And the media hasn't mentioned this once? Not one journalist asking why it's okay if it's in a plastic cup instead?
It's just wild how lazy everyone is.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,321
@1,314,319 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
It's not effective at all if you can put it in a plastic cup as a loophole.
And why are they banning sugar free drinks "because dental problems"?
It makes zero sense.
It's not effective at all if you can put it in a plastic cup as a loophole.
And why are they banning sugar free drinks "because dental problems"?
It makes zero sense.
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,341
is that shit metabolized in a kid in a timely manner?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 40 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,346
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,355
There is already a sugar tax which makes sugary drinks more expensive, and no working class children go to Starbucks because it's like £5 for a coffee
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,365
When you take caffeine out of something and then purify it before you put it into another thing, it is bad. When you take caffeine out of something but leave the other stuff that came out with the caffeine before you put into another thing, it is good.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,384
@1,314,321 (A)
> It's not effective at all if you can put it in a plastic cup as a loophole.
Well they actually just plan to ban energy drinks with more than 150mg
> And why are they banning sugar free drinks "because dental problems"?
>
> It makes zero sense.
Who are you quoting
> It's not effective at all if you can put it in a plastic cup as a loophole.
Well they actually just plan to ban energy drinks with more than 150mg
> And why are they banning sugar free drinks "because dental problems"?
>
> It makes zero sense.
Who are you quoting
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,385
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> > It's not effective at all if you can put it in a plastic cup as a loophole.
> Well they actually just plan to ban energy drinks with more than 150%
Percent? How do you think caffeine works?
>
> > And why are they banning sugar free drinks "because dental problems"?
> >
> > It makes zero sense.
> Who are you quoting
The PM.
> > It's not effective at all if you can put it in a plastic cup as a loophole.
> Well they actually just plan to ban energy drinks with more than 150%
Percent? How do you think caffeine works?
>
> > And why are they banning sugar free drinks "because dental problems"?
> >
> > It makes zero sense.
> Who are you quoting
The PM.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,387
@previous (A)
> > > It's not effective at all if you can put it in a plastic cup as a loophole.
> > Well they actually just plan to ban energy drinks with more than 150%
> Percent? How do you think caffeine works?
Fixed
> > > And why are they banning sugar free drinks "because dental problems"?
> > >
> > > It makes zero sense.
> > Who are you quoting
>
> The PM.
Where
> > > It's not effective at all if you can put it in a plastic cup as a loophole.
> > Well they actually just plan to ban energy drinks with more than 150%
> Percent? How do you think caffeine works?
Fixed
> > > And why are they banning sugar free drinks "because dental problems"?
> > >
> > > It makes zero sense.
> > Who are you quoting
>
> The PM.
Where
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,388
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> Fixed.
They are not banning all drinks with more than 150mg.
A sugar-free monster with 160mg is banned, while a Venti frappucino has more than 150mg will still be sellable to children.
It doesn't apply to those sugary coffee beverages.
It's not an effective policy if a child can rot their teeth on one energy drink, while another is banned from buying a drink with zero sugar.
> Where
https://news.sky.com/story/ban-on-sale-of-energy-drinks-to-teens-and-100-000-more-dental-appointments-under-labour-plans-13151154
> Fixed.
They are not banning all drinks with more than 150mg.
A sugar-free monster with 160mg is banned, while a Venti frappucino has more than 150mg will still be sellable to children.
It doesn't apply to those sugary coffee beverages.
It's not an effective policy if a child can rot their teeth on one energy drink, while another is banned from buying a drink with zero sugar.
> Where
https://news.sky.com/story/ban-on-sale-of-energy-drinks-to-teens-and-100-000-more-dental-appointments-under-labour-plans-13151154
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,390
@previous (A)> > Fixed.
>
> They are not banning all drinks with more than 150mg.
That's why I said they are banning energy drinks with more than 150mg
> A sugar-free monster with 160mg is banned, while a Venti frappucino has more than 150mg will still be sellable to children.
>
> It doesn't apply to those sugary coffee beverages.
So??
> It's not an effective policy if a child can rot their teeth on one energy drink, while another is banned from buying a drink with zero sugar.
Well they soon can't anymore because they are banning energy drinks
> > Where
>
> https://news.sky.com/story/ban-on-sale-of-energy-drinks-to-teens-and-100-000-more-dental-appointments-under-labour-plans-13151154
Pic related
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,391
> Labour is the party of irrationality and stabbing apologists.
Why the fuck did you idiots vote them in then?
Why the fuck did you idiots vote them in then?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,393
@1,314,390 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> > They are not banning all drinks with more than 150mg.
> That's why I said they are banning energy drinks with more than 150mg
🤔 Want to reread this and fix it too?
Or are you saying it's better because we don't call frapuccinos "energy drinks", as if the caffeine and sugar are somehow not a problem because of what we call the drink.
>
> > It doesn't apply to those sugary coffee beverages.
>
> So??
So what's the point of banning some drinks with more than 150mg and not others?
A kid gets turned town for an overcaffeinated beverage, and so just buys a different beverage with the same or more caffeine.
If the caffeine is causing problems, and he can still buy a different brand with the same issue, the law is ineffective.
>
> Well they soon can't anymore because they are banning energy drinks
No, a kid can still buy an over-caffeinated beverage with too much sugar. What you call the drink is irrelevant.
You may not consider a frappucino an "energy drink" but it still has the same caffeine and sugar, it's a nominal difference. Your brain and teeth won't know the difference.
The law makes an exception that completely defeats the point of the ban, it will just shift profits from one company to another.
>
> Pic related
That's not how you search a webpage. If they phrased it "because of dental problems" that search would have failed because you left out "of". It does cite energy drinks being sugary, so that article makes my point.
Originally I saw a video of him saying he was doing it because of dental problems, but I don't know where that video can be found.
> > They are not banning all drinks with more than 150mg.
> That's why I said they are banning energy drinks with more than 150mg
🤔 Want to reread this and fix it too?
Or are you saying it's better because we don't call frapuccinos "energy drinks", as if the caffeine and sugar are somehow not a problem because of what we call the drink.
>
> > It doesn't apply to those sugary coffee beverages.
>
> So??
So what's the point of banning some drinks with more than 150mg and not others?
A kid gets turned town for an overcaffeinated beverage, and so just buys a different beverage with the same or more caffeine.
If the caffeine is causing problems, and he can still buy a different brand with the same issue, the law is ineffective.
>
> Well they soon can't anymore because they are banning energy drinks
No, a kid can still buy an over-caffeinated beverage with too much sugar. What you call the drink is irrelevant.
You may not consider a frappucino an "energy drink" but it still has the same caffeine and sugar, it's a nominal difference. Your brain and teeth won't know the difference.
The law makes an exception that completely defeats the point of the ban, it will just shift profits from one company to another.
>
> Pic related
That's not how you search a webpage. If they phrased it "because of dental problems" that search would have failed because you left out "of". It does cite energy drinks being sugary, so that article makes my point.
Originally I saw a video of him saying he was doing it because of dental problems, but I don't know where that video can be found.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 36 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,399
@previous (A)
> > > They are not banning all drinks with more than 150mg.
> > That's why I said they are banning energy drinks with more than 150mg
> 🤔 Want to reread this and fix it too?
>
> Or are you saying it's better because we don't call frapuccinos "energy drinks", as if the caffeine and sugar are somehow not a problem because of what we call the drink.
> >
> > > It doesn't apply to those sugary coffee beverages.
> >
> > So??
>
> So what's the point of banning some drinks with more than 150mg and not others?
>
> A kid gets turned town for an overcaffeinated beverage, and so just buys a different beverage with the same or more caffeine.
>
> If the caffeine is causing problems, and he can still buy a different brand with the same issue, the law is ineffective.
> >
> > Well they soon can't anymore because they are banning energy drinks
>
> No, a kid can still buy an over-caffeinated beverage with too much sugar. What you call the drink is irrelevant.
>
> You may not consider a frappucino an "energy drink" but it still has the same caffeine and sugar, it's a nominal difference. Your brain and teeth won't know the difference.
>
> The law makes an exception that completely defeats the point of the ban, it will just shift profits from one company to another.
> >
>
> > Pic related
>
> That's not how you search a webpage. If they phrased it "because of dental problems" that search would have failed because you left out "of". It does cite energy drinks being sugary, so that article makes my point.
>
> Originally I saw a video of him saying he was doing it because of dental problems, but I don't know where that video can be found.
Lol ain’t nobody reading all that shit you autistic faggot
> > > They are not banning all drinks with more than 150mg.
> > That's why I said they are banning energy drinks with more than 150mg
> 🤔 Want to reread this and fix it too?
>
> Or are you saying it's better because we don't call frapuccinos "energy drinks", as if the caffeine and sugar are somehow not a problem because of what we call the drink.
> >
> > > It doesn't apply to those sugary coffee beverages.
> >
> > So??
>
> So what's the point of banning some drinks with more than 150mg and not others?
>
> A kid gets turned town for an overcaffeinated beverage, and so just buys a different beverage with the same or more caffeine.
>
> If the caffeine is causing problems, and he can still buy a different brand with the same issue, the law is ineffective.
> >
> > Well they soon can't anymore because they are banning energy drinks
>
> No, a kid can still buy an over-caffeinated beverage with too much sugar. What you call the drink is irrelevant.
>
> You may not consider a frappucino an "energy drink" but it still has the same caffeine and sugar, it's a nominal difference. Your brain and teeth won't know the difference.
>
> The law makes an exception that completely defeats the point of the ban, it will just shift profits from one company to another.
> >
>
> > Pic related
>
> That's not how you search a webpage. If they phrased it "because of dental problems" that search would have failed because you left out "of". It does cite energy drinks being sugary, so that article makes my point.
>
> Originally I saw a video of him saying he was doing it because of dental problems, but I don't know where that video can be found.
Lol ain’t nobody reading all that shit you autistic faggot
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,401
@1,314,393 (A)
The same caffeine? No it doesn't. I went over this already. It is good and noble for a beverage to made by pouring hot water over a plant product that contains caffeine, but bad and sordid to add pure caffeine to an otherwise uncaffeinated beverage.
The same caffeine? No it doesn't. I went over this already. It is good and noble for a beverage to made by pouring hot water over a plant product that contains caffeine, but bad and sordid to add pure caffeine to an otherwise uncaffeinated beverage.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,402
A good start but he needs to ban all caffeine except naturally lightly caffeinated teas before he can get my vote.
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,439
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,447
@1,314,401 (G)
Real Poe's law time
@previous (boof)
> >
> > Labour is the party of irrationality and stabbing apologists.
>
> That doesn't sound accurate
Labour is conflating culture and race as they have for decades.
Protestors want to limit migrants that come from violent and misogynistic cultures and labour is calling that "racism".
Actual racism is the belief in genetic superiority/inferiority, not an opinion of varying cultures. They adamantly refuse to learn the difference and then call the protestors hateful.
Real Poe's law time
@previous (boof)
> >
> > Labour is the party of irrationality and stabbing apologists.
>
> That doesn't sound accurate
Labour is conflating culture and race as they have for decades.
Protestors want to limit migrants that come from violent and misogynistic cultures and labour is calling that "racism".
Actual racism is the belief in genetic superiority/inferiority, not an opinion of varying cultures. They adamantly refuse to learn the difference and then call the protestors hateful.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,448
@1,314,402 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You're lucky you don't live in England, advocating for traditional British customs like that will have the police sawing your door down and hauling you away to prison for years on hate crime charges.
You're lucky you don't live in England, advocating for traditional British customs like that will have the police sawing your door down and hauling you away to prison for years on hate crime charges.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 36 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,453
@previous (A)
> You're lucky you don't live in England
Without a doubt the most true thing you have ever said or will ever say. Fuck the Brits. U-S-A! U-S-A!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅
> You're lucky you don't live in England
Without a doubt the most true thing you have ever said or will ever say. Fuck the Brits. U-S-A! U-S-A!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,468
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 34 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,469
@1,314,393 (A)
> A kid gets turned town for an overcaffeinated beverage, and so just buys a different beverage with the same or more caffeine.
No kid goes to Starbucks because they were refused sale of a Monster in the shop. One because there just aren't that many except town centres and two because a monster is £1.65 and a venti faggacino is £3.70
> A kid gets turned town for an overcaffeinated beverage, and so just buys a different beverage with the same or more caffeine.
No kid goes to Starbucks because they were refused sale of a Monster in the shop. One because there just aren't that many except town centres and two because a monster is £1.65 and a venti faggacino is £3.70
Anonymous F double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,470
There are lots of children that go into the corner shop on the way to school and drink a Monster, these are the children being talked about
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,472
Let's randomly try to make things better with gestures here and there, fuck it why not, what else you gonna do?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,488
@1,314,469 (F)
Even if that were true, Monster sells coffee and tea beverages with the same caffeine content that would be exempt from the rules.
They are refused the sale of the original flavor, put it back and grab an identical java or strawberry tea, and this is exempt.
Artificial caffeine and natural caffeine affect the body the same way. Sugar rots your teeth whether it's packaged in a tea/coffee or artificial flavoring.
It will take 1-2 days after this ban for every kid drinking monsters to realize this. The clerk might just tell them on day 1.
Even if that were true, Monster sells coffee and tea beverages with the same caffeine content that would be exempt from the rules.
They are refused the sale of the original flavor, put it back and grab an identical java or strawberry tea, and this is exempt.
Artificial caffeine and natural caffeine affect the body the same way. Sugar rots your teeth whether it's packaged in a tea/coffee or artificial flavoring.
It will take 1-2 days after this ban for every kid drinking monsters to realize this. The clerk might just tell them on day 1.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,489
Exempt(Edited 6 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 year ago, 15 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,490
ExemptAnonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,491
@previous (A)
The cans labeled 300 have as much sugar as the regular monster, but nearly twice the caffeine.
What good does it do to ban the OG flavor, and let the kids get the triple shot cans?
The cans labeled 300 have as much sugar as the regular monster, but nearly twice the caffeine.
What good does it do to ban the OG flavor, and let the kids get the triple shot cans?
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 50 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,495
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,498
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,503
Who gives a fuck? The only one who cares about kids around here is Tokyo Dave.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,505
@1,314,393 (A)
Herp derp an energy drink has more than caffeine and sugar, sorry you think kids are being cucked into drinking Starbucks for some weird reason
Herp derp an energy drink has more than caffeine and sugar, sorry you think kids are being cucked into drinking Starbucks for some weird reason
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,506
@previous (M)
A Venti frappucino has more caffeine and sugar both.
Many yerba mate canned teas have the same caffeine and sugar too.
If that wasn't the case why do you think they made the exception? It would be completely unnecessary unless it broke the rules, which they do.
A Venti frappucino has more caffeine and sugar both.
Many yerba mate canned teas have the same caffeine and sugar too.
If that wasn't the case why do you think they made the exception? It would be completely unnecessary unless it broke the rules, which they do.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,513
@1,314,393 (A)
Well frappucinos aren't causing massive obesity and you don't know how quotation marks work
Well frappucinos aren't causing massive obesity and you don't know how quotation marks work
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 17 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,629
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> Well frappucinos aren't causing massive obesity
Sugar causes obesity regardless of what you call the drink.
> and you don't know how quotation marks work
Scare quotes are a widely accepted part of the English language.
> Well frappucinos aren't causing massive obesity
Sugar causes obesity regardless of what you call the drink.
> and you don't know how quotation marks work
Scare quotes are a widely accepted part of the English language.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,631
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,634
@previous (F)
Why is it doubtful they will import a product they already make to keep selling to a lucrative customer base?
Even if they didn't, Monster isn't the only company that makes high-caffeine, high-sugar drinks that are exempt from this law. A kid who was already spending the money to get their fix will just switch to a different brand/flavor to keep getting it.
Why is it doubtful they will import a product they already make to keep selling to a lucrative customer base?
Even if they didn't, Monster isn't the only company that makes high-caffeine, high-sugar drinks that are exempt from this law. A kid who was already spending the money to get their fix will just switch to a different brand/flavor to keep getting it.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,636
@previous (A)
I don't think schoolchildren are a sizeable enough purchase demographic to deal with the bad optics of being seen to abuse a loophole to market to them. I also don't think they're the target market. There are many stores that already refuse sale of energy drinks to the under 16s.
I don't think schoolchildren are a sizeable enough purchase demographic to deal with the bad optics of being seen to abuse a loophole to market to them. I also don't think they're the target market. There are many stores that already refuse sale of energy drinks to the under 16s.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,638
@previous (F)
> I don't think schoolchildren are a sizeable enough purchase demographic
It has more to do with setting the habits to get lifelong customers. Companies spend so much marketing to kids because they believe they will make the money back when they buy the product daily for decades later in adulthood. Children form habits and addictions easier than adults.
> bad optics of being seen to abuse a loophole to market to them.
They can point out these flavors already existed, and pretend they had plans to import them before the ban.
Besides, Monster doesn't need to do it, there's many canned teas with as much caffeine and sugar already. Yerba Mate is one example.
> I don't think schoolchildren are a sizeable enough purchase demographic
It has more to do with setting the habits to get lifelong customers. Companies spend so much marketing to kids because they believe they will make the money back when they buy the product daily for decades later in adulthood. Children form habits and addictions easier than adults.
> bad optics of being seen to abuse a loophole to market to them.
They can point out these flavors already existed, and pretend they had plans to import them before the ban.
Besides, Monster doesn't need to do it, there's many canned teas with as much caffeine and sugar already. Yerba Mate is one example.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,640
@previous (A)
I've never seen yerba mate for sale either
Or any canned tea
I've never seen yerba mate for sale either
Or any canned tea
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Anonymous F double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,641
I've checked and some internet sites sell teabags with a type of tea called yerba mate which if it's the same thing I don't think there's much danger as kids don't have access to kettles on the way to school
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,644
@previous (F)
I don't know what the store near you sells, but there are canned tea and coffee products that have the same caffeine/sugar content as any energy drink.
Even if there were zero products available like that in the UK, it would only take one company to start selling and corner the market.
Once the ban goes into effect you will see the alternatives pop up, someone will fill the gap in the market. The UK is a capitalist country, and those kids have the money to pay. It's inevitable.
I don't know what the store near you sells, but there are canned tea and coffee products that have the same caffeine/sugar content as any energy drink.
Even if there were zero products available like that in the UK, it would only take one company to start selling and corner the market.
Once the ban goes into effect you will see the alternatives pop up, someone will fill the gap in the market. The UK is a capitalist country, and those kids have the money to pay. It's inevitable.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,645
@previous (A)
The alternatives didn't pop up when all the big supermarkets self-banned those drinks, I'm not sure they would now. I've checked and those monster drinks you posted cost £5 each to buy.
The alternatives didn't pop up when all the big supermarkets self-banned those drinks, I'm not sure they would now. I've checked and those monster drinks you posted cost £5 each to buy.
Anonymous F double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,646
Also I've checked this plan they had and it said drinks with over 150mg per litre would be banned for kids, so if it had the same caffeine then it would be banned for them too
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,647
@1,314,645 (F)
> The alternatives didn't pop up when all the big supermarkets self-banned those drinks
Obviously because if they are taking it upon themselves, then they won't sell identical drinks to those kids either. Common sense should tell you that.
The law is stopping the stores that want to sell the drinks to kids from doing it, and then giving them a loophole. If the alternatives are in compliance with the law, and those stores were fine with selling those drinks, then they will be fine with selling the alternatives.
> I've checked and those monster drinks you posted cost £5 each to buy.
They do not cost that, even in a HCOL area. You must be looking at an independent seller marking them up for online sale.
In the US you can buy these yourself in bulk for about $2 each, or get them from the store for a max of $3.
> The alternatives didn't pop up when all the big supermarkets self-banned those drinks
Obviously because if they are taking it upon themselves, then they won't sell identical drinks to those kids either. Common sense should tell you that.
The law is stopping the stores that want to sell the drinks to kids from doing it, and then giving them a loophole. If the alternatives are in compliance with the law, and those stores were fine with selling those drinks, then they will be fine with selling the alternatives.
> I've checked and those monster drinks you posted cost £5 each to buy.
They do not cost that, even in a HCOL area. You must be looking at an independent seller marking them up for online sale.
In the US you can buy these yourself in bulk for about $2 each, or get them from the store for a max of $3.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,648
@previous (A)
Yes however they are not sold in this country so any corner shop buying them in to keep selling energy drinks to kids is going to have to charge something similar
Also it's not clear they are exempt
Or that this was anything other than tub thumping they did before the GE which they will now conveniently forget about
Yes however they are not sold in this country so any corner shop buying them in to keep selling energy drinks to kids is going to have to charge something similar
Also it's not clear they are exempt
Or that this was anything other than tub thumping they did before the GE which they will now conveniently forget about
(Edited 47 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,649
@1,314,646 (F)
We already established the caffeine threshold, but like I said the proposed law makes an exception for teas and coffees. If the caffeine comes from a highly caffeinated tea like Mate then it's exempt. The flavor is easy to cover up and then you have a drink nearly identical to an energy drink.
We already established the caffeine threshold, but like I said the proposed law makes an exception for teas and coffees. If the caffeine comes from a highly caffeinated tea like Mate then it's exempt. The flavor is easy to cover up and then you have a drink nearly identical to an energy drink.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,650
@previous (A)
It seems pretty evident to me from a Britisher point of view that when they're talking about tea and coffee they're talking about the hot drink in a cup
It seems pretty evident to me from a Britisher point of view that when they're talking about tea and coffee they're talking about the hot drink in a cup
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 45 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,651
@1,314,648 (F)
> Also it's not clear they are exempt
They already confirmed it won't apply to teas and coffees.
> Or that this was anything other than tub thumping they did before the GE which they will now conveniently forget about.
Maybe, but that just reinforced my point about labour being ineffective.
> Also it's not clear they are exempt
They already confirmed it won't apply to teas and coffees.
> Or that this was anything other than tub thumping they did before the GE which they will now conveniently forget about.
Maybe, but that just reinforced my point about labour being ineffective.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,652
@1,314,650 (F)
They never said anything about temperature, they only said teas and coffee will be exempt.
It's possible they left out information, but if we go by the words they've said so far then many products identical to energy drinks will be exempt.
They never said anything about temperature, they only said teas and coffee will be exempt.
It's possible they left out information, but if we go by the words they've said so far then many products identical to energy drinks will be exempt.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,654
@previous (A)
I guess technically some foreign style beverage that isn't popular or regularly sold here could evade the vaguely worded aspiration reported in the news, T
The actual law I imagine would be more water tight
Also I think if you asked British people to describe types of tea and coffee then very few would think of cold canned ones from a fridge
I guess technically some foreign style beverage that isn't popular or regularly sold here could evade the vaguely worded aspiration reported in the news, T
The actual law I imagine would be more water tight
Also I think if you asked British people to describe types of tea and coffee then very few would think of cold canned ones from a fridge
Anonymous F double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,655
Personally I think it was an attack on Tory record on dentistry and a bit of think of the children
They haven't mentioned anything about it since winning the election
They haven't mentioned anything about it since winning the election
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,657
@previous (F)
> They haven't mentioned anything about it since winning the election
The primary reason Labour policies haven't sunk the island is they are too busy cuddling up with lobbyists and avoiding work to implement any of their horrendous ideas.
> They haven't mentioned anything about it since winning the election
The primary reason Labour policies haven't sunk the island is they are too busy cuddling up with lobbyists and avoiding work to implement any of their horrendous ideas.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,710
@1,314,629 (A)
Omg you donkey you have to drink the sugary drink first. Also I checked and frappucinos have 105mg of caffeine
Omg you donkey you have to drink the sugary drink first. Also I checked and frappucinos have 105mg of caffeine
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 42 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,713
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> Omg you donkey you have to drink the sugary drink first.
They already drink them, a law that bans some flavors won't stop that.
> Also I checked and frappucinos have 105mg of caffeine
What source gives that number?
Forgive me if I don't trust someone who didn't know about basic English grammar.
> Omg you donkey you have to drink the sugary drink first.
They already drink them, a law that bans some flavors won't stop that.
> Also I checked and frappucinos have 105mg of caffeine
What source gives that number?
Forgive me if I don't trust someone who didn't know about basic English grammar.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 28 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,715
@previous (A)
> > Omg you donkey you have to drink the sugary drink first.
> They already drink them, a law that bans some flavors won't stop that.
Source
> > Also I checked and frappucinos have 105mg of caffeine
> What source gives that number?
>
> Forgive me if I don't trust someone who didn't know about basic English grammar.
The ingredient list. What source gave 150mg? some donkey brained motherfucker??
> > Omg you donkey you have to drink the sugary drink first.
> They already drink them, a law that bans some flavors won't stop that.
Source
> > Also I checked and frappucinos have 105mg of caffeine
> What source gives that number?
>
> Forgive me if I don't trust someone who didn't know about basic English grammar.
The ingredient list. What source gave 150mg? some donkey brained motherfucker??
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,726
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 31 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,730
@previous (A)Please use the UK nutritional information for your debate. Americans are well known for adding excess sugar to their food and drink.
There is 40mg of caffeine in a Venti Java Chip Frappucino at Starbucks. You'd need to drink 4 for the same caffeine as a can of Monster.
Alas for the enterprising child who wants a Starbucks instead, there just aren't that many outside city centres and motorway services.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,735
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,737
@previous (A)
They probably don't put as much in. There's also 25g less sugar than the USA recipe. A venti filter coffee would have 162mg of caffeine, but no sugar.
They probably don't put as much in. There's also 25g less sugar than the USA recipe. A venti filter coffee would have 162mg of caffeine, but no sugar.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,762
dw !p9hU6ckyqw double-posted this 1 year ago, 59 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,763
@1,314,730 (F)
> Alas for the enterprising child who wants a Starbucks instead
of which there are probably around 5
> Alas for the enterprising child who wants a Starbucks instead
of which there are probably around 5
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 21 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,907
@1,314,762 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
They want caffeine and sugar, if you think changing flavors will kick two addictions you should show me that source.
They want caffeine and sugar, if you think changing flavors will kick two addictions you should show me that source.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 28 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,910
@previous (A)
right if children start massively consuming copious amounts of frappucino they should ban that too. i still don't get why monster shouldnt be banned
right if children start massively consuming copious amounts of frappucino they should ban that too. i still don't get why monster shouldnt be banned
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 25 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,911
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> i still don't get why monster shouldnt be banned
They should write the law better so it bans what they actually consider dangerous.
Coke ruins teeth as much as a monster, so why isn't that banned? Coffee and tea have caffeine too.
> i still don't get why monster shouldnt be banned
They should write the law better so it bans what they actually consider dangerous.
Coke ruins teeth as much as a monster, so why isn't that banned? Coffee and tea have caffeine too.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,914
@previous (A)
> > i still don't get why monster shouldnt be banned
> They should write the law better so it bans what they actually consider dangerous.
it isnt dangerous if kids arent drinking it
> Coke ruins teeth as much as a monster, so why isn't that banned? Coffee and tea have caffeine too.
well they prefer to be re-elected
> > i still don't get why monster shouldnt be banned
> They should write the law better so it bans what they actually consider dangerous.
it isnt dangerous if kids arent drinking it
> Coke ruins teeth as much as a monster, so why isn't that banned? Coffee and tea have caffeine too.
well they prefer to be re-elected
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,974
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,979
@previous (F)
They already announced coffee and tea drinks will be exempt, and coca-cola won't be part of the ban.
They already announced coffee and tea drinks will be exempt, and coca-cola won't be part of the ban.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 53 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,980
@previous (A)
That story was a vaguely worded aspiration and I don't know if it was even in the manifesto
Laws aren't the same
That story was a vaguely worded aspiration and I don't know if it was even in the manifesto
Laws aren't the same
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,982
@previous (F)
We're talking about a proposed law, not a law that exists already. No one has said this law has already been passed.
We're talking about a proposed law, not a law that exists already. No one has said this law has already been passed.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,986
@previous (A)
It's not even a proposed law, a proposed law would be written up and making it's way through parliamentary process.
It's not even a proposed law, a proposed law would be written up and making it's way through parliamentary process.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,989
@previous (F)
If you say you're going to make a law to the public, then you've just proposed something.
If you say you're going to make a law to the public, then you've just proposed something.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,990
@previous (A)
A "proposed law" is an act, the act has not been written so really it's just a politician making a promise
A "proposed law" is an act, the act has not been written so really it's just a politician making a promise
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,991
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,994
@previous (A)
You're just splitting hairs really, I think that if you're going to criticise a law for not being accurate enough you should wait for the act of parliament to be drafted and start making it's way though the houses.
You're just splitting hairs really, I think that if you're going to criticise a law for not being accurate enough you should wait for the act of parliament to be drafted and start making it's way though the houses.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,997
@previous (F)
What is the point of telling the public details about a law, if the public should not expect those statements to have any bearing on what is actually written? Public statements invite feedback, and they announced they would include a loophole.
What is the point of telling the public details about a law, if the public should not expect those statements to have any bearing on what is actually written? Public statements invite feedback, and they announced they would include a loophole.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,999
@previous (A)
I think that it's pretty foolish to say that a law isn't specific enough when all you have is a news article about a politician saying what they want the law to broadly be about.
I think that it's pretty foolish to say that a law isn't specific enough when all you have is a news article about a politician saying what they want the law to broadly be about.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 42 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,003
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 31 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,011
@previous (A)
That's to stop the Tories using it as an attack vector - "Labour will ban children drinking cups of tea"
That's to stop the Tories using it as an attack vector - "Labour will ban children drinking cups of tea"
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,024
@previous (F)
It's a slippery slope.
One distributer brings in the Monster Tea drinks because it circumvents the law, and labour bans those too. One day you give your kid a cup of tea, and because you've technically violated the law they arrest you for it.
It's a slippery slope.
One distributer brings in the Monster Tea drinks because it circumvents the law, and labour bans those too. One day you give your kid a cup of tea, and because you've technically violated the law they arrest you for it.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,025
why do you give a fuck
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,031
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 14 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,109
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 5 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,189
@previous (A)
It is not a proposed law with the capability for having a loophole either, as no legal text has been written.
It is not a proposed law with the capability for having a loophole either, as no legal text has been written.
Green !!bO/s3MBcD joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,199
@1,314,313 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
What is wrong with energy drinks? Consumers should have a choice about what they want to drink. Some people don't like tea or coffee and that is fine. An ice cold energy drink is nice on a hot morning. I personally prefer green/matcha tea or I chew caffeine pills. Energy drinks in the UK suck these days due to the sugar tax. They all contain artificial sweeteners which are toxic at best and carcinogenic at worst. They give me a headache.
What is wrong with energy drinks? Consumers should have a choice about what they want to drink. Some people don't like tea or coffee and that is fine. An ice cold energy drink is nice on a hot morning. I personally prefer green/matcha tea or I chew caffeine pills. Energy drinks in the UK suck these days due to the sugar tax. They all contain artificial sweeteners which are toxic at best and carcinogenic at worst. They give me a headache.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 1 year ago, 23 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,202
Green !!bO/s3MBcD replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,206
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Glug, no they're not. Sounds like you've been reading too much propaganda from big coffee. While not good for you, they certainly aren't bad for you if consumed in moderation. I am passionate about energy drinks, just keep to 1-2 250ml cans a day and you're golden. If you can get one within sweeteners, they contain B vitamins and taurine which help with various functions of the nervous system. The pH of energy drinks is too low for me, but they have various advantages over coffee. They're instant, no need to boil the kettle and let it steep, just a cold drink and you're ready. And some people personally prefer the taste over coffee.
Glug, no they're not. Sounds like you've been reading too much propaganda from big coffee. While not good for you, they certainly aren't bad for you if consumed in moderation. I am passionate about energy drinks, just keep to 1-2 250ml cans a day and you're golden. If you can get one within sweeteners, they contain B vitamins and taurine which help with various functions of the nervous system. The pH of energy drinks is too low for me, but they have various advantages over coffee. They're instant, no need to boil the kettle and let it steep, just a cold drink and you're ready. And some people personally prefer the taste over coffee.
Anonymous M replied with this 1 year ago, 2 days later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,533
@1,314,506 (A)
Are they both riddled with hundreds of the recommended daily dose of various b vitamins in a single serving while there are two and sometimes three in a can?
Are they both riddled with hundreds of the recommended daily dose of various b vitamins in a single serving while there are two and sometimes three in a can?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 17 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,610
@previous (M)
It doesn't matter at all, because B vitamins are water soluble and you can have several times the daily requirement without getting sick. You will piss it out a few hours later.
The actual problem labour brought up was caffeine and sugar. Those two are present, in the same levels, in drinks that are exempt. They've created a loophole in the law they proposed.
It doesn't matter at all, because B vitamins are water soluble and you can have several times the daily requirement without getting sick. You will piss it out a few hours later.
The actual problem labour brought up was caffeine and sugar. Those two are present, in the same levels, in drinks that are exempt. They've created a loophole in the law they proposed.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,619
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 6 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,665
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,315,717
@previous (A)
No they said to the news that they'd like to ban energy drinks for children, for various reasons. That is not proposing a law and as a not-proposal it is incapable of having loopholes.
No they said to the news that they'd like to ban energy drinks for children, for various reasons. That is not proposing a law and as a not-proposal it is incapable of having loopholes.