https://www.comapps.ohio.gov/admn/admn_apps/admn/pressroom/Display.aspx?ID=2013

There's the official notice from Ohio Liquor Control... they lack authority to ban, but came to a voluntary agreement with the companies to cease distribution in Ohio.

CenterBHSFan;570323 wrote:Otrap beat me to it. But I'll go ahead and say this:

I'm 39 freakin years old, I don't need a Nanny! In fact, I'm the nanny at my house (take care of parents). I'm responsible, pay my bills, stay out of trouble, don't do drugs, drink only occasionally. If I want to drink a drink like this, I don't need some pompous bureaucrat tell me what I can or cannot drink.

Oh Center....if it were only true. Our country decided a long time ago that we would love to have our almighty government watch over us, take care of us, give us benefits, give us free health kare, and send us retirement checks. We are no longer able to think for ourselves or act in our own best interests.

we are fucking due for a revolution. this shit is getting out of hand.

j_crazy;570630 wrote:we are fucking due for a revolution. this shit is getting out of hand.

Ding ding ding!

O-Trap;570737 wrote:Ding ding ding!

Ding ding ding....we have two that don't know...a revolution for banning a drink? Fucking clueless.

-Society-;570739 wrote:Ding ding ding....we have two that don't know...a revolution for banning a drink? Fucking clueless.

Since you obviously couldn't handle reading BG's post just two above mine, I'll paste it here for you. Tell me if you need help with any of the big words.

"Our country decided a long time ago that we would love to have our almighty government watch over us, take care of us, give us benefits, give us free health kare, and send us retirement checks. We are no longer able to think for ourselves or act in our own best interests."

O-Trap;570789 wrote:Since you obviously couldn't handle reading BG's post just two above mine, I'll paste it here for you. Tell me if you need help with any of the big words.

"Our country decided a long time ago that we would love to have our almighty government watch over us, take care of us, give us benefits, give us free health kare, and send us retirement checks. We are no longer able to think for ourselves or act in our own best interests."

That doesn't change the fact that you compare this to a revolution. Obviously, you didn't say those words, but a "ding ding ding" response to the one you quoted, did. I understand that your shit job was actually that, a shit job, and you are now having trouble finding an actual real job, but don't try and belittle others because of that. You failed. We know that. Go and start another thread about your failed "career".

No reason to bold anything, because I think my point is clear.

-Society-;570796 wrote:That doesn't change the fact that you compare this to a revolution. Obviously, you didn't say those words, but a "ding ding ding" response to the one you quoted, did. I understand that your shit job was actually that, a shit job, and you are now having trouble finding an actual real job, but don't try and belittle others because of that. You failed. We know that. Go and start another thread about your failed "career".

No reason to bold anything, because I think my point is clear.

Oh come on now, Society. Paragraphs of personal attack were never really your thing, were they? You were always much better at the snarky one-liners (which I honestly got a kick out of quite often).

I'm not "comparing" anything, and neither is the post I quoted. Your perspective on my little "ding ding ding" post is more shallow than the post was intended to be.

Actually, my wife and I are doing fine. We've paid off several bills, quickly gotten off unemployment (even though, legally speaking, we didn't have to) and I've begun my own enterprise. Not nearly what I was making before, but we live frugally, and it is enough to live on.

However, I'm not sure why you think my occupational status had anything to do with my post. I am, and continue to be, a free market kind of person, so any "revolution" I would want would be about LESS intervention into the lives of the average person, not more. That includes what a person can, and cannot, drink.

The fact that there seems to be grounds for something as harmless as a caffeinated malt beverage to be illegalized in some states is asinine. That precedent, not the action itself, is what the "revolution" comment was all about.

Your point was indeed clear. It was simply misguided, based on the fact that you clearly did not understand what was being said.

No matter. I'm sure you've justified your comments to yourself, so I won't spend any time trying to quarrel with you over it further.

-Society-;570796 wrote:That doesn't change the fact that you compare this to a revolution. Obviously, you didn't say those words, but a "ding ding ding" response to the one you quoted, did. I understand that your shit job was actually that, a shit job, and you are now having trouble finding an actual real job, but don't try and belittle others because of that. You failed. We know that. Go and start another thread about your failed "career".

No reason to bold anything, because I think my point is clear.

1. Who did he belittle?

2. This thread/his statements have nothing to do with his job.

3. Your point is not clear. Not sure there is even one to begin with.

4. If you read and understood the context of the posts, you would know that it's not just about a drink. It's about government control and wanting more control over our lives. Right on down on what government will "allow" us to drink or not drink. Then you have to comprehend how those posts tied in to each other.

Would people revolt over the removal of Four Loko? I don't think so...but tea bag taxes set off a revolution in the 18th century.

Maybe the government mandated sexual groping, fondling, naked photography, and utter disdain for the 4th Amendment will do it this time? I don't know.

FWIW, Four Loko is awesome if you only limit yourself to no more than 1 can. It is a great starter...but not a finisher. But, since college kids can't think that far ahead nor use any mental capacities, the rest of us suffer the loss of a beverage that is reserved for purchase by ADULTS. Yep...ADULTS who have suddenly lost the ability to decide what to drink and how much because students abused their bodies. And now the government is here to save us from our own ADULT decisions. What would we ever do without the government? How in the hell did we ever last this long?

Revolution? If this shit keeps up...oh yeah...it's only a matter of time.

BG, I personally think the stuff tastes awful. I had one sip once, and it was terrible.

However, even if I don't drink it, I should have the right to. That's the thing. Whose rights are being infringed isn't determined by who would be exercising that right in the immediate. Even those who would not are having their right infringed.

I'll pick a nonsensical example (to hopefully curtail any rabbit trail). Suppose it was made illegal to play checkers because some college kids had turned checkers into a drinking game and had stabbed people after losing. Now, if I don't play checkers, my right to do so is still infringed. My immediate lifestyle hasn't been changed at all, but my right to change that lifestyle by taking up a friendly game of checkers is now gone. Thus, even if I don't play, I should have the right to, and if that is taken away, everyone is infringed equally. Some will just feel the effects more.

O-Trap;570895 wrote:BG, I personally think the stuff tastes awful. I had one sip once, and it was terrible.

However, even if I don't drink it, I should have the right to. That's the thing. Whose rights are being infringed isn't determined by who would be exercising that right in the immediate. Even those who would not are having their right infringed.

I'll pick a nonsensical example (to hopefully curtail any rabbit trail). Suppose it was made illegal to play checkers because some college kids had turned checkers into a drinking game and had stabbed people after losing. Now, if I don't play checkers, my right to do so is still infringed. My immediate lifestyle hasn't been changed at all, but my right to change that lifestyle by taking up a friendly game of checkers is now gone. Thus, even if I don't play, I should have the right to, and if that is taken away, everyone is infringed equally. Some will just feel the effects more.

You have to drink either the lemonade or fruit punch. The wild berry and other flavors are indeed awful

Checkers, eh? What makes you think they won't make them illegal? Hell...who ever thought McDonald's Happy Meal toys would be illegal? Or breathing would be subject to taxation? We are already on the slippery slope and the acceleration factor will kill our country.

I think I had the watermelon. It tasted so bad I chased that one sip with a glass of water, and then a nice dark beer.

In terms of the "slippery slope," I do think we have to be mindful about distinguishing between a benevolent, albeit misguided, government and a government we genuinely believe is "out to get" its constituents.

Though I would say people are not mostly good, I think we think we are, and I think we often try to be. A government I don't like is still full of people who probably think they are doing what is best for the people.

I just think that I should be the judge of what is "best for" me before they are.

O-Trap;570845 wrote:Oh come on now, Society. Paragraphs of personal attack were never really your thing, were they? You were always much better at the snarky one-liners (which I honestly got a kick out of quite often).

I'm not "comparing" anything, and neither is the post I quoted. Your perspective on my little "ding ding ding" post is more shallow than the post was intended to be.

Actually, my wife and I are doing fine. We've paid off several bills, quickly gotten off unemployment (even though, legally speaking, we didn't have to) and I've begun my own enterprise. Not nearly what I was making before, but we live frugally, and it is enough to live on.

However, I'm not sure why you think my occupational status had anything to do with my post. I am, and continue to be, a free market kind of person, so any "revolution" I would want would be about LESS intervention into the lives of the average person, not more. That includes what a person can, and cannot, drink.

The fact that there seems to be grounds for something as harmless as a caffeinated malt beverage to be illegalized in some states is asinine. That precedent, not the action itself, is what the "revolution" comment was all about.

Your point was indeed clear. It was simply misguided, based on the fact that you clearly did not understand what was being said.

No matter. I'm sure you've justified your comments to yourself, so I won't spend any time trying to quarrel with you over it further.

Honestly, if I was you, I'd have a well thought out argument too. With your wife, I'd be drinking at least four of these fuckers every night before bed.

-Society-;571022 wrote:Honestly, if I was you, I'd have a well thought out argument too.

Actually, I have seen some pretty well-thought-out statements from you as well. Not many, as your MO seems usually to be that of trying to get people's ire up, but from time to time.

I do my best to reason out my arguments, be they on the fly or not.

-Society-;571022 wrote:With your wife, I'd be drinking at least four of these fuckers every night before bed.

Well there you go. Difference between you and me. I do my best never to abuse my body with excessive booze anymore, and she's more often a blessing anyway.

But hey, like I said, you and I are different.

what i dont get is just becasue some people are morons and cant handle a four loko, why should the rest of us be punished?...people go to the hospital all the time from vodka, rum, whiskey, gin, and even beer yet they are all still legal...

UA5straightin2008;571052 wrote:what i dont get is just becasue some people are morons and cant handle a four loko, why should the rest of us be punished?...people go to the hospital all the time from vodka, rum, whiskey, gin, and even beer yet they are all still legal...

this is what I don't get either...I am pretty sure Big Liquor/Beer companies have something to do with this as it was cutting into their $$$

derek bomar;571126 wrote:this is what I don't get either...I am pretty sure Big Liquor/Beer companies have something to do with this as it was cutting into their $$$

Four Loko is made by Miller.

BGFalcons82;571131 wrote:Four Loko is made by Miller.

no it is not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_(energy_drink)

UA5straightin2008;571169 wrote:no it is not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_(energy_drink)

Here's what wiki writes - Four is a caffeinated, alcoholic energy drink that has malt liquor as its base. It is produced by Phusion Projects LLC of Chicago, Illinois. This company also does business under the name Drink Four Brewing Company.[1] The drink was developed by three alumni of The Ohio State University: Chris Hunter, Jeff Wright, and Jaisen Freeman.

Phusion Projects is a pass-through. Think of Saturn - the old GM division. At the end of their run, they had GM make cars for them and they'd slap the Saturn label on the cars. Like Saturn, Phusion doesn't have any plants, they contract sale the manufacture of Four Loko to Miller Brewing. I have inside information on this as a co-worker has an employed relative of Four Loko.

Just because they contract Miller for the manufacture of their product doesn't make them owned by Miller. Nor does it mean Miller has a particularly large stake in how well Loko does.

His original statement was: "Four Loko is made by Miller."

Why there's even an argument, I have no idea.

Reading comprehension fail on my part.

My bad BG.

I Wear Pants;571336 wrote:Reading comprehension fail on my part.

My bad BG.

I'm hurt....I need a beer now.

What kind?