Energy Drinks Restrictions Essay Example
Many of us enjoy a warm cup of coffee to help get the day started. Later, we might grab a soda, chocolate bar, or energy drink to fix a mid-afternoon slump. Consuming these items should not be a crime, yet some legislators have decided to take aim at energy drinks, unfairly painting them as a public menace. Due to the suspected health risks that accompany these caffeinated beverages, many communities, from Los Angeles to Chicago, have considered laws banning the sale of energy drinks to people under age 18 (“L.A. May Become”). Such laws are well-intentioned, but short-sighted because the legislators’ claims not only lack scientific support, but also insult responsible citizens.
Proponents of the law change warn that energy drinks include excessively high amounts of caffeine that threaten the lives of our young people (Alfonsi). The truth, however, is that energy drinks pose less of a health risk than coffee (Sullum). In fact, an exhaustive study has shown that when compared ounce-for-ounce to regular coffee, there’s actually less than half the amount of caffeine in a Monster Energy drink than in a Starbucks standard house brew (DiSalvo 1). None of the lawmakers, of course, would ever argue that teens be barred from ordering an after-school latte or that coffeeshops be required to card patrons. Furthermore, cases of fatal caffeine toxicity in the U.S. are so rare that each is investigated by the Food and Drug Administration (DiSalvo 2). Interestingly, in all five of the cases studied in 2012, the F.D.A. concluded that caffeine consumed from energy drinks merely “triggered a pre-existing” heart condition in all of those patients (DiSalvo 2). There’s no telling whether a strenuous workout or intense roller-coaster ride could have set the same tragedies in motion, yet it would be ridiculous to outlaw those activities for millions of teens based on the heart conditions of a few. Also, it should be obvious to all consumers that excessively high consumption of not just caffeinated products, but any single product can cause unwanted effects. Take, for instance, the case of 28-year-old California mother Jennifer Strange, who died of water poisoning after drinking six liters of water in three hours to try to win a Wii gaming console
Pupil 2
in a radio station contest (Ballantyne). Arguing that access to bottles of water needs to be restricted seems silly, yet that’s precisely the same argument being launched against the energy drink industry. Until science can support the proposal, it’s wildly inappropriate to alter laws based on a hunch.
Additionally, lawmakers and pediatricians who support the law change say that young people cannot be trusted to regulate their consumption of caffeine and are being manipulated by slick advertising (Alfonsi). These adults must not know any actual teens. If they spent any time with my circle of friends, they would discover that we are thoughtful and incredibly careful with our money; we take advanced classes, participate in sports and theater productions, and hold down part-time jobs. Each week, I work 15 hours at my family’s restaurant, tutor a middle school girl in math two days after school, and manage my own heavy homework load, which often keeps me up working past midnight. If I want to grab a Red Bull to help me push through a marathon work session, there’s no harm done. In fact, my parents agree that since I’m earning two paychecks, cover my own car insurance and gas, and keep my grades high, I’m old enough to decide how to spend my own money. This is good practice for two years from now when I’ll be out on my own and, to be honest, I like an occasional Red Bull. It’s cheap, doesn’t hurt anyone, and helps me get a lot accomplished.
Finally, it’s foolish to try to legislate what should be an obvious parenting responsibility. No sensible person would allow a 10-year-old to drink a Red Bull, slurp a 30-ounce Big Gulp, or devour an entire bag of chocolate bars (Edwards). Consequently, no one has proposed prohibiting the sale of all junk food to minors because making this move would be unreasonable and unnecessary. Let parents do their job. And if there is a parent out there allowing Red Bulls, Big Gulps, and king-sized Kit Kats to fill a child’s belly, then that family faces bigger problems than could be addressed by a local law restricting access to energy drinks.
When one considers the absence of scientific proof, the desire for fairness in the marketplace, and individual rights and responsibilities, it is clear that proposed laws to prohibit energy drink sales to minors should be defeated. In our country, it is difficult to change a law. The process encourages us to think through proposals and fully examine an issue before we ink a new rule that will govern all of our lives. After looking closely at this issue, it’s obvious that the evidence simply does not support this ill-conceived legislation.
