Sidechat logo
Download TikTok Instagram X
Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
US Politics icon
US Politics 9w
when having conversations about energy drink regulations, it’s important to distinguish between two policy types: information vs restrictions. forcing companies to share health info, the fda’s daily caffeine recommendation for different age groups 1/2
comment

6
upvote 4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 9w

, clearly list precise caffeine content, and a large 18+ label NOT “not recommended for children” bc no 17 thinks they’re a child, etc is good and increases freedom bc we can make more informed choices. requiring id to purchase is very questionable and paternalistic in my opinion

upvote 4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 9w

I think holding parents responsible for injuries resulting in their child’s caffeine consumption that they provided would be a fair deterrent too. If your kid dies from a heart attack at 16 because you bought them energy drinks every day you gotta be charged with something like come on

upvote 4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 9w

this post is inspired by when i went to canada and realized they aren’t allowed to include more than 180 mg of caffeine which is less than half the fda’s daily recommended limit for adults. it’s also way more than a 14-17 year old is supposed to have so who is this for exactly? the reasoning i’ve heard is that “it forces you to slow down and not drink too much at once bc it could give you anxiety to have your whole daily amount in one sitting.” i’m an adult are we being deadass rn???

upvote 5 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 9w

16 is tough bc they have a car and can generally do what they want especially if they have off campus lunch but under 14 i would say yes absolutely. as long as the court can prove they had knowledge of the consumption and didn’t take steps to stop it, like if it was openly available in the kitchen or something and they can clearly see empty cans they didn’t drink i have a hard time believing they didn’t know yk

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 9w

16 could be fair if it was directly purchased for the child tho, that’s not just allowing it but actively providing a dangerous substance that is not recommended for their age group

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 9w

i’m realizing the direct purchase scenario was your original proposal so yes i agree with you 100%

upvote 1 downvote