The folly of banning Four Loko: An unproductive regulation

by Anderson Tuggle '14
OPINION WRITER

On November 24, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) announced that major brands of caffeinated alcoholic drinks, including the infamous Four Loko, would no longer be sold in New York state. The FDA insisted that this regulation was necessary because, “the drinks can lead to a ‘wide-awake drunk’ and have led to alcohol poisoning, car accidents and assaults.”

While I agree with the FDA’s assertions concerning Four Loko’s safety, I cannot endorse their out right ban of the beverage. Like alcohol, the danger results from product abuse, not the product itself.
For those who lack familiarity with the so-called “blackout in a can,” let me summarize Four Loko briefly: one can is equivalent to five beers and two cups of coffee.

And, in Stephen Colbert’s words, “It tastes like a Duracell battery.”

As expected, this product hardly appeals to the vast majority of the human race, but that doesn’t mean the FDA should regulate it out of existence. For one, Four Loko is a far cry from truly hard drugs, such as meth or crack. All of the tragic Four Loko incidents on campuses involved students drinking excessively and diversely; nobody drank one can of Four Loko and ended up in a hospital.

To put it in perspective, 5,000 people under the age of 21 die from alcohol each year, whereas Four Loko-related incidents have taken only a handful. Four Loko has not been on the market long enough to bolster such statistics. While I admit that the possibility of such statistics becoming a reality with Four Loko is devastating, there is not currently enough proof to judge that Four Loko is likely to increase alcohol-related accidents.

Moreover, the government seems to center the debate on the idea of “caffeinated alcohol.” Once again, drinking alcohol and caffeine in conjunction is not wise, but should this ban extend to Jaeger bombs, rum-and-cokes and red bull-and-vodkas as well? By putting caffeine and alcohol in the same can, Four Loko has conveniently done what most of us do anyways five minutes after leaving the liquor store. The “wide-awake drunk” is undoubtedly unhealthy, but Four Loko didn’t invent it and it will persist long after Four Loko’s demise.

My primary problem with the banning of Four Loko, however, stems from my annoyance at reactionary policies that ignore the root causes of a problem. In this case, the underlying fact that young adults love to push drunkenness to the limit was superseded by the desire to make scapegoats out of certain companies.

Until we acknowledge and start to fix the core of young-adult boozing, products like Four Loko will keep popping up and the government will continue to play its game of Whack-a-Mole with abused, not abusive, products. We saw prohibition fail with alcohol and, presently, we witness the failures of marijuana prohibition. Haven’t we learned the lesson of unnecessary product regulation by now?
Admittedly, though I am no bleeding-heart libertarian, government regulation is necessary in many areas.

In fact, I find it embarrassing that the U.S. can find the time to ban rarely used drinks, but we fail to adequately regulate greenhouse-gas emissions or high-risk financial speculation, amongst other more threatening things. Nevertheless, in this particular circumstance, Four Loko has been crucified on a cross of short-sighted reactionism and political pandering. Viva la Four Loko!