Several months ago, we blogged about a controversy over a high-caffeine drink called Cocaine. Now it has been pulled from shelves nationwide. Its producer, Redux Beverages of Las Vegas, was disappointed — and, based on this quote Redux partner Clegg Ivey gave to the Associated Press, a bit confused: “[W]e intended for Cocaine energy drink to be a legal alternative the same way that celibacy is an alternative to premarital sex.” Huh?
Anyway … shortly after blogging about Cocaine, I came across an expensive little ad insert for Opium, a line of perfume created in 1977 by Yves Saint-Laurent. Here is one description of its allure: “Opium arouses the senses with an exotic blend of lush florals, rich spices, and deep wood notes.”
While it is true that Opium has been the source of controversy — see this Wikipedia article — that controversy was in fact centered on an ad picturing a naked woman, and not the druggy name.
So here’s my question: If Cocaine the energy drink is pulled because it’s supposed to have a bad influence on the teenagers who drink it, shouldn’t Opium the perfume be pulled because it’s supposed to have a bad influence — deep wood notes, remember — on the well-heeled women who anoint their bodies with it?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I have a slightly different, but related question: why are things that make you feel good automatically feared and then regulated? I saw a local news report on Salvia, an herb legal in most states that you can smoke. In some people, it apparently can causes euphoria, short-lived optical illusions and even hallucination (in the sense of imaginary images). The report presented these things as bad, even as evil or threatening. Why? We drink alcohol. We eat sugar. We drink caffeine. All drug us, all improve or alter moods. Is there something wrong with feeling good? Is there something wrong with having altered perception for a short time? Maybe that’s a good thing.
To connect this to the Cocaine drink, its regulation is done under the morals power which embodies an old idea that morals and public welfare are connected. The drink, as you note, crosses some rough line into being just too crass. In the 1950′s, if you had come out with Freaky Dripping Booger candy, that likely would have been banned then – though those kind of gross candies are common now.
I have a slightly different, but related question: why are things that make you feel good automatically feared and then regulated? I saw a local news report on Salvia, an herb legal in most states that you can smoke. In some people, it apparently can causes euphoria, short-lived optical illusions and even hallucination (in the sense of imaginary images). The report presented these things as bad, even as evil or threatening. Why? We drink alcohol. We eat sugar. We drink caffeine. All drug us, all improve or alter moods. Is there something wrong with feeling good? Is there something wrong with having altered perception for a short time? Maybe that’s a good thing.
To connect this to the Cocaine drink, its regulation is done under the morals power which embodies an old idea that morals and public welfare are connected. The drink, as you note, crosses some rough line into being just too crass. In the 1950′s, if you had come out with Freaky Dripping Booger candy, that likely would have been banned then – though those kind of gross candies are common now.
I bought one of these drinks at the local corner store when I heard all the hype. The makers were obviously trying to make the experience as real as possible and were advertising the fact that it burnt the back of your throat when consumed (which cocaine is also known for). It didn’t help that they were marketing to urban NYC childre…
I bought one of these drinks at the local corner store when I heard all the hype. The makers were obviously trying to make the experience as real as possible and were advertising the fact that it burnt the back of your throat when consumed (which cocaine is also known for). It didn’t help that they were marketing to urban NYC childre…
I think the company fully intended to make the comparison: Cocaine (their drink) is to Caffeine Addicts just as Cocaine (the drug) is to Drug Users.
280mg of caffeine per 8oz can! Compared to 80mg in industry leader Red Bull, that’s insane.
I think the company fully intended to make the comparison: Cocaine (their drink) is to Caffeine Addicts just as Cocaine (the drug) is to Drug Users.
280mg of caffeine per 8oz can! Compared to 80mg in industry leader Red Bull, that’s insane.
Opium isn’t current. We read about it in history books. It’s the subject of jokes by those who find old things funny — people like me.
Opium isn’t current. We read about it in history books. It’s the subject of jokes by those who find old things funny — people like me.