Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
They are not incredibly dangerous, not be a long shot.
They can be dangerous to a very small subset of people with preexisting conditions and that’s about it.
The trouble is quite a lot of people have the pre-existing condition of being brainless. So they mainline 5 cans in a row, if you do that with Coke nothing happens, if you do that with Monster even a healthy person is going to have heart problems.
Also some prat had a great idea of mixing it with Yeager. Thus mixing two of the most disgusting liquids in the world together. But more importantly mixing a stimulant and a suppressant, which again can have serious health risks even for otherwise healthy individuals.
We don’t sell glue to children even though most of them probably won’t sniff it. So why do we tolerate energy drinks for them? The lasting kids need is to be even more hyper.
Mine is cannabis and booze. Never mix something that makes me want to throw up with something that settles the stomach. If I drink too much I want it out of my body ASAP.
“They are not incredibly dangerous, except for when they are incredibly dangerous”
Is it not credible that a small slice of people might be extra sensitive to something that the rest of the population can handle without issue?
I have never been sensitive to caffeine, or had any underlying issues.
Just based on that experience with half of a Monster, I’d consult a doctor to verify that.
By that logic, peanuts are also “incredibly dangerous”.
Note: I’m not promoting or condoning the consumption of energy drinks, they are generally unhealthy. But calling them “incredibly dangerous” because they can evoke such a reaction in a small subset of the population is bullshit.
And products are often labeled, not if they CONTAIN nuts, but even if they were made somewhere that also produces peanuts and there’s a slight chance of cross contamination.
This is done because of the liability. It should be easy enough to prove the Panera has liability here in the same way.
It clearly states the caffeine content on the placard in front of the drink though, and it’s called charged lemonade. While that wouldn’t necessarily imply it has caffeine, that’s at least enough to tell me it’s almost certainly not plain lemonade though and I should read what’s in it.
Thats a stupid as fuck argument.
Know whats on the label, and in fact, in the name, of peanut butter/peanut products?
Peanuts
and they even still have a specific warning, for extra special stupid people, that says “warning, contains peanuts”
What was on the label of Charged Lemonaid? Of Monster?
No Indicators, No Warnings, No nothing.
Miss me with this bullshit false equivalency.
You clearly didn’t read the article, or actually look at basically any energy drink can. The label of the charged lemonade does in fact list exactly how much caffeine is in each drink, as well as stating it contains as much caffeine as their dark roast coffee.
And Googling the label on a Monster Energy Drink can, there is a label stating that the total caffeine content is 120mg with a warning recommending against consumption by children or those sensitive to caffeine.
Both Monster and the Charged lemonade have labels that say “contains caffeine” you know if you had a heart problem and your doctor said not to consume large amounts of caffeine maybe you would read that label just like the peanuts.
You dont read so good