Cocaine Test Prompts Red Bull Removal In Germany

viyh writes to mention that six German states have mandated pulling Red Bull Cola energy drinks off the shelves after testing found trace amounts of cocaine in the drink. "Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment said Monday that the cocaine level was too low to pose a health risk. It planned to produce a more detailed report Wednesday. Red Bull said its cola is 'harmless and marketable in both the US and Europe.' It said similar coca leaf extracts are used worldwide as flavoring, and a test it commissioned itself found no cocaine traces."

Comments

Hah

[mackinaw_apx]

So that's how you get your wings! :p

Re:Hah

[King_TJ]

"Cocaine is a hell of a drug." - Rick James

Re:Hah

[gbarules2999]

Well, that explains why everybody I know who's addicted to that shit enjoys themselves so much.

Re:Hah

[Prof.Phreak]

...no wonder you can't stop at just 1 :-)

Bottoms Up.

[Ostracus]

Coca Cola with real Coca.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[Neon Spiral Injector]

It also has real kola nut in it. I really like the stuff and will be upset if I can't get my fix in the US.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[camperdave]

You likely won't be able to get your fix in the US. What they sell there as Coca-Cola is just a runny dark corn syrup.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Coca Cola originally contained trace amounts of cocaine and it still contains spent coca leaves as an ingredient (the extracted cocaine is then purified and sold for pharmaceutical use, generally as a topical anesthetic).

Re:Bottoms Up.

[dargaud]

Get the real stuff instead: Inca Cola !

Re:Bottoms Up.

[Adrian Lopez]

Coca cola already contains real Coca, with the cocaine removed. There is only one company licensed to import Coca leafs into the US, and as far as I'm aware they only sell the extract to Coca Cola.

Nice way to get a legal monopoly on that special "Coca Cola" flavor, no?

Re:Bottoms Up.

[MoonBuggy]

Actually Coca-Cola does still contain real coca leaf flavouring. It has the cocaine extracted by Stepan Company before the leaves are passed on to Coca-Cola.

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the process is less than 100% effective, either. When you're looking at amounts on the order of 10^-9 grams per litre, it's quite possible that any cola with real coca leaves in (don't know how common they are) has always contained traces and nobody's noticed or cared.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[icebike]

From my understanding, it was originally more than "Trace Amounts".

Coca-Cola did once contain an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass, but in 1903 it was removed. Coca-Cola still contains coca flavoring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coka_cola

Re:Bottoms Up.

[fishbowl]

>Coca-Cola did once contain an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass, but in 1903 it was removed.

What's strange about that is that for about 20 years afterward you could simply go to the drugstore and buy ounces of cocaine.
It was one of the few drugs available that had any effective use at all. Coca drugs and Sulfa drugs, and then all the opiate-alcohol cure-all mixtures.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[Neon Spiral Injector]

I mean I have a fridge full of Red Bull's Simply Cola. If they pull it from the market I'll be upset. It doesn't taste like Coke or Pepsi at all, it's a really complex flavor.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[Neon Spiral Injector]

I used to get Inca Kola when I lived in Florida in 1996. Then it was sweetened with sugar. I've found it here and there over the years since Coca-Cola bought them. The stuff you find now in the US it bottled in New Jersey and made with HFCS; just isn't the same.

But yes, it tastes like original flavor bubble gum.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[c6gunner]

You might want to try Irn Bru then. It's supposed to have a "citrus flavour" but I swear it tastes just like bubble-gum.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[mrmeval]

Best Coca Cola is from Monterrey Mexico.
http://www.e-arca.com.mx/default_i.asp

The original wasp shaped blue glass bottles. Real sugar. Real secret ingredient.
This is something that hasn't been made in the United States except that produced for passover since the 'new' coke fiasco.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[larry bagina]

The money in your wallet probably has trace amounts of cocaine, too.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[bickerdyke]

TRied that once. I guess you have to be scottish to enjoy THAT!

Re:Bottoms Up.

[modecx]

Gotta agree there.

I rarely drink a soft drink, but when I do, it's always Coke from Mexico--and always with a plate of food at my favorite Mexican restaurant. There's nothing quite like it. Like the way it used to be. Coke can take its "Coke Classic", and shove a can of it sideways up their collective asses.

Actually, because of it, I've been wanting to try that Pepsi thing they've been hyping recently--the one with real sugar. Maybe, just maybe, they're starting to get it. Probably not--but it's a spark of hope.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up, go study some spelling.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[Opportunist]

So that's the funny plasticine-smell of US dollars?

'cause I swear, fresh USDs do smell like play-doh.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[tingeber]

The money in your wallet probably has trace amounts of cocaine, too.

I remember reading about a test done in Ireland a couple of years ago on the presence of cocaine on banknotes, in percentage of the total number of notes.
It was 100%.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[Bob_Sheep]

Wonderful stuff, ridiculously sweet and it stains everything it touches bright orange =]

Re:Bottoms Up.

[diefne]

One has to wonder - what does Stepan Company do with all the cocaine they extract and how do I get a job there?

Re:Bottoms Up.

[socsoc]

If you would have read the wiki link in that post...

The active ingredient is sold to Mallinckrodt, a pharmaceutical firm, for medicinal purposes.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[Theoboley]

For the record, this stuff like eating chalk.

I, for one, don't like the taste of chalk.

Re:Bottoms Up.

[StikyPad]

And people call me crazy for snorting my cash.

The War on (some) Drugs

[causality]

If the stated purpose of the War on (some) Drugs is public safety and the prevention of crime (since drug use is handled as a law enforcement problem and not as a medical issue), I'd like to know how this furthers the cause. The brief article stated the cocaine content amounted to 0.4 micrograms of cocaine per liter of the beverage. Sounds to me like anyone trying to use cocaine by drinking Red Bull Cola would die of excess water consumption (anything is a poison given a high enough dose) before they'd feel the cocaine at all. Additionally, if someone tried to extract the cocaine from the drink and purify it, they'd spend a ton of money on the drink and I would imagine, since we're talking about nanogram amounts per liter, the expenditure would have to far exceed what they'd pay if they obtained it from a drug dealer.

Welcome to modern drug hysteria where logic and reasoning need not apply when evaluating potential threats to public safety. Aren't the Germans glad they have a government that's powerful enough to worry about things like this? It's amazing, really. No matter how absurd the drug hysteria becomes, no one or almost no one with any significant media presence is willing to suggest that maybe the way we're currently handling drugs isn't the best way to deal with them.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[JustinOpinion]

I would imagine, since we're talking about nanogram amounts per liter, the expenditure would have to far exceed what they'd pay if they obtained it from a drug dealer.

Should be easy enough to calculate:

Pure cocaine sells for, let's say, $30,000 per kg. To get a kilogram of cocaine from RedBull would take 2.5 billion liters, or roughly 7 billion 12 oz cans. A 24-case of Red Bull seems to cost about $34.80, or $1.45 per can.

In other words, to get 1 kg of cocaine from Red Bull would cost $10 billion, not to mention the enormous expense of purification. And all this would only be worth $30,000. It would cost 340,000 times more for the Red Bull than the cocaine would be worth.

As you said, the numbers don't exactly add up. Not even close.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[hoytak]

Sounds to me like anyone trying to use cocaine by drinking Red Bull Cola would die of excess water consumption (anything is a poison given a high enough dose) before they'd feel the cocaine at all.

[Citation needed]

I suspect it'd be because they flew off into outer space and suffocated.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Rob Kaper]

Aren't the Germans glad they have a government that's powerful enough to worry about things like this?

The war on drugs is a good topic to start not to single out nation states. It's Germany now, but this is no exception. The rest of Europe isn't much better, except maybe Portugal who have actually decriminalised a lot. Even my Holland is slowly turning into a nanny state when it comes to drugs. Let's not even get started about the US, or the rest of the world for that matter.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[gringofrijolero]

If the media keeps its mouth shut, it will be allowed to live. As contraband, drugs are much more profitable to organized criminals in, and out of government. This is no health issue any more than a speed trap is a safety issue. The reasons for this situation is quite simple. But it's more effective to make a moral issue out of it for mass appeal. And it still is very much a racial issue. Don't want your daughter hanging out with jazz musicians.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[saibot834]

I know that this is not the point you are trying to make, but I thought that you'd die from caffeine before the water intoxication kicks in. Interestingly, you are right, overconsumption of energy drinks will more likely result in water intoxication than caffeine intoxication. Here is my calculation:
175mg/kg * 70kg = 12.25g (Wikipedia says that 150-200mg caffeine per body weight kilogram is lethal; assuming 175mg and 70kg as average. Results in 12.25g as lethal dose)
0.2g/l * x = 12.25g (According to Wikipedia, Red Bull has 0.2g caffeine per liter)
x= 62.5l (To reach the lethal dose, you have to drink over 60 liter of Red Bull. I'm not sure when water intoxication begins to be lethal (Wikipedia says 10 liters are problematic), but I'm quite sure that you can't drink that much.)
Perhaps there are other ingredients that are more dangerous than water?

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[fishbowl]

Germany may bet trying to reduce its association with nations that produce cocaine legally, and "nanogram" levels is not "zero."

Here I was under the delusion that places outside the USA were not hysterical about this stuff. I even thought Germany was one of those places where recreational drug use, while not legal, was generally tolerated.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[phantomfive]

It's amazing, really. No matter how absurd the drug hysteria becomes, no one or almost no one with any significant media presence is willing to suggest that maybe the way we're currently handling drugs isn't the best way to deal with them.

Imagine that: the government is incapable of effectively and efficiently executing an complex task. Find any major sector of the government, and you will be able to say the same thing.

I will tell you why I am against legalization of drugs (although this is an unpopular stance on slashdot): because when I have crackheads walking down the street all the time to the house on the corner, I want to be able to call the police and have them be able to do something about it. When my neighbor's meth lab burns his house to the ground, I want him to go away, not build a new, better one. These are not made up issues. Drugs suck. They cause sucky things in society. And a lot of people, probably the majority, feel this way.

So, obviously there are problems caused by drugs. Problems a lot of people don't like. Maybe they don't bother you, but they bother a lot of people. Other people want drugs to be legalized, but if it's going to happen, it needs to be done in a way that at least moderately satisfies those who don't want crackheads walking up and down their streets. Any plan that doesn't will not succeed (at least not until the number who want to use drugs is greater than those who don't want crackheads: then they can use their majority to impose their will on society. Great how it works, isn't it?)

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[phantomfive]

Once I drank 11 liters of water in a single day, without eating anything. By the end I really wasn't feeling good, I literally thought I was dying, but all I needed was a bit of sugar (in the form of coolaid, actually) and I immediately felt better. So as long as you are getting enough sugar (and salt), I think it will take even more water than that to cause problems.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[euxneks]

Should be easy enough to calculate:

Pure cocaine sells for, let's say, $30,000 per kg. To get a kilogram of cocaine from RedBull would take 2.5 billion liters, or roughly 7 billion 12 oz cans. A 24-case of Red Bull seems to cost about $34.80, or $1.45 per can.

In other words, to get 1 kg of cocaine from Red Bull would cost $10 billion, not to mention the enormous expense of purification. And all this would only be worth $30,000. It would cost 340,000 times more for the Red Bull than the cocaine would be worth.

As you said, the numbers don't exactly add up. Not even close.

There ought to be a Google calculator function for this.

"$30000 worth of cocaine in Red Bulls"

$30,000 dollars worth of cocaine = $10,000,000,000 dollars worth of red bull

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[jojo78]

I guess Sigmund Freud was a big proponent of cocaine.

Had the War on Drugs existed (and been successful) back then we wouldn't have to keep hearing his crazy cocaine induced theories.

: P

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Carrot007]

Not to take one side or the other but your argument makes no sense.

SHould things be leagal then.

i. The 'crackheads' would not be walking down the street all the time to the house on the corner. They would have bought there drugs from a reputable person, a house on the corner is not a commercial property and would not be allowed to sell for the irritation it causes. They would also probably be at home as they bought there drugs at a reasonable time when thery were near a shop.

ii. Yout neighbour also in the legalised world would not have a meth lab. again not a commercial property and thus not allowed also he would not want to as he could not compete with the big corperations.

So again what is your problem?

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[phantomfive]

They exist now. BUT, now I can do something about it. If drugs were legalized, I couldn't.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[andr386]

You might drink far more than 11 liters. People who have psychogenic poydipsia often drink more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychogenic_polydipsia They feel the urge to fill themselves with water. But after a certain treshold, the water will eventually deplete you sodium serum, and your nerves won't be able to work anymore, ... then you die.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[phantomfive]

Go out on the streets. How many druggies do you see? You can probably find some if you look hard enough. How many drunks do you see? Tons. Legalizing drugs (by itself) will not reduce the number of crackheads on the street. There need to be other actions taken as well.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[andr386]

They are not hysterical, it's 6 states out of 16 ... And actually it's probably temporary, the article says they removed it "amid concerns over possible narcotics law violations." It's obvious they will clear that up. Also illegal drugs is more of a health issue than a geopolitical war in Europe. And you'd be wrong to think than any European country is more progressive on drugs than say California.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[CustomDesigned]

"Some" drugs is right. Here in the eastern US, our streets are lined with mulberry trees (the unripe berries of which are hallucinogenic). And our government does nothing about it!

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[cerberusss]

Even my Holland is slowly turning into a nanny state when it comes to drugs

That could have something to do with the Germans and the French visiting in droves. It's a nuisance for everyone living in the Dutch border cities.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Darth_brooks]

How many Volkswagon beetles-worth is that?

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Smoke2Joints]

"junkies" exist now because there is not enough readily available and unbiased information out there for people to make an informed decision about these substances. thank god for erowid.org - unfortunately, not something the average street person might have access to.

drug labs exist because there is a lucrative underground market for the substances that society has left untapped and available to anyone who wants to risk prosecution and give it a go, and potentially make a ton of money.

your argument isnt valid im afraid. if drugs were obtainable over the counter, perhaps via prescription as a withdrawl treatment, or even at the supermarket, there would be no need to seek out criminal elements, and the meth labs and junkies on your corner would cease to exist. however, random loners with no jobs nosing through your rubbish will always continue, drugs or not.

so the question is: if a user is sitting at home minding his own business, enjoying some prime buds that he picked up on the way home from his job as a policeman, what right do you have to tell him to stop?

sorry, but the grandparent is entirely correct.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Wolfram Alpha wasn't sure what to do with my input :(

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[phantomfive]

Currently there are two drunks sitting on the street outside my window, but no crackheads. Also, right now sometimes I walk down the street and breath smoke from a local smoker. Not healthy, but I tolerate it. I'd rather not have to tolerate crack smoke blowing around me as well, thankyou.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't want your daughter hanging out with jazz musicians.

1895 telegrammed: WANT MORAL ISSUE BACK STOP

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[zymurgy_cat]

In other words, to get 1 kg of cocaine from Red Bull would cost $10 billion, not to mention the enormous expense of purification. And all this would only be worth $30,000. It would cost 340,000 times more for the Red Bull than the cocaine would be worth.

Yes, but we have to think of the children. Can you imagine some innocent child distilling all that Red Bull and then snorting the coke? If we save but one child, it would be worth banning Red Bull.....

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Nazlfrag]

The meth lab wouldn't be there. People that need the police called on them will still need the police called on them. Someone high on drugs not bothering anyone won't get the cops called on them today, they still need to be doing something wrong. Legalisation and regulation is the sensible and civilized thing to do.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[fermion]

To be fair, there is little modern about this, and really is not the drug hysteria that the majority of the population, at least in the US, complain about. When what is now bayer synthesized heroin, it pretty quickly became clear it was worse than the morphine it was meant to replace, and was essentially banned in the US almost 100 years ago. The same thing happens every ten years or so when something thinks they have come up with a safe speed, until it is shown that there is no such thing. I agree that amount of work done to keep vegetation that might be used to create a drug from crossing boarders is insane, but I think it is sort of good to stop the processed stuff. Just imagine, if laws against cocaine were fully prosecuted, we might not have had to deal with 12 years of recent inept governance in the US.

As far as the cost, that is not an issue. People steal stuff, they don't buy it. Have you noticed the number of over the counter drugs that are now behind locked doors? This is because kids were stealing it and making drugs. For them there was no money, just time, which druggies have in spades. It is true that it would take cases of this to make enough cocaine to matter, but one can imagine a couple kids spending the week gathering a bunch of the stuff, then spending the weekend evaporating the water to try to get a good dose. Many of us did dumber things a kid to try to get high.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[phantomfive]

Right now I have two drunks sitting outside my house. It's annoying. Also, sometimes people smoke outside my house. That's annoying too. It would be more annoying to have crackheads sitting outside my house. Right now I would be able to do something about them, especially if they were actually smoking crack. I like it that way. I have no reason to support a campaign to legalize crack. (Changing the way the 'war' on drugs is fought is something different. I can agree with changes, just not legalization. Heck, I could even agree to legalization as long as the problems I've outlined are addressed).

Also, I reject your argument that legalization and regulation is the sensible and civilized thing to do, as you haven't demonstrated why. A society has no obligation to allow its citizens to perform demonstrably harmful acts, especially when they can annoy other people, and drugs are clearly harmful.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[droopycom]

This is typically the problems that Wolfram|Alpha is supposed to solve...

Unfortunately, they dont seem to have a price for Cocaine... they do have a bunch of numbers for Red Bull though...

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[TapeCutter]

"because when I have drunks walking down the street all the time to the pub on the corner, I want to be able to call the police and have them be able to do something about it."

I agree, people I don't like who insist on "walking down the street" should be put to death. /sarcasm

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[DavidD_CA]

I'm confused. How many Libraries of Congress is that?

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[phantomfive]

If you're going to take the time to reply, you might as well at least reply to the main substance of my comment.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[fractoid]

Annoyingly, this is often implicated in MDMA deaths. In fact I don't think I've read a highly publicised case of "ecstasy death" that didn't resolve to either hyperhydration or the pill actually containing something completely fucking different (the most recent one in Australia was a girl who bought a pill that she thought was MDMA and turned out to be a combination of GBH and Ketamine... and yet it was widely reported as "teen ecstasy death").

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[fractoid]

Hey man, chill! I don't want no trouble with no reefer addicts!

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[afidel]

You also need Potassium, flushing your Potassium with too much water and no replacement leads to very bad things.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[khrath]

So all I have to do is drink $3,000 worth of red bull, and it's like snorting a gram of cocaine? PARTY OVER HERE!

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[fractoid]

I will tell you why I am against legalization of drugs (although this is an unpopular stance on slashdot):

I will tell you why I am for legalization of drugs, and hopefully you will see that my reasons are exactly the same as yours:

Because when I have crackheads walking down the street all the time to the house on the corner, I want to be able to call the police and have them be able to do something about it.

Because if crack were legal, crackheads wouldn't walk to that house, they'd drop into a chemist and pay $24.95 for a clean, measured dose. They wouldn't have to deal with dealers price gouging them once they get hooked, so they wouldn't have to steal your bigscreen TV to pay for their next hit. If they get wired and screw up in public, then arrest them for their behaviour. If they don't cause any public nuisance then why is it any of your damn business what they do?

When my neighbor's meth lab burns his house to the ground, I want him to go away, not build a new, better one.

Why would your neighbour bother to run a meth lab if he can buy some cheaply and legally? I don't see him running an illegal still in his basement.

These are not made up issues. Drugs suck. They cause sucky things in society. And a lot of people, probably the majority, feel this way.

These are not made up issues, but they are caused by prohibition, not by the drugs themselves.

The only reason that legalisation ISN'T good is that people who get addicted would not have so much pressure to quit. I say that is their personal choice and they should take personal responsibility.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[fractoid]

Is street drinking legal where you live? Where I live, you can get anything from a stern order to pour your drink out to a hefty on-the-spot fine, depending on how sober and polite you are to the police officer.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[fractoid]

Sadly, in sports the reason for a positive test doesn't seem to matter. I remember at least one case where a cyclist in the Tour de France or something was handed a bottle of caffeinated water by an anonymous track marshal, finished first, and was stripped of her title due to the caffeine. I doubt they'd be more forgiving of cocaine.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[YttriumOxide]

Since neither marijuana nor LSD are addictive, you might want to reconsider some of your wording Mr Troll.

All we here is the wonderful hippie wonderland where everybody gets high 24/7 and somehow that doesn't fuck everything up.

Almost no-one is advocating "getting high 24/7" - we advocate reasonable laws to allow people to make some personal choices and accept the responsibilities of those choices if they're badly made. If a guy buys cocaine and uses it, no problem from my point of view. If he buys cocaine and beats the crap out of someone since he's the type of person who gets violent on it, then he should be arrested for assault - no different to alcohol. If various drugs were legalised, then yes, there'd be people who abuse them, but I don't think it'd be a significantly different number to the number of people that abuse them now. Just as there are people that abuse alcohol currently, but the vast majority of us that do drink it are able to do so in moderation without being permanently drunk.

The vast majority of the problems are because they're illegal. The guy I get my LSD from is a pretty shady sort of character, and I wouldn't put it past him to do other criminal things such as theft and perhaps even physical violence. If I could avoid ever seeing that dickhead again, buy my acid from a pharmacy, and hear he's gone out of business, then I'd be a very happy man.

full disclosure:
I don't use marijuana - don't like the feeling it gives.
I also don't use cocaine, but mostly due to the price/performance factor (it's way too expensive for so little effect) as well as some concerns about the health risks.
I do use LSD though on a fairly regular basis - up to around 6 times per year on average these days, but much more when I was younger. I love the things it does to me, and consider myself a much better person for having had it.
Despite this, I'm in favour of the legalisation of all three (and more), not just my "preferred" substance(s).

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[speedtux]

Why, I'm glad that you asked. By furthering the drug hysteria, these kinds of actions will ensure that organizations that benefit from the war on drugs and drug crime (police, politicians, jails, etc.) will get even more tax dollars and public support, and that obviously benefits the public!

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Maelwryth]

Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input. Tips for good results

Related inputs to try:

Chemistry: information about a chemical cocaine Units: currency conversions $30000 Colors: information about a color Red

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Mr_Whoopass]

"would die of excess water consumption (anything is a poison given a high enough dose)"

Thanks for clearing that up. Drowning is actually "water poisoning". Roger.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[bickerdyke]

Aren't the Germans glad they have a government that's powerful enough to worry about things like this?

Usually... yes.

We don't mind our gouvernment pulling food and drinks off the market rather fast if they contain something thats not supposed to be in food or drinks.

It's just that teir work usually doesnt make it onto international newspages.

But I guess this will be over soon anyways. Red Bull will be back with a warning like "may contain alkaloid residues in non-harmful quantities" and everything will be back to normal.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[bickerdyke]

because when I have crackheads walking down the street all the time to the house on the corner, I want to be able to call the police and have them be able to do something about it.

Oh great! I want to live in a country where I can call the police to simply remove people I dont like from public streets.

Where are you posting from again? Soviet Russia? China?

When my neighbor's meth lab burns his house to the ground, I want him to go away, not build a new, better one.

You're missing one thing: Assuming legalization, you're neighbours meth lab probably would be closed down even earlier for not properly following hazmat safety regulations.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Ihlosi]

"junkies" exist now because there is not enough readily available and unbiased information out there for people to make an informed decision about these substances.

Err ... any pharmacy textbook will do. I'm sure your local library can get one if you ask. However, in the US, this also might invite black vans and other unpleasantries.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Ihlosi]

You're missing one thing: Assuming legalization, you're neighbours meth lab probably would be closed down even earlier for not properly following hazmat safety regulations.

Why bother with registering your lab when you can still run an illegal one on the cheap and undercut the competition?

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[dontmakemethink]

As usual, politicians aren't making efforts to actually be productive, but rather to *seem* productive.

Imagine how hard drug cartels are laughing over this one. No question a an unwinnable war is lost when the clear loser claims to have won.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Ihlosi]

Oh great! I want to live in a country where I can call the police to simply remove people I dont like from public streets.

Never heard of loitering, and laws prohibiting it? You must not be from the US, then.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Ihlosi]

Why would your neighbour bother to run a meth lab if he can buy some cheaply and legally?

Maybe because it's even cheaper to make his own, illegally?

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Ihlosi]

Thanks for clearing that up. Drowning is actually "water poisoning". Roger.

No, it's poisoning by too little oxygen. The original quote doesn't say anything about a "high enough" dose, it just says that the dose makes the poison.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[atraintocry]

Why wait for Google? I tried it in WolframAlpha and it works fine.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[bickerdyke]

Oh don't worry... your competition will take care of registering your illegal lab.

I don't know where you're from, but if the market would work like that, you'd still have a lot of moonshining around. Over here we simply buy our booze at the local shop.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[fractoid]

Black market meth is generally synthesised from pseudoephedrine which is in turn refined from cough medicines like Tylenol (as you'd probably know if you've watched Terminator 3 :) Inconveniently if you happen to want to make a batch of meth, the police are well aware of this fact and require apothecaries to report any large sales of pseudoephedrine-containing medicines.

Given that the cheapest price I can find online is US $7 for 8 fl. oz. and you need quite a lot* to manufacture a small amount of the drug, I'm pretty sure it's going to cost a lot more to do it yourself than just buy it. Sort of like the way very few people run illegal moonshine stills - the easy, legal availability of the product, coupled with the illegality and pain-in-the-ass factor of doing it yourself, means using the legal product is a much more attractive option. And it's a lot, LOT more effort to make meth than it is to make moonshine.

* (I'm not sure how much, because I've never made meth and don't really want to research it here at work for obvious reasons, but I'd guess at least ten bottles' worth, given that the amount per dose is single-digit milligrams.)

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Helix666]

Shush! Don't say stuff like that, even in jest! The real "Think Of The Children" Brigade will catch wind of it and knee-jerk so hard that we all catch the fallout! D:

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Opportunist]

This is the same government that thought filtering words in DNS queries keeps you from accessing servers. What do you expect? Competence? Look elsewhere.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[N1AK]

Are you completely incapable of considering the notion that you might be wrong? A good half-dozen people have responded with very clear arguments explaining why legalisation isn't going to cause you any more problems than you already have. You seem to be holding onto this bizarre notion that drug legalisation means the complete abolition of all laws relating to drugs.

Although it seems pretty obvious that you'll just ignore these as well, I've got time to burn trying:
1/ If people can buy drugs from a legal source their will be less dealers (less risk of dodgy doses, less risk of crime etc).
2/ If less money is being spent on catching and incarcerating people for possession etc this leaves more for rehab, catching illegal dealers etc.
3/ Legalisation of sale does not mean it would be legal to use in public.
4/ It would be easier for addicts to seak help without the stigma of an illegal habit.

There are downsides to legalisation, and I don't know if they would be bad enough to justify keeping drugs illegal. However, if you have a problem based on those, then make your case with them, currently all you are doing is repetitively claiming that drug legalisation will cause a mob of crackheads to congregate at your frontdoor.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Opportunist]

You won't see fewer. Actually, you'll see more. And, while you may not immediately agree, that would be a good thing and the first step towards a solution.

Currently, how often does the "average, normal person" meet a druggie? Rarely. If ever. They are something that's conveniently hidden away in the "well known" parks and places that no reputable person goes to. You don't see it, it doesn't exist for you.

I betcha, as soon as those people get a lot more noticable, they (and the problem) also get a lot more attention.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Opportunist]

Only if the state muscles in and puts taxes on it that make your head spin. Else there are very, very few chemical processes that you, in your home lab, could brew more cheaply than a large company. Especially in chemistry, growing amounts usually mean other manufacturing ways that cost a LOT for a small batch but get really cheap when you brew up a few tons.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Opportunist]

Why do you think you could make meth more cheaply than a chem company manufacturing it at industrial levels? Could you tell me of a SINGLE chemical component that you can create at home more cheaply than a large chem company in large quantity?

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Rogerborg]

I imagine that you'd die of caffeine poisoning pretty quickly if you tried it, since its LD50 is only half that of cocaine anyway. Caffeine is a nasty, addicting, debilitating drug, that's only viewed as harmless by its addicts.

Evidence for that in 3... 2... 1...

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Kuroji]

No, you need $10,000,000 worth of Red Bull to get one gram of cocaine.

Seriously, what the HELL, Germany?!

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[ciderVisor]

If you're going to take the time to reply, you might as well at least reply to the main substance of my comment.

So, you're accusing him of substance abuse ?

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[geminidomino]

"would die of excess water consumption (anything is a poison given a high enough dose)"

Thanks for clearing that up. Drowning is actually "water poisoning". Roger.

No, drowning is inhalation of water/liquid and subsequent asphyxiation.

Water poisoning/Water intoxication is a completely different animal (remember the woman who died from it a few years ago trying to win a Wii?)

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[drinkypoo]

a girl who bought a pill that she thought was MDMA and turned out to be a combination of GBH and Ketamine... and yet it was widely reported as "teen ecstasy death").

Well, that was stupid. Although anyone buying drugs from someone they don't know is, well, also stupid.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[drinkypoo]

Drugs suck. They cause sucky things in society. And a lot of people, probably the majority, feel this way.

Wrong. Abuse of drugs causes sucky things in society. However, sucky things in society also cause abuse of drugs. Also, by far the biggest problems caused by drugs are actually caused by trying to control them. Remember the prohibition of Alcohol? There is no fucking difference here (Stills explode, too.)

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[busydoingnothing]

Ah man, that's quite possibly one of the funniest posts I've read on Slashdot. Cheers.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[getNewNickName]

If they don't cause any public nuisance then why is it any of your damn business what they do?

Because a society of people spiraling into addiction isn't healthy. Why is it that people only think about themselves and not about the common good? Has our species reduced itself to only finding more ways to pleasure themselves?

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[nasor]

The problem is not the crackheads per se, it's the illegal activities that they engage in while attempting to acquire crack. Parent's point was that if crack were legal, much of the problems associated with crackheads would go away, even if the crackheads themselves did not.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[splatter]

I wish I could get back in time

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[phantomfive]

You seem to have missed my point, which I must not have made very clearly because a lot of other people did too. It was more a point about the political process than about drugs, but it was this:

most of America is against drug legalization (and for some good reasons). It does not matter if you say the 'war on drugs' is costing a lot, because we as a society are willing to pay it. It does not matter that the 'war on drugs' will never be won, for the same reasons that the war on murder will never be won. We spend a lot of money preventing and punishing murder. That does not mean we should stop it.

The fact is, if the legalization crowd keeps coming out saying nothing more than, "we should end the war on drugs because it's bad," they will not succeed for a long time. As a political reality, they will need to satisfy to at least a moderate degree the concerns of the average American. This is called compromise. You want to do drugs, most people want to avoid dealing with crackheads, crackbabies, etc. If you can find a way to arrange things so most people are satisfied, then you can probably get what you want. Otherwise you won't, at least not for a long time, because again most Americans are opposed to drug legalization.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[phantomfive]

You seem to have missed my main point, which I must not have made very clearly because a lot of other people did too. It was more a point about the political process than about drugs, but it was this:

most of America is against drug legalization (and for some good reasons). It does not matter if you say the 'war on drugs' is costing a lot, because we as a society are willing to pay it. It does not matter that the 'war on drugs' will never be won, for the same reasons that the war on murder will never be won. We spend a lot of money preventing and punishing murder. That does not mean we should stop it.

The fact is, if the legalization crowd keeps coming out saying nothing more than, "we should end the war on drugs because it's bad," they will not succeed for a long time. As a political reality, they will need to satisfy to at least a moderate degree the concerns of the average American. This is called compromise. You want to do drugs, most people want to avoid dealing with crackheads, crackbabies, etc. If you can find a way to arrange things so most people are satisfied, then you can probably get what you want. Otherwise you won't, at least not for a long time, because again most Americans are opposed to drug legalization.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[GeekWade]

It's a nuisance for everyone living in the Dutch border cities.

Except for maybe those who set up businesses catering to the tourists... ;-)

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[fractoid]

The fact is, if the legalization crowd keeps coming out saying nothing more than, "we should end the war on drugs because it's bad," they will not succeed for a long time. As a political reality, they will need to satisfy to at least a moderate degree the concerns of the average American. This is called compromise. You want to do drugs, most people want to avoid dealing with crackheads, crackbabies, etc. If you can find a way to arrange things so most people are satisfied, then you can probably get what you want. Otherwise you won't, at least not for a long time, because again most Americans are opposed to drug legalization.

Thanks for clarifying - it wasn't until I posted my response that I saw about 50 replies saying essentially the same thing, so at least I'm not alone. :P I assume the core of your point is what I've quoted?

If so, the "concerns of the average American" can be split into two halves. The first half relates to the personal and societal impact that drug users have on them. As most posts here point out, a large proportion of this impact is due to the prohibition of the drugs rather than the drugs themselves. The second half relates to the Puritan view that 'they shouldn't be allowed to do that' and that 'for their own good', other people should be restricted to activities approved by the person in question. This second half tends to be dismissed out of hand by libertarians, and most slashdotters lean that way from what I've seen.

So basically it boils down to an ideological question of whether individuals, or society as a whole, have the right to dictate to other individuals what they may or may not do. Or, to put it another way, if I want to drink bleach, what right do you have to stop me?

Sadly, while almost everyone finds some aspect of our laws frustrating, we're all more than happy to vote for laws to stop other people from doing stuff we don't like, and we're all even happier to inform ourselves purely from schlock television. So yes, while ideologically I still hold that legalisation and regulation is the best and healthiest path for humanity as a whole, I concur that politically, that's not going to happen without the foundation of a new country.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[fractoid]

Oh, I know that if she'd been more responsible (or marginally luckier) she probably would have been alive today. Personally I have used MDMA before but only through a 'reputable' source, who had a long track record with my friends - the e community seems a lot more 'friend of a friend' and a lot less 'dealer pushing onto vulnerable people' than other drug communities but I digress... If I were ever to wish to take drugs again I would at least use a test kit, or at best just make the stuff myself.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[phantomfive]

Part of the reason I post on slashdot is as a sounding board for my ideas so I can clarify them, get different perspective, and find new ways to express myself. You bring up some interesting points.

I assume the core of your point is what I've quoted?

Yes, that is the essence. So many people think it is 'the man' or 'the government' that is keeping them down, but in reality we the people are the government. I don't think people realize how responsive the government actually is to the will of the people, and how if you want to change things, the easiest way to do it is to change the will and opinion of the people. Gay marriage (especially in California) is the perfect example of that: as soon as the majority of people (especially voters) accept gay marriage, it will become legal.

So basically it boils down to an ideological question of whether individuals, or society as a whole, have the right to dictate to other individuals what they may or may not do. Or, to put it another way, if I want to drink bleach, what right do you have to stop me?

First, I am not so sure that all the problems are caused by drugs being illegal. Homeless people are a serious problem, and the would surely only increase if drugs were legalized. Also, there is the problem of crack-babies. But I am willing to table that discussion for now, as I haven't truly investigated the issue enough, and am willing to concede that the problems caused by making drugs illegal may be more than those caused by making them legal. Certainly I don't have much of an argument against marijuana legalization.

As to the second point, each person in society has a responsibility to produce at least as much as they consume. This is a basic issue of society: if people don't on average do that, society will fall. Those who don't produce as much as they consume are leaches, living on the hard work of others.

So even from the libertarian point of view, if you want to do things that will harm you, fry your brain, and require society to take care of you as a result, then society has a vested interest in preventing you from doing so. Of course not everyone who does drugs will end up like this, but a lot will.

So yes, while ideologically I still hold that legalisation and regulation is the best and healthiest path for humanity as a whole, I concur that politically, that's not going to happen without the foundation of a new country.

No actually, and this is the awesome point of democracy: as soon as you have enough of a majority that you could win a war that would change things, you have enough of a majority to change it through traditional democratic methods. No violence needed.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[TapeCutter]

"If you're going to take the time to reply, you might as well at least reply to the main substance of my comment."

I did, are you claiming there was more to it than a plea to control the behaviour of people you don't like but have done you no more harm than "walking down the street"? The saddest part of that is that you are probably correct about the number of people who agree with you (including many alcoholics and social drinkers).

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[phantomfive]

Yes, in fact, that WAS my point, most people don't like drugs for various reasons (some sane, some not), and that if you want to get drugs legalized, you will have to address those reasons. You can't just say, "you're reasons are stupid" because then they can say, "no they aren't and there are more of us, so you lose." That's how democracy works. Here is the pertinent quote from my original post.

Other people want drugs to be legalized, but if it's going to happen, it needs to be done in a way that at least moderately satisfies those who don't want crackheads walking up and down their streets. Any plan that doesn't will not succeed (at least not until the number who want to use drugs is greater than those who don't want crackheads: then they can use their majority to impose their will on society. Great how it works, isn't it?)

Of course as an alternate plan you can try to convince the majority people that drugs should be legalized, but you're going to have an easier time if you go for the compromise: find a solution that satisfies all who are involved.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Hatta]

most of America is against drug legalization (and for some good reasons). It does not matter if you say the 'war on drugs' is costing a lot, because we as a society are willing to pay it.

A battered woman is often willing to stay with the man who hurts her. That's no reason to stop pointing out how harmful he is. It's the same thing with the war on drug users. The only reason we keep with it is out of fear of change, when any reasonable analysis shows that change is what we desperately need.

As a political reality, they will need to satisfy to at least a moderate degree the concerns of the average American. This is called compromise. You want to do drugs, most people want to avoid dealing with crackheads, crackbabies, etc.

The thing with legalization is that it's not just for the people who use drugs. The societal problems caused by drug use will decrease under regulation. Everyone benefits from that. Wouldn't it be great to take the profit motive out of the cocaine industry? Legalize it, and prices go way down, and no one has to steal to get a fix anymore. Quit giving people criminal records because of it, and it becomes easier for these people to turn their lives around. Everyone benefits from a sane and rational drug policy. The only people who benefit from the war on drug users are fear mongers.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[wisnoskij]

No one is trying it get hi off of red bull. that is not to say small amounts could not make it less healthy of a drink and more addictive. this is not a drug issue it is a heath issue, and moral if you believe it is wrong to secretly put highly addictive substances into food.

Re:The War on (some) Drugs

[Ihlosi]

and moral if you believe it is wrong to secretly put highly addictive substances into food.

If they were really intentionally putting traces of highly addictive substances into food, they'd be using stuff that's a) much more physically addictive than cocaine and b) much less problematic legally, like, um, nicotine.

Besides, people who think that decocainated coca leaf extracts contains zero cocaine probably also believe that decaffeinated coffee contains zero caffeine.

Levels

[EdIII]

the cocaine level was too low to pose a health risk.

I would say the levels are too high when you are willing to blow some dude in a bathroom stall to get more Red Bull. Till then, it's probably just fine.

Re:Levels

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Sir,

When you're ready, I am waiting in stall 3 with your Red Bull.

- Red Bull Dealer

Re:Levels

[spartacus_prime]

the cocaine level was too low to pose a health risk.

I would say the levels are too high when you are willing to blow some dude in a bathroom stall to get more Red Bull. Till then, it's probably just fine.

It's true! I seen him do it!

Re:Levels

[PopeRatzo]

when you are willing to blow some dude in a bathroom stall

How much redbull did it take to get you to that point?

Actually, I think this entire cocaine scandal is a brilliant marketing campaign by RedBull. I've got a feeling their sales are about to go through the roof.

Re:Levels

[iJusten]

Actually, I think this entire cocaine scandal is a brilliant marketing campaign by RedBull. I've got a feeling their sales are about to go through the roof.

Not in Germany, they wont.

Re:Levels

[Opportunist]

Maybe not, but in countries next to Germany they sure will.

Red Bull was "outlawed" in Germany a while ago, too. Result? Insane sales in bordering towns in Austria. Eventually the German government relented because they didn't want people to spend their money abroad.

In the battle of greed and "moral", greed wins. Always.

Re:Levels

[mike2R]

That was the worst part about the coke, man, was being in that bathroom with that stranger at the end of the night. Wasn't it, huh? Talking about shit like solving the world's problems and the only reason you're in there is because he has the coke. That should have been a fucking sign, don't ya think? I mean if Hitler had coke, there'd be Jews in the bathroom going, "I know you didn't do it. *snort* I like your mustache. *snort* Fucking Himmler. *snort*"

-Denis Leary

Re:Cool story bro

[Ethanol-fueled]

No surprise there. Tobacco is legal for sale and it's packed with shit like arsenic and benzene.

Of course, you have folks out there who are banning hemp because marijuana gets people high. But they should go after the malt liquor industry if they want to catch the low-hanging fruit.

There's no way in hell that Old English 800 and Steel reserve are just barley, hops, and yeast. They cause psychotropic effects similar to PCP.

She's alright

[Neon Aardvark]

Trace amounts of cocaine were found in the German parliament toilets.

Ergo, German politicians should be banned from Germany.

Re:She's alright

[Austerity Empowers]

You know, we don't hear enough of that lately: "Won't you please think of the toilets?"

Re:She's alright

[mpe]

Trace amounts of cocaine were found in the German parliament toilets.
Ergo, German politicians should be banned from Germany.

In some countries having politicians use cocaine could actually improve things. e.g. having all British MPs drugged up might save some taxpayers' money...

Re:She's alright

[Bob_Who]

Trace amounts of cocaine were found in the German parliament toilets.

Ergo, German politicians should be banned from Germany.

....However, in an effort to reform rather than banish, the German politicians will only be banned from toilets. Hopefully, they will learn from this experience to minimize on the shit they spew in public.

Re:She's alright

[Attila Dimedici]

Why only German politicians?

This really isnt suprising

[Tigersmind]

They would of course have a very small amount in the drink. Not enough to break laws, but enough to make people go "Lets get this! It's cocaine!" if it would ever be discovered. Marketing at its best folks.

Re:This really isnt suprising

[Ethanol-fueled]

Nope. If they banned this just because of its name then Red Bull must change their manufacturing process or shit brix.

Re:This really isnt suprising

[friendofthenite]

Nice conspiracy theory but probably false. Red Bull cola is one of few colas that contains coca leaf extracts, so it seems plausible that microscopic traces of the alkaloid might end up in the final product. Also, the six German states that the article refers to apparently don't agree with you that it's not enough to break laws, which would hardly be an acceptable trade off for the sake of attracting a few teenagers excited by the idea of taking narcotics.

Re:This really isnt suprising

[Hurricane78]

Red Bull cola is one of few colas that contains coca leaf extracts

As does Coca-Cola. See the many posts where this is noted. Also: Hence the name.

Re:This really isnt suprising

[vonart]

They actually didn't ban it. It's available for sale at the convenience store nearest my apartment in Springfield, MA. In fact, they added a new variety, with less harsh flavor, called "Cut Cocaine".

Re:This really isnt suprising

[Roman Mamedov]

Yeah, I thought the same too. Remember, that's not the regular Red Bull, but the Red Bull COLA the story is talking about. It's not even an energy drink, it's just a similarly flavoured cola. And from what I see, they are really struggling to push it in shops (as in: no one buys it). Most shops have some sort of "buy one get one for free" deal on this drink. Because without that, it is basically too expensive for what it is. So, all in all, it's not surprising that someone in the marketing decided to stir up some "spicy" rumors.

hrmmm

[t00le]

Seems odd that the tests have only popped up in Germany. All it takes is some bored German worker to drop a few grams of coke in their Red Bull, then complain to the government after they fail a drug test. :P

Re:hrmmm

[Hurricane78]

Well, German politicians know themselves around drugs. After all, cocaine was found on the toilets of the Bundestag (parliament).

What a bunch of bull.

[Anonymous Coward]

At 0.0004 milligrams per litre, you'd have to drink 10,000 litres to have the effects of a mild everyday south american coca tea. And 100,000 litres to get "high". I'd be more worried about the caffeine...

Coca-Cola next ?

[moon3]

"Coca" contains cocaine alkaloids, a basis for the drug cocaine.

So Coca-Cola, that still uses Coca extracts in the beverage might also contain "trace amounts" of the substance.. Greedy regulators might have missed a bigger target here.

Re:Coca-Cola next ?

[Manip]

According to this page at one point Coca Cola did indeed contain trace amounts but that is no longer the case and hasn't been the case since 1929

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp

Re:Coca-Cola next ?

[Hurricane78]

Yes, and hydrochloric acid contains water, so it must be perfectly safe to drink. :P

Re:Coca-Cola next ?

[moon3]

Coca-Cola buys (though subsidiary) about 100 metric tons of dried Peruvian coca leaves each year, according to Marco Castillo, spokesman for Peru's state-owned National Coca Co.

(source Wikipedia)

And it uses it in Coca-Cola, that of course doesn't mean that Coca-Cola contains cocain, just a Coca extract.

Re:Coca-Cola next ?

[ProfanityHead]

According to this page at one point Coca Cola did indeed contain trace amounts but that is no longer the case and hasn't been the case since 1929

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp

Yes, and we all know snopes.com is correct about everything and the final say in all internet arguments.

Re:Coca-Cola next ?

[Rary]

Coca-Cola buys ... about 100 metric tons of dried Peruvian coca leaves each year ... (a)nd it uses it in Coca-Cola...

... after the cocaine has been extracted and sold for pharmaceutical use.

So _that's_ how it works...

[lobiusmoop]

Red Bull is a homeopathic stimulant!

Re:So _that's_ how it works...

[John Hasler]

No. That concentration is far too high to qualify as homeopathic. For that you have to get it down to less than one molecule per liter.

Re:So _that's_ how it works...

[ChromeAeonium]

Less than one molecule per liter? That's the homeopathic equivalent to a placebo. The strong stuff is measured in molecules per cubic lightyear. Boy, it sure is a good thing we as a civilization don't treat health problems magic water, huh?

Re:So _that's_ how it works...

[MrHanky]

The idea behind homeopathy is that "like cures like", so a homeopathic cocaine preparation would, from that assumption, actually be an anti-stimulant -- a depressant.

That is, of course, unless you believe it to be a stimulant.

Re:So _that's_ how it works...

[PaganRitual]

This brightened my morning by much more than trace amounts.

Re:So _that's_ how it works...

[fractoid]

Red Bull is a homeopathic stimulant!

You, sir, made me "laugh out loud". An internets to you!

Re:Cool story bro

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way in hell that Old English 800 and Steel reserve are just barley, hops, and yeast. They cause psychotropic effects similar to PCP.

When stupid, violent people drink malted liquor beverages it lowers their inhibitions resulting in behavior that is, not surprisingly, stupid and violent.

Oh yeah?

[4D6963]

I've never bought or used cocaine yet I probably have more of it in my wallet. On my bank notes.

Re:Oh yeah?

[flyingfsck]

Never? Never gone to a Dentist and gotten Novocaine? Never used a head-ache tablet like Codis? It is really tough to have your teeth worked on without narcotics. I have had that done a few times on very small fillings, but anything serious, I'd rather have the injections thanks.

Re:Oh yeah?

[BeardedChimp]

Never? Never gone to a Dentist and gotten Novocaine? Never used a head-ache tablet like Codis?

Well considering 'novocaine' contains procaine not cocaine, and that Codis has aspirin and codeine in it he can continue to stand by his statement.

Re:Oh yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

Novocaine is similar to cocaine and dentists used to use cocaine as an anesthetic. Neither are narcotics though. Narcotics are only opiates and opioids, despite what the TV says.

I would imagine the poster above you was correct in saying he never used cocaine.

Re:Oh yeah?

[4D6963]

I have healthy teeth, so nope, none of that.

In other news...

[denzacar]

Due to trace amounts of cocaine known to be found on dollar bills - eating, snorting, licking or in any other way ingesting of money shall be strictly prohibited.

If the police officer founds that there is probable cause that the suspect was planing to engage in money ingestion - he/she/it has authorization to detain the suspect and confiscate the said money as evidence.
Cause there is no ceasefire in the war on drugs.

Re:In other news...

[xianthax]

67% of dollar bills in this study, and thats south shore mass, i would expect manhattan to step that number up a bit.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080411/NEWS/804110348

Re:In other news...

[Sulphur]

How about North Korea counterfeit dollars?

Re:In other news...

[pz]

Ah, yes, SouthCoastToday, clear evidence of non-natives invading New England where terms like "Southeastern Mass," "Southern New England," "Cape Cod and the Islands," "Bristol and Barnstable Counties," and are used rather than the Kalifornikated doubleplusungood "SouthCoast". Things still have character here in New England, thank you very much.

(Excuse me? Oh, well, yes, I suppose I do have Karma to burn. Why do you ask?)

Re:In other news...

[xianthax]

i actually live in South Boston, i have no idea where the SouthCoast is, we call it the South Shore, or just Shore girls, you can normally identify girls from this area from the tell tale accent and excessive volume the second you walk into a bar, they are to Boston what Jersey girls are to NYC

Half-baked

[slashdotmsiriv]

Red Bull is not a drug. I used to suck d*** for coke. Now that's an addiction. You ever suck some d*** for Red Bull?

Re:Half-baked

[Anonymous Coward]

I've sucked off a red bull for some coke before.

DON'T JUDGE ME.

Re:Half-baked

[ionix5891]

cocka cola?

Re:Half-baked

[cerberusss]

Pics or it didn't happen!

On second thought, forget about it.

Re:Half-baked

[notarockstar1979]

Not Red Bull. The Playboy Energy Drink? Once.

Re:Half-baked

[iVasto]

Did you mean Cockta? I certainly hope not, that stuff is awful.

Re:Half-baked

[underworld]

maybe for Krispy Kremes - but not for Red Bull. :-)

Red Bull PR team must be partying now

[Ilgaz]

I guess the lawmakers hope that all people, especially people who buys extra caffeine containing things like Red Bull must hate cocaine or should be afraid of it.

If Red Bull sales explode because of these news, I wouldn't be so surprised. Red Bull could never come up with such a great PR idea, getting banned for having trace amounts of cocaine, a World known, famous thing.

Ask any police guy, they are particularly afraid of cocaine because people somehow think it is classy. While it may have very same, very dangerous side effects (including sudden death) and addiction, they aren't afraid of it like they would be afraid of heroine.

You now declare a free to buy thing in grocery store has that matter even it is ridiculously low. Very clever. If I was Red Bull, I would even sponsor these politicians.

Re:Red Bull PR team must be partying now

[fractoid]

I now feel disturbingly compelled to make an adventure game wherein you must rescue the heroin.

Re:Red Bull PR team must be partying now

[Ihlosi]

I now feel disturbingly compelled to make an adventure game wherein you must rescue the heroin.

Rockstar Games and a few other companies probably beat you to the punch there.

It's everywhere

[dword]

I recently read on /. that they found traces of cocaine in Madrid if I'm not mistaking. It was later revealed that cocaine is found almost everywhere, because there's always a very very small amount in the air.

Re:It's everywhere

[John Hasler]

There are small amounts of everything everywhere, for sufficiently small values of "small".

Re:It's everywhere

[jonaskoelker]

Clearly Madrid must never be located in Germany ever again!

That'll teach that damn cocaine...

Re:It's everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, taste my ass!

Re:It's everywhere

[fractoid]

And that's called Quantum Mechanics.

Re:It's everywhere

[dword]

Exactly my point.

Than American money should be banned too.

[TavisJohn]

There is more Cocaine on a US dollar than in 1 ltr of RedBull!

This is just plain stupidity! I mean there are FDA rules on how many rat hairs are allowed in a chocolate bar... (And no it is not none)

You will get higher off of the caffeine than the cocaine!

Re:Than American money should be banned too.

[navyjeff]

... but nobody eats US dollars. Except maybe rats?

So, assuming rats eat only dollar bills that have been shredded and discarded by the US Mint, how many rat hairs would it take to get an equivalent dose of cocaine?

Re:Than American money should be banned too.

[TavisJohn]

But people handle money all the time. And many people eat without washing their hands after handling money...

Therefore people will get more cocaine in their system by handling money (Even absorbed into the skin) than from a RedBull.

Also think about kids, they will put anything and EVERYTHING into their mouths.

Re:Than American money should be banned too.

[arth1]

There is more Cocaine on a US dollar than in 1 ltr of RedBull!

Actually, no.
The values discovered for German Red Bull was 0.4 mg/can, or about 2 mg/l. There's nowhere near 2 mg of cocaine on the average US dollar. Even one that has been used for snorting coke, which most haven't, despite the urban legend.

Re:Cool story bro

[dosius]

I can assure you - I drink Hurricane HG (Steel Reserve knockoff) and it has no effect on me.

-uso.

Yo dawg

[Anonymous Coward]

we heard you like tweaking so we put a stimulant in your stimulant so you can tweak while you tweak

Re:Don't forget this fact, you can't get it back

[Falconhell]

Ya know what cocaine makes you feel like?

More cocaine!

The Conversation

[Bob9113]

Marketing Guy: So, there are artificial flavors made from coca?

Food Chemistry Guy: Yeah, wild, eh?

Marketing Guy: Can you just fill the can with artificial flavoring?

Food Chemistry Guy: No, it would kill our customers, and it would be illegal. The allowable level is much lower than 100%.

Marketing Guy: How much lower?

Food Chemistry Guy: 120 PPM. [note: totally made up]

Marketing Guy: What's a PPM?

Food Chemistry Guy: Parts per million, it is a more precise measure of...

Marketing Guy: [interrupting] Forget I asked -- just put in as much as you can.

Food Chemistry Guy: But, it'll taste terrible.

Marketing Guy: [blinks] ... Ummm, have you tasted regular Red Bull?

Red Balls

[iveygman]

It's cocaine in can, baby! Shazam!

Why is it in there to begin with

[Suisho]

The real question is: why is it in there? Micrograms isn't significant by any means, but- why? It would be easier to avoid it all together. Is there some other compound in RB that is comes up as cocaine, or is similar? Is something coming from a place that is processing both a red bull ingredient and cocaine? Is it on purpose? Can trace amounts when added with other stimulants cause an addiction?

With all the testing and quality control, this is either a weird accident, or a very purposeful move.

Re:Why is it in there to begin with

[Random Destruction]

Is something coming from a place that is processing both a red bull ingredient and cocaine?

Uh, yeah. The plant that takes the coca leaves and removes the cocaine and sells the leaves to red bull as a flavouring. Same with Coca Cola (note the name), Pepsi, etc.

Re:Why is it in there to begin with

[Artifakt]

There are at least two psychotropic drugs which are potent in 100 microgram quantities or less. One of them is LSD. The other one that has any record of abuse at all is little known, so I think I'll leave it that way and not encourage something that may be stupid spreading.
      I've always wondered if the usual urine test for LSD is really effective. Supposedly, about 10% of the time a lab tests for Pot and Opiates, the third test in the standard tripletest kit is for LSD. If the lab is testing for something in thousands or tens of thousands of times smaller quantities than THC or opiates, would you really bet that could be done cheaply enough to make it part of the 100 bucks a kit standard tests and still be even vaguely reliable? I wonder how much it cost the Germans to test for Cocaine in such small concentrations?

Re:Why is it in there to begin with

[afidel]

Oh, I'm sure they found it with their brand spanking new GCMS that can accurately detect substances in the parts per trillion, you have to find something to justify that big cash outlay even if it's in such small quantities that it would never affect the biology of any human.

Re:Guess what? Coke too (now)

[nonewmsgs]

cocaine is schedule II. it has some medical use as a local anesthetic.

Re:EUREKA!!

[UltimApe]

wrong, homeopathic sleep-aid. According to their ideology.

They should also ban US currency, water and air

[crazybit]

Under the same logic they should also ban, prohibit and retire from the market:

1. US currency
2. Drinking water
3. Air

because all of them contain traces of cocaine.

Re:Cool story bro

[DirtyCanuck]

I am gonna openly admit, that once upon a time I have done cocaine. So this is purely from personal experience.

But any night we would do coke we would buy a case of Red Bull and start chugging them early. When we would actually get to the snorting business it seemed to level out the heart rate as it was already up from the Red Bull. So in other words it would stop that sudden RAPID increase in the heart. Seems to level out the buzz a bit as well, less HIGHS then LOWS.

Cocaine is only as evil as you let it become.

Where do they get the Coke?

[Mishotaki]

The one thing that i really wonder in that is: where do they get those leaves? isn't it illegal to get cocaine leaves?

Since they should get big shipments of it to use for their production, wouldn't the police make a raid at their production facility? it would be a pretty big bust wouldn't it?

Red Bull Cola Tastes like shit!

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I tried Red Bull Cola and it tastes horrible. Its not even good. It's just shit.

Perhaps the cocaine content is to help "sell" the product as something deliciously mmm mmm good? You would have to be on hallucinogens to enjoy Red Bull Cola's shit taste.

 

Re:Red Bull Cola Tastes like shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never tasted shit, so I wouldn't know.

Re:Red Bull Cola Tastes like shit!

[Scrab]

No, what you do is mix it with cheap nasty cheap vodka when clubbing. Neither of them taste very nice, but after enough of them your tongue gives up and you can be drunk and dance for hours. The only downside is the cat that installs itself in your brain overnight, which can be a serious inconvenience in the morning...

Re:Cool story bro

[AHuxley]

Grow up in a nice middle class home, surrounded by love and fast computers?
Lego and train sets? Basic and Pascal?
When you get drunk, its all cool, maybe you flirt, sing, dance or want to code or just get sleepy?
Others unlock a more hidden past of pain, destruction and blood.

Free Advertising!

[whistlingtony]

Yup, controversy sells. I bet red bull loved this. Free advertising!

Sounds like good news for Red Bull Cola US Sales!

[moxley]

Sounds like good news for Red Bull Cola US Sales!

Yes, because we Americans, we love us some Cocaine!!

I guarantee it though, that that stuff will sell better in the US because of this story.

Re:Guess what? Coke too (now)

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that the attempted move was to schedule I. If it was at schedule IV in the 1980's, or schedule II as the other poster states prior to the attempt to move it to schedule I, either way, I do remember that dentists were using it as an anesthetic back then as well (a big newspaper stink was made about actors using specific dentists (other docs?) because the dentists used it as an anesthetic even in the face of the DEA's war on medical professionals for coca and narcotics at the time, with the DEA war continuing on medical professionals and patients over pain narcotics now), so the other poster may be correct as to the schedule II instead of IV prior to the attempt to move to schedule I.

As for the NYT article about Coca Cola, Coke, and coca leaf extract and cocaine, it's here, but my browser isn't showing any picture of the plant as the article suggests. I do recall seeing the original article in print, with the processing plant either illustrated or actually pictured as part of a building along with barbed wire/fence surrounding it.

So, for the bots, while Coca Cola (Coke, or Classic Coke, not New Coke) still contains coca leaf extract (without the cocaine) for flavoring in its secret formula (and maybe a little beverage addiction thrown in to boost sales), new coke apparently doesn't contain any coca leaf extract, as that would have prevented any move of cocaine/coca to schedule I and still keep Coca Cola (Coke) beverage/soft drink legal. Nor would New Coke contain cocaine. The old original Coca Cola did contain real coca leaf extract including the cocaine part originally and for years after, as evidenced by their own advertising and public formula listing (as well as probable government and/or private laboratory testing/confirmation.

Re:Guess what? Coke too (now)

[fractoid]

I though 'New Coke' was a smokescreen to cover their switch from cane sugar to HFCS?

Re:Cool story bro

[Anonymous Coward]

So kinda like you only better at it?

Science and politics...

[WoollyMittens]

There's also trace amounts of drugs on money, let's all paaaaaanic and take everything out of circulation. Someone should explain these boneheaded idiots that a trace amount nearly nothing and has probably always been there.

Re:Cool story bro

[Niris]

Some of us with shitty pasts still flirt and sing and dance when drunk because it's just fun.

No RedBull for the French either

[sam0vi]

I was surprised, while living in France last year, that RedBull is illegal. I was even more surprised when they told me you can buy Poppers at clothing shops like nothing happens. Any Frenchie care to comment on it??

Re:No RedBull for the French either

[voop]

I was surprised, while living in France last year, that RedBull is illegal. I was even more surprised when they told me you can buy Poppers at clothing shops like nothing happens. Any Frenchie care to comment on it??

You asked for it, there you have it. I am not a Frenchie and can't speak for the availability of poppers -- but Red Bull *was* illegal due to its taurin content. The French equivalent of the FDA didn't think that it was possible to determine, based on available studies, if the product was safe, and was citing at the time (if I recall correctly) something about detected hyperactivity in animals who'd consumed high doses of taurine. In April 2008, in a neutered version (arginine instead of taurine and much less caffeine...) was approved for sale in France.

In, I think, later 2008, the unneutered Red Bull entered the French market: this time it was the EU that forced the French to accept it. A product sold in one EU country can legally be imported and sold in an EU country (or something to that effect), and Red Bull was/is sold in many (but not all) EU countries.

Re:No RedBull for the French either

[pive]

Not anymore: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/5753.php. It's still banned in Norway and Denmark, though.

Re:Cool story bro

[atraintocry]

Old English causes effects similar to PCP.

Get off the fucking internet.

Re:Cool story bro

[rhyder128k]

We were able to contact a representative of the company and he had this to say: "Everyone needs a pickmeup, and if you understood some of the pressures I was under you'd get off my back. It's no different from taking a drink or smoking cigarettes. I suppose it was the FDA who told you about this? It's pretty funny for me that you believe everything that they say about me, but you're loving this aren't you? Finally, you get to call me a fuckup just like you've always wanted to. This is probably the greatest day of your life. I know what I'm doing and what I can handle."

Re:Cool story bro

[BESTouff]

Then why do you drink it ?

Oh, I don't know

[Aldric]

A 28 point deficit in the driver's championship seems like much more of a problem. Not to mention Ferrari now having more pace. And they can expect sales to increase, giving them more cash for R&D!

it's 1 VW beetle ..

[freaker_TuC]

just one per kilo ...

Article not about Regular RedBull

[NecroPsyChroNauTron]

Many don't seem to realize their talking about the newer REDBULL COLA they put onto the market. I have to say, it's one of the best I've tried, the ingredients read like a simple list of herbs, and the taste is pretty interesting/complex. Hope they don't ban them here, they are hardly the same strength in terms of stimulant property as the regular redbull(the cola being weaker).

Re:Article not about Regular RedBull

[gregthebunny]

Many don't seem to realize their talking about the newer REDBULL COLA they put onto the market. I have to say, it's one of the best I've tried, the ingredients read like a simple list of herbs, and the taste is pretty interesting/complex. Hope they don't ban them here, they are hardly the same strength in terms of stimulant property as the regular redbull(the cola being weaker).

Agreed. Those who claim it "tastes like shit" are entitled to their own opinions, however wrong they may be.

viyh writes to mention that six German states have mandated pulling Red Bull Cola energy drinks off the shelves after testing found trace amounts of cocaine in the drink.

RedBull Simply Cola is also NOT an "energy drink" as the description says. It's Simply a Cola.

Re:Cool story bro

[GooberToo]

Of course, you have folks out there who are banning hemp because marijuana gets people high.

Hemp != marijuana
Marijuana can be used as hemp but it is not real "hemp." They are in the same family but true hemp does not have THC. Smoking hemp will give you a headache so bad, getting knocked out with a mallet will feel like relief. In fact, modern strains of hemp truly have zero THC.

The last time hemp was legally grown in the US was WWII. You can still find it growing wild. Its now called ditch weed. The truth of the matter is, real ditch weed is actually hemp and can not get you high.

The truth of the matter is, cotton growers, petroleum and chemical corporations, and now corn growers are the real reasons why hemp is illegal in the US. Hemp directly competes with all of their bottom lines.

Re:Cool story bro

[GooberToo]

There's no way in hell that Old English 800 [wikipedia.org] and Steel reserve [wikipedia.org] are just barley, hops, and yeast. They cause psychotropic effects similar to PCP.

Also, I did some quick searches, the only references I found to those products having psychotropic effects were from shroom sites just talking about drinking beer.

There are some drinks which have such effects but they normally come from distilled worm-wood or close cousins.

Re:Cool story bro

[berend botje]

Cocaine is better for your health than a case of Red Bull anyways.

Re:I'm Dr. Rockso!

[GameboyRMH]

Damn, beat me to it...

Now somebody give this clown the boot...medium style.

The company that makes the coca extract...

[stonecutter2]

is Stepan Company of Maywood, New Jersey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca

better of the possible evils

[schizz69]

At least it less poisonous and less addictive than that horrible drug nicotine.