I’ll have a Maker’s Mark, up.*

Read an article in the news today**, and in typical Mindy fashion, it forced me to scurry toward my blog.

NOTE: It might help if you read the article first, but since I know that most individuals are too lazy reluctant to click links in postings, I’ve very briefly summarized the context.

Although the story hinges on a fatal accident in Florida caused by a drunk driver, the article’s angle leans toward the dangers of caffeinated alcohol — drinks such as Four Loko (the specific beverage the driver consumed), Sparks, Tilt, etc. — and the possibility of  the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) outlawing these mixtures.

But what exactly is the difference between bottling/selling a caffeinated alcoholic drink and purchasing a rum and coke from the bar? Personally, I see very little distinction between the two, yet the article never seems to address this issue … one that I believe should be pertinent to FDA’s argument for banning these substances.

The article does explain that “the FDA has not approved adding caffeine in any level to alcoholic beverages.” Though, the reporter continues, the organization has previously approved some caffeine-alcohol concoctions, including “caffeine in soft drinks in concentrations of less than 200 parts per million.” Do infusions such as Monster or Red Bull and vodka fit under this category? As a self-proclaimed fan of Monster-vodka drinks, I don’t exactly believe they’d meet the requirements.

Yet drinks like these are routinely served at bars and restaurants, and mixed within the confinements of people’s homes with little likely regard toward the “safety” of combining the substances of alcohol and caffeine.

Rather than addressing this all-too-obvious issue, the article uses a potential age argument — “The feds were concerned about the attraction the quaff has with the nation’s youth.” — to point out that bottled caffeinated beverages perhaps target an audience a bit younger than the 21-year-old drinking age.

I, however, consider that a weak argument for banning these sort of adult brews. If those people under the legal age obtain these drinks, that is the fault of the seller and/or the supplier … but it is seemingly not (again, imo) the responsibility of the manufacturer***. They make the product, but once it leaves the factory, the consumer is dependent on whoever allows that drink to be purchased and utilized.

…If a kid under 21 wants booze, he or she will likely settle for whatever alcohol is put into those begging hands. Maybe they’d prefer a caffeinated drink, maybe they’d prefer straight bourbon, who knows. Regardless, I do not see a correlation between alcohol-caffeine blends and underage consumption that merits completely prohibiting these types of cocktails.

So why exactly is the FDA demanding that the “nearly 30 manufacturers of caffeinated alcoholic beverages” compile letters to the organization explaining “why their brew should not be banned”?

I’m not sure. Centering their argument around an “appeal” to youngsters seems like little more than creating a semblance of reasoning for something they can’t otherwise prove as genuinely harmful. After all, if it were detrimental to our bodies more than the straightforward consumption of alcohol and caffeine separately is, don’t you think health organizations would be banding together to spit forth their own agendas? That would undoubtedly be the case.

Instead, the FDA grasps at straws — a deadly drunk driving accident, which unfortunately happen at the hands of many types of alcohol consumers, and an allure specified at the youth — for proof that these items should be pulled off the shelves, even though they will never be able to regulate bartender concoctions like gin and tonic or whiskey and diet. And there is no chance of them hovering over the tiki bar to ensure I’m not pouring a little vodka in that Rockstar energy drink in the fridge. Only at that moment, when their regulations become all-encompassing, will the banning of caffeinated alcohol make a drop of sense to me.

‘Til then, it is this writer’s opinion that the FDA simply needs to back off. There is absolutely no question that the death of a father and his three sons is tragic, as this story surely shows. But should that blame be aimed at the alcohol manufacturer or the man who just happened to consume their beverages that evening and get behind the wheel?

* Ten points to whoever (other than my stepdad) can guess which movie this blog’s title is from.
** The article appeared in the newspaper I work at, but its author is Keith Morelli from The Tampa Tribune, another property of our umbrella company.
*** I would just like to point out that I am more-than-fully aware that this is not the first circumstance of a manufacturer taking the heat for something that was simply out of their hands. But that won’t keep me from pretending I live in an idealistic society where things like this do not happen. Gotta keep the glass half-full, right?