Spykes Gets Axed

Anheuser-Busch is pouring Spykes down the drain less than a week after twenty-nine state attorneys general asked the brewer to warn customers that mixing Spykes with caffeinated beverages could be dangerous. The AGs also expressed concern that the colorful alcoholic flavor shots encouraged underage drinking.

“Due to its limited volume potential and unfounded criticism, we have ceased production of Spykes,” Anheuser-Busch said in a statement, in which it added that Spykes was the lowest alcohol content product in its market segment.

The decision, announced by Anheuser-Busch CEO August Busch IV, was heralded by Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal as a “significant victory in the fight against underage drinking.” Sorry, kids. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER

Anheuser-Busch says will stop selling Spykes [Reuters]
PREVIOUSLY: Twenty Nine Attorneys General Worry Teenagers May Get All Coked-Up On Spykes
(Photo: cyancey)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Triteon says:

    Again the government strikes a blow against the concept of personal responsibility.

  2. ChiefDanGeorge says:

    This is America. We need new laws to make us feel all safe and good about ourselves.

  3. Kids are stupid, so who knows, maybe they would have been disproportionately attracted to Spykes above other options.

    Given the large amount of spare time and small amount of money that kids generally have, though, I very strongly doubt that they’d actually have any interest in buying these colourful tiny drinks (0.4 US standard drinks per minuscule bottle, or 0.6 Australian ones).

    I think they’d be much more likely to evaluate to five decimal places what alcoholic product gave them the most ethanol per dollar, and buy that instead. For the USA, this calculation would probably lead to plastic-jug vodka or bum-wine or something.

    (I’m ashamed to say that jug vodka and malt liquor of all kinds appear to not exist, here in Australia. I think the cheapest way to get plastered here, ignoring issues of flavour or suicide-inducing hangover, may be five-litre casks of port.)

  4. Yozzie says:

    @Daniel Rutter: I don’t know, man – when I was 18, a couple $4 bottles of Queen Adelaide chardonnay (the Pizza Hut house wine!) went a long way. As for malt liquor – trust me mate, you’re not missing much.

    As for Spykes – I asked my friend the liquor rep about them, and she didn’t stop laughing for several minutes.

  5. The Bigger Unit says:

    Asinine. A bottle of the stuff was equivalent to a 1/3 of a glass of wine. Yeah, that’ll load you up. If you drink like 18 of them.

    Oh well, kids can still turn to Cisco and MD 20/20! They’re delicious and nutritious.

  6. Trai_Dep says:

    Well thank GAWD. Guess this totally solves the underaged drinking problem.

    Err, “problem”.

    Next: outlaw ping-pong – it contributes, nay, causes, binge drinking.

    (waiting patiently for World Peace to erupt across the globe thanks to Ten Commandments being plastered across US public schools)

  7. gamble says:

    I like how they’re ending production because of “unfounded criticism.” I’m going to start making up random criticism about Bud Light and see if they’ll take it off the shelves because of it. “Your drink kills astronauts and social workers. This is wrong.” With unfounded criticism like that, they’ll have no choice but to stop producing Bud Light.

    Also, August is a sweet first name.

  8. gamble says:

    ^ I’m not sure if that makes sense to anyone but me.

  9. ajn007 says:

    @triteon
    @chiefdangeorge

    1) God forbid corporations are held accountable for the safety of their products.
    2) No law was passed here, they were just asked to point out a danger of their product.

    I don’t understand what you two are bellyaching about. Anheuser-Busch decided to pull a lousy product and blame someone else for their decision so it wouldn’t upset their shareholders. How is that the government’s fault?

  10. clarient says:

    I fail to see how taking this product off the shelves consistutes a ‘significan victory against underage drinking’ in any way.

  11. Youthier says:

    And underage drinking was never a problem again.

  12. informer says:

    @gamble: You’re right, it doesn’t make sense. Everyone knows astronauts only drink Tang.

  13. coss3n says:

    This is much better than having twenty-nine state attorneys general solve *actual* problems.

  14. yg17 says:

    Of course underage kids are going to be attracted to it. It’s illegal for them to consume and it will get them drunk. The 2 ingredients needed to get minors interested. You could mix vodka and dog piss, put it on a grocery store shelf and they’d still try to buy it.

  15. Trai_Dep says:

    @coss3n: well, I suppose it distracts them from going all Rotweiller on Democratic candidates for imaginary crimes, so I guess it IS a win/win.

  16. notebook says:

    I’m going to wonder if this will eventually happen to the re-named ‘Cocaine’ drink.

    If you make it illegal, they’ll try it. Silly people, does that logic defy your all knowing powers and wills? Oh, the ignorance of it all!

    And, I agree with coss3n. Masking the real problems, as usual.

  17. MalichiDemonos says:

    Is it just me or doesn’t all alcoholic beverages appeal to underage drinkers? When i was in high school we didnt care what it was as long as we were fealing good in the end. This is like removing one brand of cigarettes off the shelves and saying that we removed the one that appealed the most to underage smokers. Give me a break.

  18. tcabeen says:

    What’s got my confused is why it’s dangerous to mix with caffeinated drinks. I mix rum or whiskey with one particular caffeinated beverage all the time. Is there some particular ingredient in this malicious product that mixes with coke to make POISON?

    If so, I look forward to China picking up A-B’s recipe and shipping it in crates marked “Totally Safe Prunes” or “Panamanian Toothpaste” or something.

  19. Spiny Norman says:

    Let’s all be clear on the concept: “DUE TO LIMITED VOLUME POTENTIAL” (We can’t sell enough of this stuff to make a profit) “and unfounded comments…” I’m just amazed that AB was upfront enough to admit that they had a dud product on their hands when they could have taken the free publicity from having the attorney generals complain about marketing a legal if perhaps questionable product.