Oklahoma Legislature Has Cocaine (The Drink) Party, Stays Up All Night Debating Ban, Grinding Teeth

Should an energy drink be allowed to brand itself with the name of an outlawed drug? A state lawmaker in Oklahoma says no, especially not when kids can buy it, and he’s trying to get the drink pulled off of shelves in the state.

Representative Shelton… said he first learned about ‘Cocaine’ when he saw two young boys buying it.

“They were talking about it,” Representative Shelton said. “They were happy they had it. I looked at it, went back to the cooler and they had a bunch of it.”

Representative Shelton said he bought it all and brought it to the state capitol. He’s now passed around ‘Cocaine’ to House and Senate leaders in hopes of stopping its sale in Oklahoma.

“It doesn’t need to be sold in Oklahoma,” Repsentative Shelton said. “There’s no need for it. Plenty of other energy drinks that don’t have ugly names like cocaine.”

We don’t think it’s an ugly name for a drink. Ugly would be something like “Sludgefart the energy liquid!” We wouldn’t buy something named Sludgefart. But “Cocaine,” now, you have to admit that it’s a catchy brand. Or how about something like “Likquidd Meth”? Or “Slamphetamine”?

Maybe the makers of “Cocaine” can just shorten the name to something less obvious sounding, like Coca- oh, never mind.

What do you think? Should drinks marketed at least in part to kids avoid referencing illicit substances? Or are kids smart enough to see through the tongue-in-cheek “lifestyle reference” (we’re not sure how else to describe it) and know when they’re being marketed to?

“Cocaine Energy Drink Sparks Debate with Lawmaker” [News9.com] (Thanks to Zachary!)
(Photo: Cocaine website)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. lalaland13 says:

    This guy is downright sane by Oklahoma standards. At least he’s not saying gays are a bigger threat to the world than terrorists (hey there, Sally Kern).

    • Canino says:

      @lalaland13: In Oklahoma the age of consent is 16, but you have to be 21 to buy Pop Rocks.

      • SegamanXero says:

        @Canino: wait what? Pop Rocks are a “21 or over” item? last time I checked (here in Massachusetts) they are not, and that they are nothing like “21 or over” items, shouldn’t even be categorized in that area…

        I guess, Oklahoma is crazy… people should do something about Pop Rocks or something, cause they are just candy… no candy should be off limits to people under 21, unless its candy that makes you drunk…

    • lannister80 says:

      @lalaland13: I’ve lived in Tulsa. That state has the craziest and most complicated liquor laws ever.

    • Drowner says:

      @lalaland13: Word to that. They don’t call themselves the Buckle of the Bible Belt for nothing. Remember when Oklahoma barred Marilyn Manson from playing a concert there for a good, what, 5 years? He didn’t even have to piss on any historical site.

      I miss Oklahoma. Up here in MA all I here is complaining about everything; the weather, the pike, the housing, the cost of living, the sports teams, whatever. People seem to suck it up and deal with it more in OK. It’s refreshing.

    • Matt says:

      @lalaland13: Utah has you all beat by a mile. Liquor? Don’t get me started. Official homophobes? Buttars lives here. Crazy legislators? We have a “Porn Czar”. Welcome to the land Zion built… *sobs*

      • varro says:

        @Matt: Don’t forget the mandatory 3.2 beer.

        Silly Mormons, that just means people will drink more and piss on everything….

        (Had beer at the brewpub in the SLC airport – fairly good, even if it was weak.)

        • Matt says:

          @varro: That’s why you go to the government alcohol store and buy the beer with the little orange sticker on it. That mean’s it is from out of state and it’s the real stuff. If you’re ever at a bar ask for the full strength menu. They usually have a supply on hand, at a premium. And I really think that’s the entire reason the state does it. Money. They get to charge an extra fee for selling you the alcohol from their special stores, and getting to charge you private membership fees to go to a bar. But that is soon to change, as a law is being passed to do away with it all. Victory!

    • Micah Dail says:

      @lalaland13:

      I’m from Oklahoma and I wouldn’t say that Shelton is sane at all. And if you’re thinking he’s a right-wing anti-drug nutcase with too much time on his hands, you’d be wrong. He’s a liberal anti-drug nutcase. Look it up.

      Many of us Oklahomans also feel that it is not the government’s role to protect people from themselves. Any time we expand the power of the government and allow them to step on the toes of free market and individual choice, we DESERVE to have our freedoms stripped. As an Oklahoman I’m apposed to this type of legislation.

  2. downwithmonstercable says:

    Times must be slow in Oklahoma, they gotta find something to keep themselves busy.

  3. Zachary Jacob Zblewski says:

    Remember when it was originally called “Cocaine” and then the FDA banned it from the US, then it was called “No Name Energy” and then they brought it back as “Cocaine”? How many circles is this going to go in?

  4. Jason Murdey says:

    I thought this was already banned, you used to be able to get it in Michigan but I haven’t seen it in about a year

    This stuff is pretty potent AND awful, with 480mg of caffiene per can and just a TOUCH of cayenne pepper to give you a realistic “chemical drip” sensation in the back of your throat reminiscent of actual cocaine (no I’m not kidding)

    I’m not in favor of anything being banned but you don’t want your 10 year-old drinking this stuff no matter what it’s called

    • Vanilla5 says:

      @Jason Murdey: I’ve heard of that sensation but never knew what it was all about. “Chemical drip.”

    • Vanilla5 says:

      @Jason Murdey: And I agree – based on ingredients alone, I wouldn’t want my kid drinking it. Hell, I wouldn’t drink it.

    • kbrook says:

      @Jason Murdey: That’s just gross. But gross isn’t a reason (or at least not a sane one) for banning something.

      • gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|* says:

        @kbrook: agreed.
        if you don’t want your kid drinking it, tell them to not drink it. if they do, punish them.
        there is really no reason for a government to step in because a parent does not want their child consuming something. if somebody can prove that this drink causes brain slugs or something, then there’s a case. but until then, bring on the Cocaine (energy drink)!

  5. Sarah Moore says:

    I like how he bought the whole supply. What are the store owners going to think?
    “Man, we can’t keep this stuff on the shelfs…hey we should stop buying it and then we won’t have to put it back on the shelfs. Yeah!”

  6. Vanilla5 says:

    I hate that we’ve become a culture that believes that a product can make you or your child/teenager do something – even if it has remote similarities to the thing you don’t want them to do.

    This energy drink is not going to make anybody go out and do cocaine. Either you’re gonna do it or you’re not – whether this energy drink exists or not. It’s not like it comes with a coupon for “2 FREE LINES”.

    I know a couple of adults who have bought it simply because it’s got an illicit connotation, and then say, “Man, I’m glad I stopped doing cocaine. I can barely handle an energy drink.”

    I imagine kids will buy it simply for shock value – they’re seen in public with a legal can of fizzy caffeine that says “COCAINE” on it. Real bad ass, Timmy. Real bad ass.

    • youbastid says:

      @Vanilla5: It doesn’t MAKE them do anything. But it gives them ideas. It’s the same reason people aren’t exactly fond of candy cigarettes, with good reason.

      • randombob says:

        Eh, I’m actually for them banning it. I agree with

        @youbastid: on this one. No it won’t MAKE kids do cocaine, but if you apply silliness to the name, you take away the stigma. “Ha ha, I’m doing COCAINE Timmy! LOL!!”

        And then, two years later, “Hey, what’s so bad about cocaine anyway? Sure, I”ll give it a shot…”

        No, you or I might not have that thought pattern. But keep in mind, there’s lots of ill-thought people in the world buying snuggies, too.

        :-|

      • Coles_Law says:

        @youbastid: Right. It’s not like you light up candy cigarettes and carmelize the sugar.

        Actually, that sounds like a good idea…

      • Nicole Glynn says:

        @youbastid: I ate candy cigarette’s like they were fucking water as a kid. I’ve never once had the desire to pick up an actual cigarette, neither have my siblings, who also grew up munching those things – not to mention surrounded by smokers (as in, EVERY member of our extended family).

        I highly doubt a drink called “cocaine” is going to make kids think “hey, we should go smoke crack” any more than cigarette’s would make them want to suck a cancer stick, or endless hours of grand theft auto would make them run out and commit a felony.

        Kids are smarter than people give them credit for. Most of them know the difference between pretend crime and real crime, and fake drugs vs real drugs.

        • HogwartsAlum says:

          @Nicole Glynn:

          Being around the smokers is more likely to make you smoke than eating the candy.

          I used to eat them too. They still have them in the stores, but now it says “Candy Stix” on the package. It still looks like a pack of ciggies, though.

        • youbastid says:

          @Nicole Glynn: Your one experience does not equal everyone else’s. People need to realize that “YMMV” applies to people as well.

          And no, kids are NOT smarter than people give them credit for. They are highly impressionable. I’d like to see the look on your face if your 8 year old came home with a can of cocaine.

    • Rhayader says:

      @Vanilla5: I totally agree. This idea that everything around us should be perfectly suited to raise our kids in an idyllic fantasy world is BS. The company can call their drink whatever the hell they want; if it’s a bad business decision, they will suffer for it.

  7. Bill Smith says:

    I don’t like the name Shelton. It’s ugly and should be changed immediately.

  8. lawnmowerdeth says:

    What was Coke or Coca-Cola named after again?

    Maybe they should rename the drink “Lawmakers waste their time on pointless causes.”
    But that wouldn’t fit well on a label.

    • LuluStarPony says:

      @lawnmowerdeth: But what would they do with their time? They have to keep thinking they’re working towards SOMETHING.

    • youbastid says:

      @lawnmowerdeth: To be fair, Coca-Cola got it’s name when cocaine was both legal AND an actual ingredient. Naming something “Cocaine” is offensive both to people who prefer it outlawed and people who want actual cocaine.

    • Nicole Glynn says:

      @lawnmowerdeth:

      That would be awesome. I’m sure they could find a way to fit it on the label, clever folks that they are.

      • JoshReflek says:

        @Nicole Glynn: I find it offensive when a company knowingly puts a substance in a product which injures the consumer directly or from collateral damage; such as Coffee, chemlab sugars, fake sweeteners, cocaine drinks, alcohol, morphene by products, methamphetamine pills, nicotine patches sticks or any other harmful ingreedients; while having the audacity to continue labeling or marketing their products as something fit to consume by humans.

  9. brokedickrooster says:

    He’s not a Congressman. He’s a state representative.

  10. BigFoot_Pete says:

    Frankly, any legislation that begins with the premise that people are too dumb to think for themselves irks me.

    You can’t tell the difference between Cocaine the drink and the actual illegal substance, so we the government will take care of it for you.

    • oneandone says:

      @BigFoot_Pete: I don’t think that’s the motivation here. I think that the lawmaker (probably without realizing it) is taking a functionalist perspective on the law: that it should delineate very clearly the boundary between acceptable and not. Or, in other words, that the law should enforce social norms (literally ‘legislating morality’).

      We do it in lots of different ways, and in this case it’s particularly blatent. But most sociologists would tell you that you shouldn’t be surprised – it’s a pretty common way to organize a society, and probably a natural human tendency. That doesn’t mean it’s right, but I think identifying it more clearly helps to form a coherent opposition to it when it’s especially bone-headed. Or when the norms they’re trying to enforce don’t actually reflect social values.

  11. zacwax says:

    First Sparks and now cocaine? Whyyyyyyy

  12. strathmeyer says:

    What do they call people who think this is really what the government should be doing? What differentiates me because I want a legitimate government? Which political party am I supposed to belong to? If the drink shouldn’t be named ‘Cocaine’, people shouldn’t buy it, then they won’t have the money to make it anymore. This is just how the world works. Why are we doing government theater?

    • RosettaStoned says:

      @strathmeyer: i consider myself a member of the ‘cheese’ party. as in, the cheese stands alone. if you feel as if you stand alone in wanting legitimate government, you should join. plus, every time we have a meeting, it sounds like we’re having a party that involves cheese!

    • The_Gas_Man says:

      @strathmeyer:
      Remember the good old days when Democrats stood for a libertarian democracy and Republicans stood for a libertarian republic?

      Now the Democrats are Socialists, the Republicans are Democrats, and the Libertarian Party has only 200,000 members.

    • Sean Gamble says:

      @strathmeyer: I beleive the word youre looking for is Despot

  13. rainbowsandkittens says:

    My mom gave me a similar lecture at age 10 when I came home from a shopping trip with candy cigarettes. I asked her why, then, based on her logic, jelly beans didn’t make me a bean lover, and why I could never bait a fishing hook but still loved gummy worms.

    Honestly, the name of this energy drink is not going to hurt kids. If lawmakers wanted to go after anything, it should be a legitimate alco-pop. My cousin and I got accidentally loaded at 12 on Mike’s Hard Lemonade at a family reunion, which we honestly did not know was alcoholic. So guess what we went out and deliberately bought four years later when her parents were out of town for the weekend? Now that was a gateway.

  14. dohtem says:

    You guys don’t realize… I mean, they have fixed all their roads and bridges and they have the highest literacy rate of any state in the union. The hospitals are well staffed and their crime has been eliminated completely. Their congress is just bored and in need of more problems to fix.

    /s

  15. MBEmom says:

    I’m from Oklahoma originally and sadly, this is par for the course there. When I was growing up (this was during the reign of leg-warmers), there were all sorts of ridiculous rules regarding alcohol including the following:

    1- No one under 18 could enter a liquor store, period. So, if you had a dinner party and needed a bottle of wine, you left your 12 month old in the car. For real. Safety first!

    2-They had a liquor-by-the-drink law. Using M.C. Escher style logic, lawmakers outlawed the sale of individual drinks in favor of selling the ENTIRE bottle. So, you couldn’t go to a restaurant and buy a glass of wine to accompany your fettucine alfredo. That was illegal. But you COULD buy the entire bottle or bring a bottle from home. The same held true for bars. If you wanted a scotch and soda, you had to buy full, unopened bottle. For each person in your party. Everybody, drink up!

    3-All street signs for a liquor store had to meet certain parameters. They had to be yellow, about 8 feet tall and say “LIQUOR STORE” in approximately 2 inch high, black letters. Believe me, I am not creative enough to make this up. If you went to the liquor store in Oklahoma it wasn’t Bob’s Beer Barn, it was “LIQUOR STORE”.

    4-Speaking of beer, even when I left in the 90’s, all beer sold in the state had to be 3.2 alcohol content. The downside of this law is that drinking 3.2 beer is like drinking water, only more expensive and you get that neat whooshing sound when you open the can. On the plus side, this was a great benefit to many a girlfriend of mine in high school as they could have a beer, pretend that they were wasted to all the boys yet have total control of their faculties.

    OK Lawmakers should consider putting an additional warning on beer cans stating that when you graduate high school and go to college in another state that has real beer, it might have a slightly different effect. Like get you so hammered that after three beers you are on the roof of a frat house in only your bra, singing Salt N Pepa’s Push it then puking onto some unsuspecting freshmen on the lawn. What, like it never happened to you?

  16. Yoko Broke Up The Beatles says:

    If you are on the fence about the drink itself, may I suggest you hop over to the drink’s website and view the intro video.

    [www.drinkcocaine.com]

    Wow, after being yelled at by a bunch of teenagers and having those same teenagers extol the virtues of the drink, I feel more than ever that it should be banned.

    Then again, the kids liked the rock and roll in the 1950’s, so I might be wrong…

    • kaptainkk says:

      @Yoko Broke Up The Beatles: Jesus Christ! I just watched that sick intro video and some of you people want to tell me that naming a drink after an illegal drug will not entice someone to try the real thing?! The teenagers with the mentality of the kids in that video would likely experiment. Just go ahead and market a new bb gun. Instead trying to name it something similar to and classy like Red Ryder, call it “Cop Killer”

  17. ALaterDayTD says:

    I would by slamphetamine in an instant. Its brilliant!

  18. mgy says:

    We should remove all references to drugs in books too. Stay classy, Oklahoma.

  19. mcjake says:

    I would totally buy “Sludgefart the energy liquid!” That owuld be awesome.

  20. thesadtomato says:

    I’m pretty sure this guy is using the word “ugly” in it’s Southern, more metaphorical sense. In the South (and possibly in OK) ugly often has the sense of “mean, bad, unpleasant” rather than “aesthetically unpleasing.”

    If you’re being cruel or bitchy around your sibling, your momma might say, “stop being so ugly to your sister!” A rude flight attendant could have “gotten ugly with the passengers.”

    Sludgefart is an aesthetically unpleasing name for an energy drink, but Cocaine is ugly. Shelton’s just saying it’s got a bad connotation, that it’s not a nice name for a drink that is attractive to pre-teens.

    [I think you can name your drink anything you please, but he’s got a point.]

  21. jrizos says:

    Damn right. We also need to ban Sugar “Smacks” and those things in my backyard with all the flowers in them, the… the… pots. Yeah.

  22. your new nemesis says:

    Can you imagine how confusing the next episode of COPS will be? The police in this country will be chasing “criminals” all over the place because ignorant or unknowledgeable people will be calling the authorities about the sale of cocaine in the soda aisle and kids drinking it while playing tekken at the local arcade. While I think that it’s kinda dumb to pursue as a law, it’s kind of dumb to market a legal substance with the same name as something illegal.
    @randombob i agree, eliminating the stigma is bad for the general public. Companies should know the difference between fun humor and crossing the line. Whats next, Ruffies? Cyanide truffles? Anthrax chips?

    • Anonymous says:

      @skizsrodt: Actually, that sort of happened. Our VP of operations was working from home one day and was talking on the phone standing on his porch. His neighbors overheard him talking about large shipments of Cocaine. They called the cops. A half and hour later the cops are knocking on his door and asking him questions about him dealing Cocaine from his house! He showed them the cans and they had a great laugh!

      Jamey
      Redux Beverages

  23. madanthony says:

    I’m going to start making an energy drink called “meth”. Not only will it have so much caffeine that it make you stay up for nights on end, but you will have a sudden urge to take apart your TV.

  24. InThrees says:

    SLUDGEFART THE COLON MUTILATOR

  25. Twinrevanoe says:

    This is old, Texas is doing the same with the drink like two years ago. Oklahoma is bored.

  26. dahlink_natasha says:

    It’s so embarassing to be from this state sometimes. We’re not all like this guy, I swear.

  27. drjayphd says:

    Note to self: Move to Oklahoma, pursue lucrative career in Cocaine trafficking.

  28. coren says:

    So are they gonna go after Coke too? Cuz hardly anyone calls it cocoa cola or coca cola or however it’s supposed to be spelled, tey call it Coke, which is TOTALLY A DRUG. Same one as this one, even.

  29. Anonymous says:

    This stuff is brutal to drink. But yeah…who cares what it’s called? Old white men I guess. “Freedom freedom freedom…hey! You can’t call your beverage a word in the dictionary that pretty much describes the material in your can!” It’s called MARKETING. Next thing you know they’ll go after “fcuk” clothes. Hell it’s not their money they’re wasting anyway.

  30. Geblah187 says:

    They should all be drinking BRAWNDO anyway. It’s got electrolytes, the stuff that plants crave!

  31. Sifl says:

    I am quite amazed they didn’t just change the name to “Kokaine” or something like that.. oh wait, that’d imply they didn’t want a ton of attention on their drink for free. What looks more like a media buzz, Got any Kokaine? Or Hook me up with a can of Cocaine?

    Even if it gets banned, it’s gonna make more and more people curious to see if there’s any reason outside of a name that got it banned, though a good chunk will realize it was the name.

    I do like the other 2 suggestions though.. Likquidd Meth & Slamphetamine. Just watch someone go and get a patent for an energy drink with these names. I mean there’s already Bawls and XTC..

  32. Phexerian says:

    One of the problems I see with the drink is that it is misbranding by legal standards. Cocaine is actually a drug that is used legally in our medical world. When you label something as “cocaine” without any cocaine in it you are misbranding it which would make the drink illegal to sell IMHO. Of course I don’t think this state senator has caught onto that yet nor do I ever think he will. This would be in the jurisdiction of the FTC and the FDA. I sure this misbranding violates Oklahoma’s state pharmacy practice act as it would in all other states.

    So what about Coke you ask? Coke being a slang term for cocaine is not a legitimate term for a drug that is commonly used and thus does not classify as misbranding so it is completely legal to sell. Not to mention, coke was around when cocaine was legal and was actually put into the drink. It was eventually taken out but the federal government then decided that they shouldn’t have to change their name and thus it still exists. There is historical precedent for Coke to not change it’s name. Coke has tradition in the U.S. and the rest of the world with it’s name.

    Do I agree with what this senator is doing? Somewhat yes. The company is obviously trying to sell their drink as a fad to young kids so they can joke around by dosing up on some “cocaine”. Eventually yes some of these kids may then actually try cocaine once or twice in their life and the drink may contribute to it. Note I said contribute and not cause. Just because some of you had candy cigarettes and then grew up and never smoked a cigarette doesn’t mean that others won’t as well. Cigarette companies helped push candy cigarettes for a reason, because it helped people to start smoking. Thinking the rest of the world is just like you and will act as you do is a fallacy. (I am not implying drug lords are pushing this drink btw.)

    It is a great marketing ploy, but ultimately, I believe it breaks the law.

    • Rhayader says:

      @Phexerian: It would be breaking the law if they listed an ingredient on their label that wasn’t present. The name is not a declaration of the contents though.

      They should be able to call their drink whatever they want. If it is in fact a poor marketing decision, they will suffer the business and/or PR ramifications of that decision.

      • Phexerian says:

        @Rhayader: You may be wrong. Cocaine is a generic drug name and thus this may fall under applicable drug and pharmacy laws. If a product states it has a drug in it, and it does not have that drug in it, it is misbranded. With drugs this applies to the title as well as the ingredients. Even though this is not a drug, one could argue that since it has the drug name on the title of the product, it is misbranding. However, this may only apply to legend drugs and not necessarily OTC drugs. It may differ in each state according to their pharmacy practice acts.

        This may could also be argued as false advertising as the product contains no cocaine. I don’t know if that would fly in court or not, but it could be worth a shot. One could also argue that this is consumer fraud as it has no cocaine in it as well.

        It seems like there are a few angles that the politicians could approach this with to take it off the market.

  33. Red_Eye says:

    Cocaine is a name and a word, and has no more power than we choose to empower it with. Looks like in OK they want to give it enough power to move their Senate.

    Stop empowering words.

  34. plyhard13 says:

    How is the name Cocaine so much worse than a drink named after two illegal drugs: cocaine and kola nut? Actually, Cocaine the energy drink is probably much better for you than Coca-cola, the HFCS laden brown acid water. Cocaine may be loaded with caffeine but it is made with simple sugars which your body prefers far more than the fat inducing HFCS. It has a bit of a strange cinnamon candy/bitter taste but it works well and doesn’t give you the normal energy drink sugar crash.

  35. Rhayader says:

    If people don’t like the name (or anything else about it) they shouldn’t buy it. If you don’t want your kids to drink it, don’t let them.

    It’s the free market people; they should be allowed to call their drink whatever the hell they feel like calling it.

  36. 5h17h34d says:

    This should be a FDA issue. Cocaine Hydrochloride is a pharmaceutical drug and there’s no way they would ever let any brand names use it.

    Valiumquil anyone?

  37. ma5t3rw1tt says:

    Hello, this will be my first post on Consumerist.com

    I come here almost everyday and I first wanna say thank you very much for having this website around, its packed with finance information that I need, gives great guides & more.
    Anyway onto why I am commenting.

    Who really cares about the name of a drink. I mean as long as they are not doing the actual cocaine stuff then it should be alright. I can honestly say that, at least this is my opinion, that the energy drink cocaine is down right sickning and I am a big energy drink drinker. I love venom, red bull & monster, but cocain is downright sick. But as for the name, who really cares, just another stupid way for someone to loose money and for someone else to gain money!

  38. DreamTheEndless: Death's little brother says:

    Wow – this has to be the first time ever that I disagree with the majority of posters on consumerist. (Yes, there were a large minority of people who agree with me, but it seems that most didn’t….)

    This product should not be sold, marketed, displayed, or in any other way exposed to children. It is appropriate to have a line drawn in regards to what our children are exposed to. In fact, it is our duty as responsible adults to draw this line.

    For those who disagree, if this were instead called “rough anal sex soda” would you still insist that it should be marketed and sold to children?

    What if instead it had graphic pictures of people involved in sex acts on the can? Then would you argue that it should be sold to children?

    I know there are a few people who would still insist that there would be no harm in selling these products to children no matter how you decorated the can, but I would like to think that most reasonable adults would be able to think about this and come to the appropriate conclusion…

    (That’s the first time in my life I have ever sounded conservative – wow.)

  39. varro says:

    The energy drink should be banned, but for false advertising, or have a huge disclaimer:

    ” ‘Cocaine’ energy drink contains no cocaine.”

    I can see the trucks of it heading toward Dubya’s new Dallas digs turning around…

  40. Anonymous says:

    The pharmacopeia lists Liquid Cocaine, not Cocaine. You cannot name food products after drug names in the pharmacopeia. Cocaine as a standalone name is perfectly legal. If the drink were called Liquid Cocaine; well there would be a problem for sure.

    Do we pull Redbull because it does not have bulls in it? Is that misbranding? How about the energy drink Jet Fuel. It has no JetFuel in it. Is that misbranding?

    The argument that Coke used the name a long time ago and that makes them exempt is just plain BS. Cocaine should be afforded the same opportunity.

    Coca-Cola, Coke, and Cocaine are what they call fanciful names; they are decoration, not representative of the contents of the product. Just like a Mustang automobile has no mustangs in it.

    Jamey