Aspartame - Would you ban it?

[sratiug]

You know what kludge, maybe I went over the top.....

But I REALLY hate evil....

I don't think he was joking....there was just too many conspiracy theories rolled into one post to make me think otherwise......

I wish good people good things.....I wish evil people evil things they would place on good people.....

I really think this one is evil........

I may be wrong....and if i am....I only wish.....I don't judge.....If my observations are incorrect....they will mean nothing........because I don't have the power to bring judgement....only to observe.....but evil has overrun the earth......and I TRULY wish...they get what they deserve.....

If he is joking.....let him say what he really meant....If he works for the people who wish to subjugate us....I refuse to take back one word.....

My job is to observe....not to judge.......Because I am quite nasty against what I perceive as evil....that is why judgement is placed in hands much greater than mine......I just observe.....and make suggestions based upon what I have observed.......sometimes going over the top like this is the only way to make evil's minions turn away from their evil masters.........when they think of the consequences of losing their family for the part they played in giving their masters power......someone who is good in heart but works for evil can be converted.....I know it is toughlove......but sometimes it saves those who are good at heart.....

Imagine...

Ron Paul Revolution takes Delaware and begins dismantling Fortune 500 corporations as their charters expire and are not renewed by the state. After today's expiration of the Coca-Cola corporation, a spokesman for the new Delaware Coke Company released a statement saying that aspartame would be discontinued immediately from Diet Coke in favor of Stevia. A spokesman said that the Delaware Coke Company does not wish to kill its customers with unsafe neocon artificial sweeteners. The spokesman then went on to say that the change will avoid a potential chem-trail problem from the Diet Coke/Mentos Carbonic Technology Rocket propulsion system of the soon to be launched Ron Paul Rocket to outer space. The new 100% natural fallout will have a calming effect and stabilize blood sugar, so the Revolution Space Agency announced new revised plans to fly the rocket directly over Washington DC.

I don't understand... I would love to see all this happen. Which part is bad? I wouldn't let my dog drink Diet Coke even with Stevia. I'd shoot him before I'd give him diet Coke with Donald Rumsfeld's Neocon FDA poison aspartame. Planes fly over my house in grid patterns with regularity. And before you go wishing ill on me and my family again you should know that I am a firm believer in the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[pmbug]

Aspartame is banned from all my purchasing decisions. You are all free to poison yourselves as you like as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Mini-Me]

Maybe so, but you are only dealing with a symptom and not the problem. Corporations are the problem. Maybe we should rethink the entire "idea" of allowing corporations.

In my perfect world there would be none. No publicly traded stock exchange either. If you start up a company great own your own company. But at the end of the day the OWNER is responsible and if he loses it all, he has nowhere to hide. Responsibility and accountability is key.

It also opens up the door for new people to enter the market because if the owner dies and someone else takes over and the business fails then someone else can step up, start a company, and fill the spot. Most likely you would not have many huge Mega companies either.

Corporations are the evil we deal with if you ask me. They are for all intents and purposes are immortal and the larger they grow the less viable it becomes for someone to try and compete.

Besides, why should people be able to speculate for a living anyway? They don't produce or make anything but reap the benefits. Maybe a commodities trading market but then again it might not be so necessary if our money had solid value, there we be very little fluctuation in commodities pricing.

Speculation is a way for the rich to get richer and take advantage of the little fish.

You're correct that corporations as they exist today are evil, but I think you should reconsider your opinion on corporations "as they ought to be."

Today, corporations are unnatural entities created by the government (corporate charters). They are alien to the free market...when you're a shareholder of a corporation, you're protected by the "corporate veil" of unaccountability, because the corporation is seen as its own person, and your liability is limited even beyond your stake in the company - in fact, your liability can be limited to nothing. Obviously, this is a special privilege/immunity that ordinary citizens do not share, and even worse, it comes at the expense of denying creditors their right to what they are owed (regardless of what reason the corporation has for owing that money).

In a free market, joint-stock companies can be created through private contracts. Like a partnership, they would be created through contracts that distribute ownership of a company between multiple people, who, depending on the terms of the contract, can sell their shares to others as well. However, there's an important difference: SOMEONE has to take on all of the liabilities of the corporation owned, and in general, that liability would be evenly distributed among shareholders. The primary inherent evil of corporations today is the unnatural privilege and immunity enjoyed by their owners, but joint-stock companies in the free market would be much different.

Speculation is a way for the rich to get richer, but it's also a way for the poor to get richer - it all depends on what you're willing to risk when you make the conscious choice to speculate. This is not something the government should prohibit - it should be entirely up to individuals if they want to gamble in the market.

 

[Mini-Me]

Most people, even you strict "individualists" would be outraged and horrified to find out a company suddenly decided to put ammonia in the food they sell and 100's of people died right away.

Those of us in favor of banning this stuff are outraged now...we don't need to see people die immediately to be horrified by the evil of knowingly putting deadly or illness causing chemicals in food.

I think you're conflating two distinct issues here:

• Should specific substances be explicitly banned by the government? The answer is no.
• Should companies be held liable for products that unexpectedly kill consumers? The answer is yes.

To demonstrate why these are completely separate issues, let's get away from aspartame and cyanide for a minute. Instead, what happens if a company has unsanitary practices and sells chicken breasts with extremely high salmonella content, and tons of kids die? Obviously, the company didn't intentionally put anything harmful or even questionable in the food, but it could be their fault anyway (let's ignore the fact that it was probably not fully cooked when eaten - for the sake of this example, let's say a bunch of salmonella survived anyway ). Obviously, it'd be ridiculous to ban either chicken breasts or salmonella. However, if the company had unsanitary practices, they ARE liable for the deaths. It's not murder, but whoever was responsible could be potentially guilty of manslaughter. You might say, "But we can make laws about salmonella content, too!" In that case, what if the company puts some kind of new additive in their food that the government doesn't even know about yet, meaning there couldn't possibly be a law banning it? Scores of people die. The substance isn't banned, but the company is STILL liable for the deaths.

Understand here? You don't need to explicitly ban harmful substances from food to make the manufacturer/processor/etc. liable. If a company intentionally put ammonia into a food, everyone responsible would be FUCKED (at least in a free market, where there's no corporate veil). FDA or not, if a company ever put anything into a product that caused immediate death, there would be some serious repercussions. Actually, to cement the idea that liability is separate from banning specific substances, let's change course for a moment and consider a gun manufacturer. The government doesn't HAVE to say, "It's illegal to make your guns explode when the trigger is pulled." Despite that, if Smith & Wesson made a gun that is engineered to explode and blow off your arm when you pull the trigger, you'd better believe they'd be considered liable. After all, they marketed it as a gun, not a hand grenade! That's some serious fraud when it leads to an injury like that. The same goes for poisons marketed as food.

Now, obviously, aspartame doesn't cause instant death - rather, it causes chronic health problems that are not immediately noticeable. However, that's actually a good reason not to ban it outright. Let's say, just for the sake of argument - what if we were wrong about aspartame? Obviously we're not, but my point is, what if the government decided to ban some kind of additive that is not unsafe? As a matter of fact, it does this ALL of the time, because the FDA is in collusion with the big fish. You have to remember that whenever you give the power to regulate something, that power immediately becomes the property of the highest bidder, e.g. Monsanto. If we ever allow the government to ban specific substances, it will BAN the wrong ones and ALLOW the wrong ones...and what happens then? With the blessing of the FDA, an unaccountable government agency, Monsanto is TOTALLY LET OF THE HOOK for the dangers of aspartame! It's no longer strictly their legal responsibility, because they have the explicit blessing of the government!

That, howmanysheepcanyouherd, is exactly why the federal government should not be permitted to ban or explicitly approve substances. No matter how well-intentioned you might be in saying we should do that, the end result will always be the same thing we have today. The only alternative solution is to trust the market to take care of it instead.

Now, who is liable for harmful products? Generally, the manufacturer is liable, but let's say private certification agencies pop up. Maybe as part of the certification process (giving their okay to some manufacturer's product and putting their seal on it), they agree to take on the liability for anything harmful in the product. After all, they're certifying it (and they might require ingredients, etc. to be put on the label as part of this process). In that case, it would be in their best interests to allow everything safe (more money!), but it would also be in their best interests to refuse to certify anything questionable or dangerous, e.g. aspartame. Contrast this with the FDA: When the FDA certifies something as okay, pretty much all liability disappears into a black hole. The company says, "The FDA certified it! It's safe - and if it isn't, blame them!" The FDA says, "ROFLMAYONNAISE, what are you going to do? Put us out of business?"

The market would be relatively quick to figure out which agencies were reliable and which ones were worthless or a bunch of frauds making backdoor deals. People would care to look for the seal of approval of their most trusted agency - otherwise, they'd refuse to buy products. This is a lot like how kosher certification works, except kosher certification is something like 95% of consumers couldn't give two shits about. Notice, however, that despite how few people care about kosher certification, most big companies are prepared to pay for inspections by these agencies! Imagine how widespread health/safety certification would become! Because of the high demand for safe products and the fact that liability doesn't disappear into the black hole of the FDA, this market model would eventually result in only safe products appearing on the market.

In addition, without the government able to make ridiculous laws on behalf of market leaders, products would be able to explicitly advertise themselves as, "Free of the dangerous BLAH BLAH additive put into SPECIFIC COMPETITOR NAME's product!" As long as their claims were true (i.e. not constituting fraud), it's totally legit to compete that way.

This is a totally separate issue, but furthermore, without monopolized media, consumers would be getting much, much better information about dangerous substances in their foods in the first place.

Finally, you're completely forgetting that the individual states are free to ban whatever substances they want - although it might be a bad idea.

 

[Channing]

Hmmmmmmmm.....I use to drink diet pepsi and use aspertame in my coffee daily. Once I got educated on the subject, I stopped both the diet pepsi and the aspertame in my coffee. Never bothered me at all. But if I don't have coffee within the first couple of hours I wake up, I will have the biggest migraine ever! (i.e., caffiene addiction)

Are you sure it's not the caffiene in the Pepsi you were missing? Do you drink coffee?

I was also addicted to the caffein, that's true. But I know it was also the aspartame because I tried replacing the diet coke with normal (sugar) coke and that didn't satisfy me.

I also noticed that many people who starting drinking diet coke then over time drink that more and more and don't even want the normal cokes anymore, or even any other kind of drinks (like water).

Maybe it doesn't make everybody addicted but I think it does happen in many cases.

 

[Mini-Me]

Interestingly, I read today (though I didn't check up on the validity of the claim) that a study has shown aspartame to also cause cravings for carbohydrate-rich foods (such as sugar-rich foods) on a level that outweighs the calories you avoid by using it as a sugar substitute. So much for losing weight at the small price of blindness, cancer, loss of motor functions, etc.

 

[Luft97]

Speculation is a way for the rich to get richer, but it's also a way for the poor to get richer - it all depends on what you're willing to risk when you make the conscious choice to speculate. This is not something the government should prohibit - it should be entirely up to individuals if they want to gamble in the market.

Maybe so, in theory but there is to much room for abuse. You could also say the federal reserve could be a good idea in theory. But the power has been abused. I personally don't like the idea of speculation. Ya it's an "easy" way to make a quick buck. But did you really earn it? Nope. It attracts the wrong kind of people I think.

 

[xxsicknessxx]

People should be able to take what they want, but from exp I used to drink 24 diet cokes a day I quit about 3 months ago I had 1 week of massive brain headaches like I have never had before, but after it. I felt amazing, I .. just don't know what to say, it was a drug addiction, and it made me feel like crap all the time.

 

[amy31416]

People should be able to take what they want, but from exp I used to drink 24 diet cokes a day I quit about 3 months ago I had 1 week of massive brain headaches like I have never had before, but after it. I felt amazing, I .. just don't know what to say, it was a drug addiction, and it made me feel like crap all the time.

That was the caffeine, not the aspartame.

 

[Kludge]

Lol.... Addicted to caffeine. That's just lame.

 

[sratiug]

Lol.... Addicted to caffeine. That's just lame.

You do know that caffeine replaced cocaine in Coke a long time ago. Is cocaine addiction just lame? What is the real difference in their addictiveness and the amount of speed you get. Where does the caffeine come from? Did you know the US military helped spread Coke and Coke factories around the world?

 

[sratiug]

Interestingly, I read today (though I didn't check up on the validity of the claim) that a study has shown aspartame to also cause cravings for carbohydrate-rich foods (such as sugar-rich foods) on a level that outweighs the calories you avoid by using it as a sugar substitute. So much for losing weight at the small price of blindness, cancer, loss of motor functions, etc.

These studies were widely reported on Yahoo news. For a day, anyway. I'm sure it never made it to Dr. Sonjai Gupta on CNN. Aspartame is poison.

Another interesting Yahoo news reported study conducted by the US government showed that Ionic Breeze type air purifiers build up toxic amounts of ozone in your house that are very dangerous and often worse than the level required for severe outdoor alerts. That story seemed to die for lack of airing too. My mother had never had a nose bleed in 70 years but was rushed to the hospital twice for uncontrolled nose bleeds after sleeping in my sisters house with an Ionic Breeze for a couple of days. I was sure it had something to do with it and asked the doctors who all said no way. A year or so later the study came out saying they are very dangerous. Most people still don't know. Sure do make your house smell good though. My mother never has had another nose bleed at all.

 

[soapmistress]

"Donald Rumsfeld's Neocon FDA poison aspartame"

that made me lol

 

[PatriotOne]

Another interesting Yahoo news reported study conducted by the US government showed that Ionic Breeze type air purifiers build up toxic amounts of ozone in your house that are very dangerous and often worse than the level required for severe outdoor alerts. That story seemed to die for lack of airing too. My mother had never had a nose bleed in 70 years but was rushed to the hospital twice for uncontrolled nose bleeds after sleeping in my sisters house with an Ionic Breeze for a couple of days. I was sure it had something to do with it and asked the doctors who all said no way. A year or so later the study came out saying they are very dangerous. Most people still don't know. Sure do make your house smell good though. My mother never has had another nose bleed at all.

Ohhhhhhhh.....thanks for that heads up. I have considered those before but may never of thought to research a freaking air filter before I bought it.

 

[Working Poor]

yes I think it needs to be banned.

I for one have to go to the hospital every time I come into contact with it the stuff scares me to death.

 

[Kludge]

You do know that caffeine replaced cocaine in Coke a long time ago. Is cocaine addiction just lame? What is the real difference in their addictiveness and the amount of speed you get. Where does the caffeine come from? Did you know the US military helped spread Coke and Coke factories around the world?

Yes, I do. Both are "uppers". And if you are trying to argue that caffeine is as addictive as cocaine, then yes - cocaine addicts are just lame.

Did you know that the Germans helped spread warheads and warhead-producing factories all across Poland?

 

[sratiug]

Yes, I do. Both are "uppers". And if you are trying to argue that caffeine is as addictive as cocaine, then yes - cocaine addicts are just lame.

Lol, I have to agree with you there... but would it be lame if cocaine were in every soft drink sold?

Does anybody know where all the caffeine comes from? Is it synthetic or are we spending billions in Columbia to eradicate cocaine to make it safe to grow caffeine?

 

[constituent]

Yes, I do. Both are "uppers". And if you are trying to argue that caffeine is as addictive as cocaine, then yes - cocaine addicts are just lame.

"addiction" is lame and typically manufactured.


"addiction" is a state of mine. withdrawals are something else.