What's the Story, Morning Glory

Remember Cocaine? No, not the popular white powder from the `80s (and beyond), but the energy drink launched by Redux Beverages in 2006. Redux initially drew heat over its drug-infused marketing campaign that positioned the energy drink as a legal alternative to street drugs, including calling the drinks "speed in a can" and "liquid cocaine." An FDA warning letter and trouble in at least two states (Texas and Connecticut) forced Cocaine from the shelves in mid-2006.

Recently Redux unveiled plans to re-launch this energy drink—which has three-times the caffeine of Red Bull—by the end of July, with the product name Cocaine written in a font that resembles white powder. FDA, which has previously classified products that are marketed as alternatives to street drugs as "misbranded and unapproved new drugs, has taken issue with this latest marketing and labeling. The courts have previously ruled in favor of FDA on this type of violation, so it remains to be seen what happens to Cocaine this summer.

In the meantime, Redux is taking full advantage of the spotlight this drug-named drink is garnering. The company has stated the two fonts used on the latest Cocaine label are called “Squeaky Chalk Sound” and “Boring Lesson,” both licensed from German font house Anke-Art. Redux poked fun at FDA's position that these fonts appear to be powder that has been cut up by a razor blade or credit card to form letters, with the company teasing: " School teachers everywhere should now be on notice that things written in chalk will be scrutinized more closely by the federal government and could subject the chalk-bearer to civil and criminal liability." Funny response, but it fails the basics of logical debate. I knew that Logic class at Arizona State would come in handy. Fallacy committed: Appeal to Ridicule (trying to make the opponent's argument seem ridiculous).

Going for more, Jamey Kirby, founder of Redux Beverages, surmised: "This is just a case of runaway regulators running roughshod over free speech and the free market. In the last year or so, the U.S. has experienced life-threatening problems with our domestic supply of tomatoes, spinach, peanut butter, imported seafood and even pet food. Worse, many experts predict that the next terrorist attack could focus on our food supply. So, why is the FDA wasting its precious resources complaining about what fonts Redux is using to advertise our product?"

There's a mess of arguments "running" wild in this one. While I agree the FDA seems to have inconsistent priorities and is failing in many important areas of its charge, Kirby is throwing out the kitchen sink here, leaning on free speech (yawn...free speech and commercialism is a sketchy pairing) and employing a number of red herring fallacies, including appeals to fear (terrorism and poisoning), spite (FDA is under fire lately from government officials and the public) and motive (questioning the FDA's focus on its case instead of, say, terrorism).

Kirby then tries to rally the public to join him against the tyranny that is FDA, pointing out the agency's officials are not elected or held accountable the way many politicians are. Again, some valid issues with the structure and operations of FDA, but expecting the public to join him just so he can call his over-caffeinated drink Cocaine?!

Redux further said it is changing some of the language on its labels, such as exchanging the word "cut" for "mild," because FDA took issue with such "well-known terminology associated with and suggestive of illicit drug use." So, look out for a version called Cocaine Mild, instead of the original name, Cut Cocaine.

In another humorous dig at FDA's concerns, Redux joked it may begin "advising customers not to use a straw to drink Cocaine, or a dollar bill to pay for it, because both of those actions could be misinterpreted by the FDA as use of illicit drug paraphernalia." Ahh, the ridicule continues. This cleverly attempts to connect the public to the company, though, by a sort of guilt by association, as an ad hominem fallacy (OK, last logic reference...I promise.)

What made me laugh the most in all of this, Redux reacted to FDA's disapproval of the previous Cocaine can disclaimer, "This product is not intended to be anything more than an energy drink," by offering a new disclaimer: "This product is not intended to be an alternative to an illicit street drug, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot, a government regulator, or both." Now that is funny.

While I appreciate Redux beverage's sense of Humor, I don't think it presented much of an argument, and I tend to think the courts of justice will see these logical fallacies; hence the company is trying to win over the court of public opinion.

At the heart, the issue is whether drinks like Cocaine are crossing the line by piggy-backing the popularity and awareness of street drugs by borrowing the terminology and the expectation of benefits (in this case, energy or high) these words connote. FDA has drawn the line here with products like cocaine that borrow from illegal street drugs for the product's name, marketing, labeling and recipes (cocktail name suggestions, like Cocaine Smash, for using the drink as a mixer).

Is there a free speech argument here? Are products like this (including their marketing) irresponsible, especially given the popularity of energy drinks with younger people, including kids? Is all this giving Cocaine energy more press than it deserves, considering there are many other top-selling energy drinks out there standing between Cocaine Mild and success?

Personally, my biggest issue with Cocaine is its caffeine content (people guzzle these drinks throughout the day), and in this type of product being marketed as any way to get amino acids and nutrients. Perhaps it would glorify narcotic cocaine use just a bit, too. I'll leave the free speech stuff alone.