FDA to Investigate "Any and All" Caffeine Added Products

Mayor Bloomberg is probably skipping around his office throwing confetti and thanking whatever god(s) he thinks are on his side.  The federal government is stepping in and taking the first step towards another NYC style banning.  This time....caffeine.

Reason Magazine and others are reporting that the FDA has announced they will begin investigating caffeinated products.  Not energy drinks.  Not caffeine gum.  But EVERY caffeine added product.

That's right.  The FDA will, in fact, be investigating energy drinks and caffeine gum.  But they will also be investigating Diet Coke and Mountain Dew.  They will investigate the coffee drinks that have an "extra boost" in them.  They will investigate products that you didn't even realize had a little caffeine added to them.

And, let's be real about what the outcome will be here.  This is the government.  Even worse, this is the FDA, one of the most sold out areas of the government.  A government agency that makes decisions based on many, many things other than what's acceptable for our people.

This will end badly.  I fully anticipate that the FDA will step in and put severe limits on how much, if any,

caffeine can be added to a product.  You know, because we are fully incapable of deciding what we want to consume.

And if this happens, you need to be ready for the price of coffee to jump up drastically.  This will happen for two reasons.  First, if caffeine limitations will be in place for products that artificially add them, them consumers will be forced to turn to coffee for their caffeine.  Supply and demand will dictate that the price of coffee will go up.

Second, coffee is the major source of caffeine for caffeine added products.  When coffee producers remove caffeine from coffee to make decaffeinated coffee, they sell that caffeine to other companies to add to their sodas and energy drinks, etc.  Without the revenue generated from selling as much of that caffeine off, then the price of coffee will have to be raised to compensate.

Pay attention to this as it develops, folks.  There's a whole lot more freedom of choice that's about to be limited...again.  Yay.  Go government.

Use the Social Media buttons below to share this story, and make sure you check out my last couple of blogs!

Indiana Sheriff Vows to Not Enforce Future Gun Laws

FOP Ends Support of Bisard...Why Were They Financing Him in the First Place?

FOP Ends Support of Bisard...Why Were They Financing Him in the First Place?

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard that David Bisard got another DUI.  Not uncommon for a person with one DUI to get a second one, really.  Many do.

But the Bisard case is a little different.  Bisard was a cop.  Bisard killed someone (allegedly).  Bisard was drunk (allegedly).  There was very suspicious mishandling of blood testing.  There was very suspicious mishandling of blood evidence. The whole thing was just...well...suspicious.

And his defense costs?  Yeah, they were being picked up by the Fraternal Order of Police.

What the hell?  I understand the being a police officer is a brotherhood.  They love to protect their own.  Okay, fine.  I can understand brotherhoods.

I can also understand the FOP wanting to pick up the tab for the defense of many police officers that are facing crazy litigation from over-zealous criminals that are just looking to screw over a cop.

But this wasn't that kind of case.  The evidence against Bisard appears to be overwhelming.  Even though much of the evidence might have proven inadmissible due to the horrendous "oversights" by other members of the department, there is little doubt among the masses that Bisard did this.

So if the evidence against Bisard is so damning, why would the FOP want to defend him?  Again, I understand brotherhood, but brotherhood is for the benefit of all the brethren.  If a member of a brotherhood fails to uphold their end of the bargain, if they do something that could do serious damage to the brotherhood as a whole, then it is acceptable for the brotherhood to expel him.  And even if expulsion is not the right step, it is also acceptable for the brotherhood to remain neutral.

But that didn't happen in this case.  For Bisard, despite all the damning evidence, the FOP chose to step up and pay for his defense.  Why?  Who knows.  But you can bet your paycheck they are regretting it now.

Hilariously, FOP president William Owensby is quoted in today's Indy Star article about the FOP's recent decision as saying Bisard's arrest, "reflected discredit upon the lodge."

Guess what, Mr. Owensby, the discredit upon the lodge was caused by it's decision to pay for his counsel in the first place.

Indiana Sheriff Vows to Not Enforce Future Gun Laws

Sheriff Bradley Rogers

Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers is no stranger to media attention.  Since his campaign, he has not been scared to speak out loud about his position on laws and their constitutionality.  

That attention is surrounding him again.  On Sunday, Sheriff Rogers told a crowd in South Bend that he refuses to enforce any further gun legislation handed down by the federal government.   This position is not new for Sheriff Rogers, nor is it new for him to discuss it (he's been on CNN talking with Anderson Cooper about his views).  Nonetheless, the media, including this Indy Star article, has grabbed the story and pounced on it.

It's an interesting question....where does a sheriff's loyalties lie?  Is he to blindly enforce any laws that are passed?  Is that his duty?  Can a sheriff prioritize the laws he enforces based on the resources he has available?  Or, as Sheriff Rogers indicates, does his oath of office to uphold the constitution mean that if he finds a law unconstitutional that he is not obligated to enforce it?

Surely a sheriff can not be required to blindly pursue each and every law that is passed.  The reason is resources.  No sheriff has unlimited resources.  Every sheriff is forced to create a budget based on the resources available to them, and thus be forced to prioritize what areas they will focus their enforcement on.  That makes perfect sense.

But where does prioritizing enforcement potentially turn into abandonment of enforcing a law at all?  And is a sheriff that believes a law to be unconstitutional required to not enforce it based upon their oath to defend the constitution?

Myself, Miah Akston, and Sheriff Rogers

These are not easy questions to answer.  Especially as nullification becomes a more common part of society, with states readily nullifying federal laws right now, it becomes harder to answer, and also more controversial.

Personally, I applaud Sheriff Rogers.  He is still confined by a system of checks and balances.  If his community does not support the actions of this first term sheriff, they will guarantee that he never has a second term of office.  As long as those checks and balances are in place, then the sheriff's oath to uphold the constitution comes first and foremost.

Sheriff Rogers recently spoke at the Libertarian Party of Indiana's State Convention.  Although I do not have audio of the excellent speech he gave, Miah Akston and I were lucky enough to have the opportunity to interview him for our show on, The Uncontrollables.  Here's that interview.  It runs about 21 minutes.

Libertarian Party of Marion County Statement on SB 621

Libertarian Party of Marion County Urges 

Governor Pence to Veto SB 621

The Indiana General Assembly has passed SB 621, a law which would eliminate all At-Large City-County Council seats in Marion County and give the Mayor unrestricted control over the budget. The Libertarian Party of Marion County stands against this legislation.

SB 621 has correctly been described as the “power grab” bill. It is an obvious attempt by the Republican super majority in the General Assembly to strip the power of the vote from the citizens of Marion County.

By eliminating the four at-large seats on the Council, the General Assembly is stripping away the combined voice of The People. While the LPMC is not convinced that the current structure of the Marion County government is necessarily the most productive and efficient model available to our citizens, we also do not believe the General Assembly should be dictating that model to us. Instead, we encourage the state legislators to introduce legislation to turn the authority to decide what model works best for Marion County over to the people of Marion County. The representatives of the other 91 counties should not be deciding how people they do not represent should be able to govern themselves.

SB 621 also gives the Mayor of Indianapolis unheard of authority to control the City budget in whatever way he seems fit. While the Council would still vote on the budget, the Mayor is given the almost unbelievable power to change that budget on a whim. The people of Marion County deserve a system of checks and balances, and this bill eliminates that.

To make matters worse, the General Assembly simply did not take the proper time to listen to the thoughts of the people of Marion County, the only county impacted by this legislation. Instead, the legislature chose to push through this bill and enforce it on us without our say.

We urge the citizens of Marion County to join us in calling on Governor Pence to reject this partisan power grab by vetoing SB 621.

LGBT Couples Benefit Greatly From Elimination of Inheritance Tax

Fellow blogger Paul Ogden makes a great point in his blog about the inheritance tax.  LGBT couples might be the biggest winners.

You see, a spouse was previously tax exempt from the inheritance tax.  But since Indiana doesn't recognize gay marriage, even lifelong couples only at best qualified as a friend, and had am enormous tax burden because of it.

Although I sincerely doubt there were any intentions of this law being to help gay couples, in many ways they benefit the most. No longer does it matter who you spent your life with when or comes to the amount of inheritance tax you pay.  A gay couple now pays the same tax treasure as a straight couple does, at least in this area.

That's a win.

Ogden has some interesting math in his big showing just how much the tax could impact a gay couple before.  Make sure you check out his blog for that info, and more details on this story.

Indiana Legislature Set to Hand Same Sex Marriage Advocates Biggest Victory Ever by Eliminating Inheritance Tax

Fireworks Used in Boston Bombs...Prepare Yourself for Ridiculous New Fireworks Legislation

Well, here we go.  It was only a matter of time until some portion of the Boston bombing story surfaced that will be used as a catalyst for ignorant, over-reaching panic legislation.  And if it didn't appear before Wednesday, it's sure here now.

Throughout the day Wednesday, news began surfacing that the Boston bombing suspects used gunpowder scavenged from fireworks to create the deadly bombs used to terrorize this year's Boston Marathon.

I'm willing to bet that before next week is out, there is a minimum of one state making lots of news because it's legislature is going to begin considering strict new fireworks legislation because of this.  That's the way it always happens with these tragedies.

1. Something horrible happens
2. Something the vast majority of people use safely in their lives is found to be involved
3. Legislators panic and make rash decisions about what can be done to prevent tragedy again
4. Mostly safe item has crazy new restrictions placed on it or is banned
5. Hardly anyone, if anyone at all, is saved while millions deal with ridiculous new regulations

It happens every time.  Every. Single. time.  And you can bet your hind end it will happen again here.  Lawmakers across the nation are going to put new fireworks legislation in place in the name of preventing terrorism, or saving lives, or preventing fear, or whatever.  And no one will really benefit.  But many, many people will have to deal with the negative repercussions of the new laws.

Here's what I expect to see lawmakers suggesting across the nation:

• Styles of fireworks allowed to be purchased limited to only those with the smallest amounts of powder
• Number of fireworks purchased to be severely limited
• Anyone attempting to buy large amounts of fireworks to have police called on them
• Every fireworks purchaser to have their name recorded along with the contents of each purchase
• Digital connectivity required between different fireworks resellers so that attempts to buy large amounts via small amounts purchased from several retailers will be thwarted
• Fireworks purchaser license required
• Background checks required for fireworks purchasers
• Fireworks safety courses required before anyone is allowed to purchase fireworks

And who knows what else.  Trust me, here.  You are going to see at least one state proposing some of these laws within the next ten days, and a whole lot of states following suit within the next year.

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying here.  The bombings were a real tragedy.  And my thoughts and prayers are with each and every person either directly or indirectly affected.

But our states and federal governments rarely react properly to these events.  They normally jump straight into poorly thought out legislation because the public is crying for blood and they can get just about any law passed they want if it is supposedly written in the name of justice and/or prevention.

When you begin to hear about the legislation that will be proposed because of the Boston bombings, I want you to think about whether it is good legislation or forced through bad legislation.  I want you to think of the Patriot Act and the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security.  I want you to think about whether the legislation actually helps us prevent any tragedies, and even if it does, at what cost to the rest of us?

And I want you to ask your representatives to please slow down, take a deep breath, and make sure they are passing legislation because it is the right thing to so.  I want you to make sure that they aren't passing laws in the name of revenge.

Rhode Island Republican Senators Unanimously Support Gay Marriage

Yep.  You read that right.  An entire Republican caucus has voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

Sure, it's a small number of legislators, but the importance of the word "unanimous" still shouldn't be lost on you.  Especially on this topic.  Especially from Republicans.

And it's not being done without political backlash, as you might imagine.  The National Organization for Marriage has vowed to unseat at least one of the Senators, Dennis Algiere, because of his vote.

Thanks to The Washington Post for tipping me off to this story.  For more information, including links to other stories, please check out their article here.