Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing

  • Stuka@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They are not incredibly dangerous, not be a long shot.

    They can be dangerous to a very small subset of people with preexisting conditions and that’s about it.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The trouble is quite a lot of people have the pre-existing condition of being brainless. So they mainline 5 cans in a row, if you do that with Coke nothing happens, if you do that with Monster even a healthy person is going to have heart problems.

      Also some prat had a great idea of mixing it with Yeager. Thus mixing two of the most disgusting liquids in the world together. But more importantly mixing a stimulant and a suppressant, which again can have serious health risks even for otherwise healthy individuals.

      We don’t sell glue to children even though most of them probably won’t sniff it. So why do we tolerate energy drinks for them? The lasting kids need is to be even more hyper.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mine is cannabis and booze. Never mix something that makes me want to throw up with something that settles the stomach. If I drink too much I want it out of my body ASAP.

      • OKRainbowKid@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        By that logic, peanuts are also “incredibly dangerous”.

        Note: I’m not promoting or condoning the consumption of energy drinks, they are generally unhealthy. But calling them “incredibly dangerous” because they can evoke such a reaction in a small subset of the population is bullshit.

        • ɔiƚoxɘup@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          And products are often labeled, not if they CONTAIN nuts, but even if they were made somewhere that also produces peanuts and there’s a slight chance of cross contamination.

          This is done because of the liability. It should be easy enough to prove the Panera has liability here in the same way.

          • CaptFeather@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It clearly states the caffeine content on the placard in front of the drink though, and it’s called charged lemonade. While that wouldn’t necessarily imply it has caffeine, that’s at least enough to tell me it’s almost certainly not plain lemonade though and I should read what’s in it.

              • CaptFeather@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                While that wouldn’t necessarily imply it has vitamins, that’s at least enough to tell me it’s almost certainly not plain water though and I should read what’s in it.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Thats a stupid as fuck argument.

          Know whats on the label, and in fact, in the name, of peanut butter/peanut products?

          Peanuts

          and they even still have a specific warning, for extra special stupid people, that says “warning, contains peanuts”

          What was on the label of Charged Lemonaid? Of Monster?

          No Indicators, No Warnings, No nothing.

          Miss me with this bullshit false equivalency.

      • sploosh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it not credible that a small slice of people might be extra sensitive to something that the rest of the population can handle without issue?