kamikaza

UPDATE!: Apparently they were drunk and have reversed the decision to approve the powder. Scroll down for the details.

***

The moment I heard about this I thought, well, that’s innovative, then my political mind kicked in and I thought this is just like making marijuana legal. What a great idea for the system, make it even easier for people of all ages to carry around alcohol and get drunk, more often and new and different ways.

Bottom line, I don’t think this is a good idea, considering the trajectory of our ‘government,’ the economy, the over 50% of Americans already on psychotropic prescription drugs and the alcohol abuse and depression among young people. And if I may say, many of these personal issues aggravated if not created in part by the disaster politicians have made of our lives and the bleak future they seem hell-bent on creating.

When you think about it, here we have a nany state govenment telling us we can’t have big drinks or trans-fats, but then have no problem with the legalization of marijuana and approve making booze even easier to use and abuse.

Consider how the company that produces the product, called “Palcohol,” first marketed the powdered booze. I’m very sure this is not a good idea, but am I wrong? Looking forward to seeing what you think.

Via Verge.

Putting a can of beer in a brown paper bag is about to look like child’s play. A new product that’s somehow been approved by US regulators makes booze as discreet as a packet of sugar. It’s called Palcohol, and it transforms a shot of vodka or rum into a pocketable pouch of powder. Tear it open, add some water, mix, and you’ve got hard liquor. Considering the age group that Palcohol is going to appeal to, however, the sweet, pre-mixed powders are probably going to be far more popular. To start off, the company plans to make margarita, mojito, cosmopolitan, and lemon drop flavors.

It’s not hard to come up with ways kids are going to get in trouble with this one, but Palcohol offers a few suggestions on its website (cached) ranging from sneaking booze into places like movie theaters and college sporting events (where alcohol is banned) to sprinkling it directly onto food so teens don’t even have to stomach the bitter alcohol flavor. Just in case you don’t get the idea, the product’s motto is “Take your Pal wherever you go!” The original site, which has now been replaced with a more responsible, updated version, even offered this gem:

palcohol

The updated site now says that the powder is cut with enough filler to make snorting inefficient. Nevertheless, you may soon be able to give it a try for yourself.

The Washington Times has this tidbit from the Palcohol people. Not exactly a shining example of what’s to come:

The company briefly touted its product online as a solution to the rising price of liquid alcohol, Lehrman Beverage Law reported.

“What’s worse than going to a concert, sporting event, etc. and having to pay $10, $15, $20 for a mixed drink with tax and tip. Are you kidding me?!” A statement on the company website initially read. “Take Palcohol into the venue and enjoy a mixed drink for a fraction of the cost.

Shortly after the announcement by federal government, the Palcohol website was changed. It now reads, in part: “We were caught off guard with the release of some of our labels by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). As a result, people visited this website that we thought was under the radar because we had not made a formal announcement of Palcohol. … Clearly, this site isn’t finished. … More information will be forthcoming.”

Yeah, what could go wrong?

UPDATE: Oopsie! The decision to approve this has been reversed. The Fed is calling the original approval an error. It’s generally understood that the publicity surrounding the decision was the turning point, but shouldn’t they have the cajones to stand by a decision once it’s done? Do they not realize we do know what they’re doing, will talk about it, ridicule them and point our their idiocy? Ugh.

If you were excited about the possibility of “powdered alcohol” coming to a liquor store near you, we have bad news: It won’t be, at least not in the near future. A spokesperson for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau tells the AP the federal bureau issued the “label approval” for the product, called “Palcohol,” in error. And Palcohol confirms that it agreed today to surrender the approvals, though its parent company, Lipsmark, says it will resubmit the labels for approval.

It’s not clear how the error occurred or what the problem is; Lipsmark says that “there seemed to be a discrepancy on our fill level, how much powder is in the bag.” But one beverage law expert notes that Palcohol would have to have gone through a long process before getting to the label approval stage, and he says, “An oversight of this nature does not ring true to me.” It’s possible lawmakers responded to the publicity swirling around the product and asked for more information, he suggests.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. strider says:

    Now just brew some beer with pot and you can finally smoke a beer and drink a joint.

  2. TX Soldier254 says:

    Hey TAMs, the Hippies and the Socialist are working in concert.

    **Get the people Stoned & Drunk, while we Arrest & Incarcerate them, if ever so briefly. Now you are beholden to the State with a Criminal Record**

    2nd Amendment what’s that?
    You can’t allow a Convicted Drunk and or a Convicted Pot Head to buy a Gun, that’s just Crazy Talk, right GOP?

    Next on the market: Jolly Rancher Mojito’s, Mai Tai’s, and Manhattan Candies.
    What about some cool refreshing Double Mint Marijuana Gum, mmm mmm good!

  3. Alain41 says:

    Agree with TX, this will be used to take away 2A, person by person.

    I see it used primarily in two ways. In a McDonald’s coke, just a burger and coke from McDonalds, offcer. And in a can of Red Bull. Can you believe politicians passed a law outlawing high caffeine drinks and booze together. Ha.

  4. Alain41 says:

    Just a reminder of the Lance Armstrong doping scandal, his team manager has been suspended from cycling for 10 years. What was that team? The U.S. Postal Service. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/27109747

    “…[US anti-doping agency] Usada’s 2012 report said the USPS team had run “the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme the sport has ever seen”….”

    Maybe Palcohol & FDA can co-support a cycling team.

  5. Isaac T says:

    I’m not at all in favor of the powdered alcohol, but I don’t see it as a good thing that you must seek approval from the omnipotent state in order to bring a product to market. I think the burden of justification ought to be on the government for wanting to prohibit things, instead of on the entrepreneur for wanting to produce things. So even though I recognize the complete and utter not-a-good-idea-ness of powdered alcohol, I can’t see it as a victory that the government changed its mind and decided not to *approve* the product. The idea that you must gain government *approval* as a matter of course, rather than the government needing to meet some standard of justification in order to infringe on production, is obscene to me. It’s the economic equivalent of a presumption of guilt. So I can’t celebrate when the arbitrariness of government *approval* falls against something even I think is a bad idea.

    Expecting any government agency–whose sole mission is to grow its operating budget–to be a proper gatekeeper for any field of human endeavor is a dangerous delusion. So I’m not sad that we won’t get to buy powdered alcohol, but I am as always concerned by the soft despotism of greedy federal regulators with the power to *approve*.

You must be logged in to post a comment.