Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Assuming it's a cola and not lemon-lime or root beer or something other than a cola, if it's made by Coca-Cola I call it a Coke. If it's made by Pepsi I call it a Pepsi. If's it's made by Shasta or if it's a store brand I call it a cola. How easy is that?
LOL, I think it was before it was illegal, the effects were known for quite a while.
Before America went round criminalising any substance that was fun to take (including booze remember) all the recreational drugs were legal, you could by opium at teh local high street pharmacy :))
For some reason they missed tobacco off the anti-fun crusade ... wonder why that was ... remind me where it is grown again?
Oh my goodness, are you suggesting that the government of the United States of America only cares about its citizens well being, if that care doesn not conflict with the government and big business making money???
Oh shock horror dismay. All my faith in government for the people by the people is starting to fade away... its like a horrible dream :((
With cocaine, it was a race thing (not just in my opinion, that seems to be the consensus of historians a well) because cocaine during the 1920s started making its way out of the black jazz culture into the white jazz baby culture, and people got upset over it.
Sort of. There have been various drug bans at various times, on various levels, fed, state, county local. Making plant-based drugs life-shatteringly illegal did not really become a concerted effort until Anslinger. Then, due to WWII's effect in the creation of synthetic drugs (after all, speed was developed to allow bombers to fly longer and kill more people), those became a minor issue, but did not really reach national prominence until the advent of LSD in the public arena. Then the entire drug issue was moved to Schedules, which determined what kind of drug it was--no therpeutic value, some but very dangerous, a lot but not too dangerous, etc. Holes were plugged by adding precursors--substances used to make drugs--to the Schedule One list, and the passing of the Designer Drug Law. That is the law that makes a new drug illegal if it is substantially the same but differs in say, one side chain. Of course, this does not prevent Big Pharma from getting separate patents on drugs that are equally similar so that when one patent on an expensive drug (think Prilosec) expires they can substitute another very expensive but nearly identical patented drug (think Nexium).
[1 point]259 days ago by dauguyReplyEdited 259 days ago by dauguy
United Kingdom
Assuming it's a cola and not lemon-lime or root beer or something other than a cola, if it's made by Coca-Cola I call it a Coke. If it's made by Pepsi I call it a Pepsi. If's it's made by Shasta or if it's a store brand I call it a cola. How easy is that?
Coke. It's called coke because they used to put cocaine in it, before they realised it was a dangerous drug.
LOL, I think it was before it was illegal, the effects were known for quite a while.
Before America went round criminalising any substance that was fun to take (including booze remember) all the recreational drugs were legal, you could by opium at teh local high street pharmacy :))
For some reason they missed tobacco off the anti-fun crusade ... wonder why that was ... remind me where it is grown again?
They missed tabacco because the government gets a LOT of money for all the cigerettes sold.
Oh my goodness, are you suggesting that the government of the United States of America only cares about its citizens well being, if that care doesn not conflict with the government and big business making money???
Oh shock horror dismay. All my faith in government for the people by the people is starting to fade away... its like a horrible dream :((
With cocaine, it was a race thing (not just in my opinion, that seems to be the consensus of historians a well) because cocaine during the 1920s started making its way out of the black jazz culture into the white jazz baby culture, and people got upset over it.
Were the drugs banned individually then, over a period of time?
Sort of. There have been various drug bans at various times, on various levels, fed, state, county local. Making plant-based drugs life-shatteringly illegal did not really become a concerted effort until Anslinger. Then, due to WWII's effect in the creation of synthetic drugs (after all, speed was developed to allow bombers to fly longer and kill more people), those became a minor issue, but did not really reach national prominence until the advent of LSD in the public arena. Then the entire drug issue was moved to Schedules, which determined what kind of drug it was--no therpeutic value, some but very dangerous, a lot but not too dangerous, etc. Holes were plugged by adding precursors--substances used to make drugs--to the Schedule One list, and the passing of the Designer Drug Law. That is the law that makes a new drug illegal if it is substantially the same but differs in say, one side chain. Of course, this does not prevent Big Pharma from getting separate patents on drugs that are equally similar so that when one patent on an expensive drug (think Prilosec) expires they can substitute another very expensive but nearly identical patented drug (think Nexium).
no they didn`t
Yes they did.
so when do YOU think they were banned then?
I call it pop.
Works for me too.
Soda....
Period.
Something that might be of interest:
http://popvssoda.com:2998/
Awesome graph! Thanks!