Schumer uncomfortable with snorting chocolate--wants more regulations

Chuck Schumer may have nostrils the size of a B-1B Lancer bomber's jet intake, but he isn't comfortable putting 'snortable chocolate' up in there any time soon. In fact, the Anthony Weiner guru is doing what liberals are wont to do: have federal regulators look into 'snortable chocolate' powder because he thinks it may be harmful and become marketed like a drug.

Schumer wrote to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking them to investigate the use of caffeine in snortable food products such as so-called Coco Loko.

Schumer, who never met a regulation he didn't like, said there's too many unanswered questions about something you put up your nose that's passed off as an innocent-sounding name like chocolate.

"This suspect product has no clear health value," he said in a statement. "I can't think of a single parent who thinks it is a good idea for their children to be snorting over-the-counter stimulants up their noses."

Sen. Schumer once snorted a La-Z-Boy recliner up his nose and the repercussions were horrendous. 

Coco Loko is marketed as "raw cacao snuf" and includes cacao powder, which comes from the coco bean used in the making of chocolate. There is also some caffeine but there are other unlisted online ingredients that may, according to some reports, include common energy-drink ingredients.

The nose candy promises feelings of well-being, mental focus, ecstasy-like euphoria and a rush of "motivation that is great for partygoers to dance the night away without a crash," says the Florida-based Legal Lean's website. 

It notes these claims haven't been tested by the FDA.

Legal Lean Co., sells Coco Loko online for $19.99 for a 1.25 ounce tin. Founder Nick Anderson (aka "Doood") said he didn't consult any medical professionals but feels that it's safe.

And feeling that it's safe should be good enough for the left.

All that Legal Lean Co. really needs to do to get Schumer off their back is to make a significant donation to the DNC and all their problems are gone--up their noses.



Tweet

"Michelle: "Shut up and eat what I tell you to eat"

In a perfect world, Michelle Obama and her husband would be living in a small town somewhere in Iran or Indonesia. Anywhere but here, in the land of the free.

The First [so-called ]Lady is now going beyond the law and has become America's Dietician in Charge. She has made the official decree of what kids in schools and daycare centers may or may not be allowed to eat. In other words, she has become America's Momma, and overruling the actual mommas of our children. 

Hypocrisy on a bun

Michelle Obama is America's food Nazi and judging by her generous frame, one can surmise that her knowledge of what children should be allowed to eat, does not apply to her. Even if it did, she has no legal authority to tell schools and daycares that receive federal assistance what they can serve and what is restricted. 

But if they don't abide by her demand, they lose their funding, and that's political blackmail.

Mrs. Obama has an inordinate interest in food, it seems, and she has made her focus on that and vacations while her husband rules the country. 

Mrs. Obama is imposing a regulation whereby daycare centers can serve juice only once a day, ban fried food, and discourage the use of honey in yogurt. Cereals such as Lucky Charms, Trix, Cap'n Crunch and Frosted Flakes will be banned and if found in the cupboards of a cafeteria the administrative staff of the school or daycare will receive 10 years in prison and share the same cells as transferred Gitmo "detainees."

All meats will be substituted with tofu. Any child found with a meaty stool will be expelled and their parents will be deported to Mexico on an illegal alien exchange program.

There will be unannounced "spot inspections" of the children's stools for any indication of these cereals or honey and parents of those "caught with the goods" will be forced to undergo junk food deprogramming initiative or face 5 years in prison.

But seriously, do we need more rules, more laws, more regulations that erode our freedoms? Do we need a nanny state forcing parents to allow the government to raise their kids? Do we really need the Democratic party?


Tweet

Regulation Nation

Real freedom isn't something the government gives you; it's the freedom of being left alone by the government. It started with the Blue Laws--laws forcing businesses to be closed on Sunday mornings in order to allow people time to go to church. Today it is the mountains of regulations that businesses my adhere to or pay the price of breaking these regulations.

In the 1950's, about one in twenty small businesses required a license to operate; today it's greater than one in three. And the idea that we really need licenses to operate professionally or efficiently is ludicrous. If it made sense then we would need a license to have kids, not just to get married.

In Texas, if you want to be a computer technician you need to first get a private investigator's license. To do that, you need to either work with a licensed PI for three years as an apprentice, or get a degree in criminal justice. I wonder what the government sees as the reason for this requirement, but I'm sure someone like Jay Carney could explain it.

This blog that you're reading doesn't require that I license and register it, but the city of Philadelphia sees it differently. They require a $300 business privilege license to blog. 

Massachusetts mandates that all children in daycare centers brush their teeth after lunch and they even supply the toothpaste. How nanny state of them. 

If you want to give tours in Washington D.C., you must be licensed or face 90 days in jail. The only purpose this license can serve is to bring in revenue to the fat cats who make their living off of how you make yours.

In Santa Monica, California, it might be illegal for you to smoke in your own home. Smoking had already been banned on beaches, parks, restaurants and near office buildings, but that wasn't enough. Now the ban extends to new tenants in apartments and condos. Tenants who lived there prior to the ban don't have to worry--all they have to do is designate whether their place is "smoking" or "non-smoking."

These are just a few examples of crazy regulations; examples of how the government has become so intrusive in our lives that a day doesn't go by when they aren't involved in our activities. It's pretty bad when you even have to deal with the bureaucracy when going out of business, but that's exactly the case in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. If you want to have a "going out of business sale" you must first submit reams of paperwork itemizing what you plan to sell off. Next you must pay $2 on every $1000 worth of inventory you're planning to sell, and pay this fee whether or not it gets sold.

Finally, there's the intrusion of government in cases where they can force you to provide your services when you feel religiously compromised. This was the case last August in New Mexico when their Supreme Court ruled that a commercial photography business that offers services to the public "is subject to the state anti-discrimination laws." That is, they "must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples." I'm not so sure that this is a case of discrimination--I believe it has to do with the photographer's religious beliefs and values, and her right to not perform a service that goes against these beliefs. It isn't like the gay couple can't go elsewhere and in the free market (where the government stays out of the equation) this business will reap the rewards or punishment of their decision.

Freedom is the right to make your own life decisions without government interference as long as you do not hurt or endanger others. In the free market, my decisions will affect my success.
Tweet