Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government News

Caffeinated Alcoholic Drinks May Be Illegal 398

Posted by kdawson
from the so-much-for-irish-coffee dept.
Anonymusing writes "The FDA has announced an investigation into the safety and legality of alcoholic beverages containing caffeine. As a Wall Street Journal blog reports, two major beer companies, MillerCoors and Anheuser-Busch, stopped producing caffeinated alcoholic drinks last year after reports surfaced of increased negative effects compared to caffeine-free alcohol. CNN notes that, according to FDA rules, 'food additives require premarket approval based on data demonstrating safety submitted to the agency' — and caffeine is a food additive. The 26 targeted beverage makers have 30 days to respond."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Caffeinated Alcoholic Drinks May Be Illegal

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Or is that not going to be available either?

    • by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Saturday November 14, 2009 @11:36PM (#30103348) Journal

      Or will they start monitoring in stores now that you wont buy vodka and red bull at the same time?

      It's also interesting that alcohol is being kept legal while it has a lot more health issues than like cannabis, like heart disease, dementia, cancer, alcoholism, diabetes, strokes and then the usual ones like hangover and weight problems. It seems it should be other way around.

      That being said, I prefer good vodka (Russian Standard Vodka) over beer any day. Usually the best mix is just some smashed ice and lime. I used to mix with red bull, but it tastes like shit now.

      • by munctional (1634709) on Saturday November 14, 2009 @11:37PM (#30103358)

        The USA tried banning alcohol once, but it didn't work out too well.

        At least we got cool bar names like "The 21st Amendment" out of it.

        • by mweather (1089505) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @12:02AM (#30103550)
          We tried banning cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and a laundry list of other drugs as well. It hasn't worked out any better.
          • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @12:18AM (#30103678)

            We tried banning cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and a laundry list of other drugs as well

            I don't know about cocaine or heroin, but I am all for banning the eating of other people, AND banning me having to do laundry.

            (lame joke quota: filled... for now...)

            • I am all for banning the eating of other people.

              Really I think its a waste of perfectly good food to not to eat people. Think of how many starving people 1 fat person would feed. It is like recycling food.

              • by CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @01:39AM (#30104082)

                Human Resources ?

                • by FatdogHaiku (978357) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @01:09PM (#30106548)

                  Human Resources ?

                  From a new hire package:
                  Retirement Options
                  Please select the end of the statement you feel most closely matches your lifestyle and personal preferences:
                  When I retire I would like:

                  1. to be braised in a white wine reduction.
                  2. to be wrapped in banana leaves and buried in a hole full of hot rocks.
                  3. to be smoked in a bar-b-que pit.
                  4. to be made into bratwurst and boiled in beer.
                  5. to be far, far away from you crazy fuckers!
              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by NotQuiteReal (608241)
                I think its a waste of perfectly good food to not to eat people

                Well, maybe with chiani.... and if properly prepared, then again, there is that prion issue.

                No, I think I'll stand by my sig, as long as I deign preserve it thus.
              • Sounds good (Score:3, Funny)

                by msimm (580077)
                Worked for the cows!
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Firehed (942385)

                Probably none. They're fat, not muscular. Eating bodybuilders, on the other hand, may pan out in a crisis.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by PopeRatzo (965947) *

                Think of how many starving people 1 fat person would feed. It is like recycling food.

                So, you don't care about what that's going to do to the cholesterol levels of those poor starving people.

                At least we can feed them lean people, instead. I have a neighbor who's out running every morning. He doesn't have much meat, but what's there is probably healthy, if a bit stringy.

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by Xyrus (755017)

                Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and it's OK for you.

                ~X~

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by jours (663228)

            Karma be damned: Yes, it has worked out better. Sixty-plus percent of Americans drink alcohol (CBS) while only about 7% use illegal drugs (White House), and that includes marijuana.

            The "war on drugs" has its problems to be sure, but it certainly does reduce drug use in the general population if only because it chokes the supply.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              It doesn't choke the supply.. at all.
              The only good the war on drugs has done is indoctrinated the public into believing that at all illegal drugs are evil and will steal your soul.

            • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Sunday November 15, 2009 @01:23AM (#30104016) Homepage Journal

              7% use illegal drugs (White House), and that includes marijuana.

              yeah, so consider the source. A recent survey here in NH found 11% freely admitting to pollsters that they smoke weed.

            • by amRadioHed (463061) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @01:38AM (#30104080)

              So you've forced some people not to use a harmless substance at what cost? Billions of dollars wasted. Thousands killed by gangs and cartels. Millions of fellow citizens locked up and living off of your money. Countless violations of constitutional rights in order to enforce the pointless bans.

              Prohibition is a disgrace and you've got to be either an idiot, or making money off it to argue otherwise.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by tsm_sf (545316)
                The only people for prohibition are crooked cops and gangsters. It hurts everyone else.
            • by Firehed (942385) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @03:30AM (#30104594) Homepage

              You consider the White House to be a valid source on illegal drug use stats? That sounds about as valid as a study from Mr. Kalashnikov showing that AK47s are the best machine guns available. I'd trust numbers from the DEA before the White House - they're just enforcing the policies, not trying to shove their importance down everyone's throats.

              Maybe it's a regional thing, but I'd guess it's closer to 20-30% around here. If you were to look only at people between 17-25, it's probably 60%+.

              Of course, it also depends how you quantify "use". Daily? Once a week? A month? A year? Ever?

            • by Shihar (153932) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @04:09AM (#30104706)

              I agree. It has worked awesome. At only the cost of a billions on dollars, literally hundreds of thousands of deaths, the funding of black markets, and the countless ruined lives for minor drug offenses, we have done a great job making it so that only about 10% of the population is criminal at any one time for using a basically harmless drug that ranks below caffeine and alcohol in terms of side effectives. Mission accomplished! We are winning the war on drugs!

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by bill_mcgonigle (4333) *

            We tried banning cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and a laundry list of other drugs as well. It hasn't worked out any better.

            That's simply not true. It's provided tremendous revenue for black ops government entities that don't officially exist, has kept the military industrial complex well fed, the US at a constant state of 'war' and provided cover for a creeping police state.

            It's worked out tremendously (unless you care about quaint things like rule-of-law).

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by uvajed_ekil (914487)
            We tried banning cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and a laundry list of other drugs as well. It hasn't worked out any better.

            Hah! You're busted! Only pot smokers talk about how "cannabis" laws are unjust, stupid, or just don't work. They're perfectly correct and some of their points can not be argued with, but the rest of us, the non-hippies how abide by our laws, say "marijuana." Don't worry, slashdot obviously does not require any pre-posting drug screens, so you're in the clear.



            PS wanna go out to the pa
        • In certain circumstances I think certain combinations are appropriately banned, like liquor store / car dealership for example

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Trepidity (597)

        Since is only looking at pre-mixed drinks; you're free to mix vodka and red bull if you want, and in fact bars are free to mix them for their patrons as well.

    • It's hard to blame them; alcohol is already dangerous and adding a stimulant can only make it worse. I bet they have trouble drawing the line between "powerful psychoactive drug linked to addiction and serious long-term health problems" and "same but legal for political reasons."

      Not that caffeine is particularly dangerous, but someone at the FDA probably gets buried in controversy every time a new alcohol product lands on his desk.

      • by fractoid (1076465) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @12:20AM (#30103686) Homepage
        I've had a couple of bad experiences mixing energy drinks with spirits, and I avoid it now. The problem is that enough caffeine can keep you up and mobile well past the point when you should have passed out from alcohol, resulting in you doing really, REALLY retarded things. And what you say about "powerful psychoactive drugs" is very true - alcohol is no better (or worse) than many things that will land you in jail for 20 years.

        I found the comment at the end of this article [news.com.au] very telling (even if it is about Australia, not the U.S.):

        "Dealers often advertise this drug as being like ecstasy but its properties are much more similar to cocaine and amphetamines," said Professor Iain McGregor, director of Sydney University's Psychopharmacology Laboratory. "Users get feelings of euphoria, it's dancey, it's happy, a bit trippy.

        "Unfortunately for people like myself and Paul (Dillon), who are here to tell people drugs are bad, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot that is bad about it."

        You heard it here first, folks. It's 'unfortunate' for the regulators when there "doesn't appear to be a whole lot that is bad about" a mood altering substance.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Brian Gordon (987471)

          You heard it here first, folks. It's 'unfortunate' for the regulators when there "doesn't appear to be a whole lot that is bad about" a mood altering substance.

          It's an untested drug. Its effects on the body have never been studied. People are taking it anyway, and regulators don't have an easy warning to tell users to get them to stop taking it.

          FDA-approved prescription medications have a long enough history of terrifying mistakes. If there's a place to take a stand for conscientious drug use, it's not here

          • by fractoid (1076465) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @12:46AM (#30103836) Homepage
            I'm not condoning the use of an untested drug with unknown side effects. There's no way in hell I'd try this new compound until it had a long track record and the full effects were well known. <flamebait>Of course, since it makes people happy, that will probably never happen in a clinical trial because it will be banned to appease puritans.</flamebait>

            What I was doing was strongly condemning the attitude of a publicly funded scientist who seems to believe that it is his duty to paint recreational drug use as a bad thing regardless of whether or not it is genuinely harmful.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by blind biker (1066130)

          To be honest, alcohol is one of the worst drugs for the fact that it's one of the most addictive (compare, e.g. with THC/Cannabis, Psylocibin/'Shrooms or LSD, which are not addictive), most toxic and socially most destructive (because it increases agressiveness).

          Yet alcohol is 100% legal in any amounts, and all other drugs (of which some are safe and actually beneficial (e.g. THC is a powerful antidepressant and apparently improves the condition of Alzheimer's patients)) are 100% illegal in any amounts.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by JimboFBX (1097277)
            I'd swap pot for alcohol any day of the week as person with booze in my freezer and as a person who's never done pot. Until then, I advocate a liquor license and the ability petition away an individual's license. Quite simply people shouldn't be buying nor supplying alcohol to alcoholics and the honor system we have here flat out doesn't work when an alcoholic by definition has something screwed up in their brain. Booze should also be introduced gradually at younger ages that predate driving (enforced by th
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          The problem is that enough caffeine can keep you up and mobile well past the point when you should have passed out from alcohol, resulting in you doing really, REALLY retarded things.

          Back in the mid-70s, when I was young, I made a great discovery: first, have a shot of tequila, mano a mano and back it up with a glass of Mexican Coffee. (Like Irish, but with tequila instead of Irish whiskey.) When that's empty, get a refill on both. The tequila gets you drunk and the coffee gets you wired, resulting in

  • And would my bartender get arrested?

    • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Saturday November 14, 2009 @03:12PM (#30099812) Homepage Journal

      Point-of-sale mixed drinks are specifically excluded. It's kind of arbitrary, yeah, but the FDA doesn't really have jurisdiction over that kind of thing. State and local health departments do, of course, and I can see some overzealous crusader trying to make a name for himself that way, but trying to get rid of classic caffeine-and-alcohol combinations like Irish coffee or rum and Coke would probably create too much of a backlash.

      Hmmm, I wonder about chocolate and coffee liqueurs? I can't see them banning Kahlua any time soon, either.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by palegray.net (1195047)
        Crap, now I've gotta chug as many of these vodka and Red Bull drinks as possible before the health inspector bursts in... better tell the bartender my home address now so she can tell the cabbie where I live later.
      • Unless we're talking about spanish coffees, alcoholic coffee drinks often have a lot less liquor than the drinks they are talking about. A shot of vodka in a 6 oz. red bull has tremendous side effects for a lot of people.

        My own informal research done in bars among friends who enjoy drinks like this, heart palpitations aren't unusual after a few vodka/redbulls or jager bombs. Mixing a moderate stimulant with a strong depressant just spells disaster.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by JesseL (107722)

          Potential disaster or not, as long as people are making an informed and deliberate choice I fail to see the need for government action.

          • by sopssa (1498795) *

            Exactly, and I fail to see how vodka+red bull would have tremendous side effects on people any more than other liquor.

            However one thing I've noticed is the major improvement in gaming performance, then things like this [youtube.com] happen.

          • by JohnBailey (1092697) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @12:44AM (#30103824)

            Potential disaster or not, as long as people are making an informed and deliberate choice I fail to see the need for government action.

            Possibly because the informed part is often missing.

        • by PachmanP (881352)

          My own informal research done in bars among friends who enjoy drinks like this, heart palpitations aren't unusual after a few vodka/redbulls or jager bombs. Mixing a moderate stimulant with a strong depressant just spells disaster.

          I'd imagine you'd have issues with heart palpitations after a few redbulls even without the vodka or jager. I would imagine alcohol probably reduces their judgement, and people maybe don't think "gee I've just shotgunned 4 energy drinks maybe I should slow down"

      • by Trepidity (597)

        Kahlua might skirt around the definition of "food additive" because its caffeine isn't actually specifically added? Hard to say for sure, but it's plausible that having caffeine because the drink includes coffee is legally distinct from adding synthetic caffeine, as most energy drinks do.

        • Yeah, that makes sense. And I doubt the amount of caffeine in a typical serving of Kahlua is significant. I certainly don't feel any more awake after I've had it. ;)

      • by CrkHead (27176)
        From the summary:

        'food additives require premarket approval based on data demonstrating safety submitted to the agency' -- and caffeine is a food additive

        Requiring premarket approval does not mean it is banned, just that you need approval. Before you market it.

    • by natehoy (1608657)

      Ignoring the legalities of this, and focusing on the identified risk, decaf would be OK.

      The problem as identified in the article, if I read it correctly, is that drinking megacaf beverages with large amounts of alcohol basically puts you in an "inebriated and energized" state. In other words, when you get completely falling-down drunk, the caffeine only mitigates the "falling down" part. It prevents you from passing out when passing out is a damned fine defense mechanism that keeps you from doing somethin

    • by 5pp000 (873881) *

      Yeah, it's pretty weird to read that the combination of caffeine and alcohol is not "generally recognized as safe". For how many centuries do you suppose people have been drinking Irish coffee?

  • Liquid Charge, Max Fury, Hard Wired, Vicious Vodka ... Anyone who sells stuff with names like that deserves to be shut down. Of course, anyone who buys the stuff deserves whatever happens to them, so maybe they should stay on the market. ;)

    • It's not particularly novel. Hurricane and Colt 45 (Lando Calrissian's beer of choice) are both "malt liquors".

  • How long has this been around? Probably as long as coke. So now they think it should be made illegal. Idiots.
    • Re:Rum and coke (Score:5, Insightful)

      by natehoy (1608657) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @12:31AM (#30103752) Journal

      How long has this been around? Probably as long as coke. So now they think it should be made illegal. Idiots.

      No, sorry, the summary is really short on vital information. Rum'n'cokes are not on trial here. There is a standard called GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) that can be met, and rum'n'cokes fit this standard. And no one "thinks they should be illegal" - this is an announcement of a start of an investigation, not an announcement of a new law. That investigation MAY lead to a law, but it may not.

      These are NOT rum'n'cokes they are talking about. "Sparks" (a Miller/Coors product), one of the products that is being reformulated, had as much alcohol as a can of beer but as much caffeine as a "stay awake" pill. The proportion of alcohol to caffeine is the issue. Think "rum'n'coke with a 'no-doz' pill chaser". Have a half-dozen of them and the caffeine will have you so hyped up you'll feel normal, or damned near it. A half a dozen rum'n'cokes would put you under the table - a half dozen of these little beauties would have you driving through the front door of the bar into the table while convinced that was your garage. Your coordination and function is shot to shit but you have enough energy to feel normal.

      This is largely the same risk as people mixing Red Bull with alcohol, except in this case breweries are setting the proportions. You can't regulate stupid - college kids will always do stupid things like this - but at issue here is whether to ask companies to refrain from making this proportion intentionally. Faced with the evidence in the investigation, several manufacturers have voluntarily (as in, not under coercion from the Government) discontinued this class of caffeinated alcoholic beverages because of the possibility of accidental abuse due to the fact that the caffeine-to-alcohol ratio in these beverages tends to conceal the effects of the alcohol.

      I'm not totally in favor of laws like this, but this isn't a law. At least not yet. It's an investigation that may or may not lead to a law. At that point, I'm still not sure about a law, but at least the risks would be identified and documented. Then manufacturers would probably just pull the product based on the information given before a law was even passed (and some of them already did!).

  • Jack and Coke? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Saturday November 14, 2009 @11:41PM (#30103382) Homepage Journal

    Since Coke is probably the single most common dark mixer, a lot of bartenders are going to be peeved over this one.

    • Fuck Jack! Jameson all the way!
  • by eggman9713 (714915) <{eggman97132007} {at} {mac.com}> on Saturday November 14, 2009 @11:42PM (#30103390)
    Ice Breaker:

    1.5 oz Vodka
    0.5 oz Cassis
    4 oz Energy Drink of your choice (I prefer NoFear or Amp in mine)
    4 oz Pineapple Juice
    Shake with ice, serve on the rocks in a martini glass.

    Come and get me, coppers!
  • by ProteusQ (665382) <dontbother@n o w here.com> on Saturday November 14, 2009 @11:50PM (#30103444) Journal

    Soon, we'll be smoking weed in a bar wondering how we can score some Jack & Coke.

    • Actually, I think this is the right way to determine legality of drugs. (And alcohol and caffeine are certainly drugs.) Determine whether a reasonable person can use the drug with a high confidence of safety. If yes, the drug is legal. If no, the drug is illegal for reasons of public health and safety.

      Jack and Coke are two consumables that are reasonably safe in their separate forms. If you mix them together then indeed you have alcohol and caffeine, but each active ingredient is more dilute than before. Th

  • Of 2,900 students in the study who had had a drink in the past month, 39% of those who had mixed an energy drink with alcohol had ridden with a drunk driver, compared with 23% of those who had a plain alcoholic drink. More than 12% of students who had consumed an energy drink with alcohol had been hurt or injured, compared with 6% who had consumed a plain alcoholic drink.

    causality is overrated anyway

  • by Cordath (581672) on Saturday November 14, 2009 @11:59PM (#30103526)
    There's a pretty huge problem with banning alcoholic beverages containing caffeine. The worst offenders are not drinks that come in a can from Coors, but mixed drinks, like Vodka Red-Bull's. You can make laws telling people not to mix their Vodka and Red Bulls together, but good luck enforcing them! (Honestly, you'd think common sense and a sense of taste would be enough...)

    The truly awful thing is that, if this kind of law was enacted, the drinks it would actually kill would be wonderful, rich microbrew espresso stouts and imperial coffee stouts. Outlaw Coors Light if you must, but DO NOT FUCK WITH GOOD BEER.

    Finally, the most damning argument against this sort of law of all is that stupid frat boys and girls will still wind up doing stupid things no matter what they're drinking. So what's the point eh?
    • by T Murphy (1054674) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @12:53AM (#30103878) Journal
      These beers are subject to the regulation of the FDA, meaning people are trusting the products are safe by assuming the FDA okays them. The FDA does not have sufficient scientific evidence as to whether caffeine + alcohol has additional problems to be concerned about- until they do they cannot approve these products. Products that are not regulated by the FDA aren't so much of a problem, as it is (or should be) understood that people are then solely trusting the person making the product. If government regulators let things slide "because lots of people are doing it already" we might still have x-ray machines in shoe shops and cure-all radioactive water.

      I don't see what all the commotion is about. We know how science works, and that is exactly what the FDA is trying to do. They assume the null hypothesis (new products may be unsafe) until proven otherwise- or at least until they know the risks and can make in informed decision. These manufacturers knew they had to get FDA approval, but didn't. This wouldn't be a problem if the beer companies did their homework.

      Most importantly, the FDA is saying it is illegal to make these products without approval not to make these products at all, ever. If the mix is as safe as people believe it to be, there won't be a problem.
    • For those that can't be bothered to read TFA: They are looking into banning the addition of caffeine to alcoholic drinks. They have said nothing about banning the use of coffee as an ingredient.

  • by Datamonstar (845886) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @12:10AM (#30103618)
    Let's see...

    "Take the juice from one bottle of that Ol' Janx Spirit.
    Pour into it one measure of water from the seas of Santraginus V
    Allow three cubes of Arcturan Mega-gin to melt into the mixture (it must be properly iced or the benzene is lost).
    Allow four litres of Fallian marsh gas to bubble through it (in memory of all those happy Hikers who have died of pleasure in the Marshes of Fallia).
    Over the back of a silver spoon float a measure of Qualactin Hypermint extract, redolent of all the heady odours of the dark Qualactin Zones.
    Drop in the tooth of an Algolian Suntiger. Watch it dissolve, spreading the fires of the Algolian suns deep into the heart of the drink.
    Sprinkle Zamphour.
    Add an olive.
    Drink...but very carefully."

    No caffeine, so it's safe (kinda).

  • Maybe they can just alter the packaging to have two sides, like dual-action drain cleaner or epoxy. Open the top and it mixes when you pour.
  • Absolute Truth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Groggnrath (1089073) <lukasdoyle431@msn.com> on Sunday November 15, 2009 @01:08AM (#30103950)
    I assure you, Jager and Redbull can come to no good end.

    Though I don't think it's any business of the FDA.

    Is it too much to ask for a society that lets people make their own mistakes? Must we be hemmed in by the moral and ethical mistakes of the stupidest amongst us? How long must the law protect us from ourselves? Have you as a public been fooled into thinking I'm unaware of the dangers of smoking, carousing, and general debauchery? I assure I'm well aware, and I don't care. Please stop making thing illegal for my own good. I'm old enough to choose to make my own mistakes. As should you be.
    • Re:Absolute Truth (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nEoN nOoDlE (27594) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @05:35PM (#30109104) Homepage

      It wasn't too long ago when the dangers of smoking or fast food weren't made aware to everybody. Some smoking ads advertised the health benefits of smoking. It's because of government intervention and regulation that you have the information you currently have, and are fully aware you're destroying your lungs and will most likely die of cancer far earlier than you would have otherwise by smoking. What makes the FDA looking into the dangers of smoking any different than the FDA looking into the dangers of caffeine mixed with alcohol? Do you trust your friendly, neighborhood, multinational alcohol corporation that much as to have them advise you of the health risks of the drinks they're trying to sell you? Making your own mistakes are one thing... having information about my health being deliberately hidden so that some corporation can make a few million dollars off of killing me is another thing altogether.

  • by thephydes (727739) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @05:04AM (#30104854)
    I drink coffee in the morning to get rid of the last effects of alcohol the evening before, and drink alcohol in the evening to get rid of the last effects of the coffee in the morning....
  • by bongk (251028) on Sunday November 15, 2009 @09:39AM (#30105282)

    So I read the article about the reports of negative effects. They surveyed college students, and a result (for example) was that students who mixed energy drinks and alcohol were more likely to ride with a drunk driver. Or put another way, students who rode with a drunk driver were more likely to mix energy drinks and alcohol. Maybe riding with a drunk driver gives a person cravings for energy drinks mixed with alcohol. Or maybe People who are stupid or have poor regard for their own health and safety are likely to make multiple bad decisions, like riding with a drunk driver and mixing energy drinks and alcohol.

    I'm not saying mixing energy drinks and alcohol is not bad, I'm sure it is, I'm just saying the study may be flawed.

Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...

Working...