Read this hilarious blog post from a New York chef defending “Four Loko,” a controversial alcoholic energy drink that tastes like “malt liquor gummy bears.” I usually scoff at attempts to define our country’s essential ideological character, but this sort of thing gives me pause – maybe we are a nation of closet libertarians. Seriously, mess with the syntax and this is something Kuznicki could have written:

So, I drink a lot of four loko and its dope. That’s really all there is to it. I like gummy bears and I like alcohol that taste like malt liquor gummy bears. The whole crack down is comedy to me. I found this stuff earlier this year around March. I started seeing cans of it on the curb, mad people on the bus were drinking it, and the cans looked like sizzurp fucked an arizona iced tea. It was kinda crunk. I had one can and knew it was going to blow up.Four Loko gets you crunk for $2.50 and most people only drink 1 or 2. Its making news because people are ending up in the hospital as a result of BINGE drinking four loko but tons of people murk themselves for binge consumption of other things like cheeseburgers, cigarettes, and scientology. What’s worse? Four Loko or the Tea Party?

—

Politicians just want to find an easy hot button issue that they don’t need to actually read 300 page reports on to understand and can get the PTA/Soccer Mom vote for supporting. Ban alcohol targeted at kids, who wouldn’t agree to that? You put the word “children” or “kids” in the headline concerning a political position and its taboo. No politician in their right mind would oppose a four loko ban. But, I’m not a politician, I don’t have a constituency, and I think it makes no legal sense that this drink is being targeted.

On some Larry Flynt shit, I think a ban should be opposed. Banning four loko flies in the face of logical legal interpretation and the sole reason there is an argument to ban it is because what four loko promotes culturally (cheap booze) is an indefensible political position. Just like the prohibition of chronic in this country, there are so many things similar to four loko being permitted that it seems this is in danger of a ban because of the sub-culture surrounding it. Sometimes the law allows for cultural activities that conservatives oppose, but those activities don’t limit or endanger anyone else’s right to exercise their individual freedoms. So, logically, there is no legal reason why there should be a ban if we still believe in a social contract theory.

Link via Esquire’s interview with the guy, which is also pretty funny.

UPDATE: Reason has more on the Four Loko controversy.