AntiPoleez: "No One Will Know that You've Been Drinking"
The Latest Marketing Assault on Public Safety
Sen-sen gum was a common masking agent for alcohol on the breath back in the day, and over time breath sprays have been used with the intent of masking alcohol on one's breath to avoid a driving under the influence (DUI) charge. There are also more proactive - and socially conscious - ways to avoid such an arrest, such as personal breathalyzers that will tell the user their blood alcohol count presumably to prevent that person from driving when legally intoxicated, or to simply not drive after having been drinking.
RNY Group of Brooklyn markets this Swiss breath mint that reportedly acts by absorbing odors. While the mints work on such oral nasties as tobacco and food by absorbing those odors, it apparently works pretty well with alcohol as well. Combined with the name "AntiPoleez," the intention behind the product becomes quite clear: lure consumers into a false sense of confidence that they can beat a DUI conviction by using the product. The thinking goes that if evidence of alcohol consumption has been absorbed by the AntiPoleez mint, the Police may not administer a breathalyzer.
What the overt marketing will have consumers believe is that AntiPoleez will give the user the chance to avoid a breathalyzer test. However, it is not that great a reach for consumers to hear a meta message of invincibility (particularly those who are wont to drink and drive in the first place), believe they could take a police administered breathalyzer test, and achieve a negative result, giving them de facto rebuttal of the state's presumption of intoxication in court.
Breathalyzers work by measuring the levels of alcohol in the lungs, and therefore while AntiPoleez may absorb the alcohol odor from the mouth, it cannot reduce the level of alcohol coming from the lungs, despite the company's description of how the mint works from the AntiPoleez website: "The unique combination of components work to increase the consumption of odor producing molecules by the epithelium of the mucous coat of the upper respiratory passages resulting in clean, fresh breath." There is no indication that statement has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Drivers are not required to take a breathalyzer test -consequences for refusing the test vary state by state, but constitutional issues prevent the governments from forcing drivers to take the test. It is with positive test results that drivers are most frequently found guilty.
The company has issued a press release designed to capitalize on the controversy and to play up public safety officials' concern for their ability to effectively detect the presence of alcohol, while acknowledging a conflict of ethics and marketing. The company goes so far as to discuss the public controversy and "buzz" around the marketing, all while mentioning the product name 21-times in the 650 word press release which includes information on how to buy the product and how to become a distributor for it.
Published by Mo Morrissey
Mo has a lifetime of experience as a suffering Red Sox fan, but is a general jack of all trades. View profile
- U.S. House Approves Collective Bargaining for Fire Fighters, Police, and Public S...
- Youths Learn About Public Safety and Judicial System
- DTV Switch Puts America at Risk; Public Safety Compromised?
- Audit Suggests an End to the Position of "Director of Public Safety"
- Public Safety Day for Kids in Lafayette, Colorado
- Criminal Profiling and Public Safety
- Water Treatment: Disinfecting Alternatives and Public Safety
