Coke should sue them for trademark infringement.

In my commercial fishing days it was not uncommon, in the late afternoon, for me to brew a fresh pot of coffee and power-slurp the whole thing in an effort to both stay awake and stay safe.  Sleep deprivation was a real enemy, since you would average 4-5 hours a night, and fitful rest at best (hard to "let go" when you're drifting 35 miles off-shore, with a single, tiny, flashing strobe, and a radar reflector that seldom stayed attached to the mast as your only warning system.)

Anyway, the coffee would give me a boost, but the cranks it brought on made it almost not worth the effort.  Uncontrollable shaking, dry mouth and dry heaves, and the ultimate nerve-crushing crash after the buzz made me wonder if there wasn't a better way to approach the problem.  For many, there was.  

It was common knowledge in the fleet that many skippers/crew favoured a drug-induced method of dealing with the rigors of the job.  Cocaine was the favourite, and while many a fortune was made at sea, many were also lost on land when a jump-starter became a must-have.  The road to ruin can often begin as a short-cut alleyway.

But back to these "energy" drinks.  I confess to never having tried any, but they might have been the answer in my old days on the briny.  A medium energy boost in a small can might have given me the needed shot without the attendant downsides.  As for the incredibly naive name of this particular beverage, why, Mr Sniggering Marketing Twit, do you think cocaine is synonymous with cachet?  Oh yeah, because you're a fucking idiot.

From the first link in the w/up:
We created Cocaine, in large part, because those that analyze the energy drink industry itself described energy drinks as "Speed in a Can" and "Liquid Cocaine." We thought, Why beat around the bush?" Why not just call an energy drink what is already being alluded to.

Because it's dumb - bordering on inexcusable, really. An outrageous name that flips the bird at The Man® may score some early, limited success with teens and those who enjoy tweaking authority figures, but as a long-term marketing strategy it's a loser.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

Semtex.

It was awful: in bad taste, and nasty tasting.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

So, I work in a hipster bar here in Portland.  We don't sell energy drinks of any brand.    (Disclosure:  I enjoy Red Bulls and their knockoffs plenty of times a month.)

The reason is that a majority of people who order energy-type blends with their alcohol tend to be either A) frat boy/sorority girl types;  B)  drunken preppies;  C) folks whose money we don't want.  

I'm not saying that anyone who imbibes energy drinks is an annoying preppie,  but I am saying that people who order such drinks in pubs usually tend to represent that stereotpye, which is why my bar, and several others don't bother to carry the stuff.  

As far as the rest of the discussion goes,  I'm totally in favor of these type of drinks, but I would propose that this particular brand name (Cocaine) is dumb, since we all get it--no need to manufacture a temporary scandal when there is profit to be had.  

I'm a grad student, with the irregular schedule and feast/famine workload that that entails. Some weeks I have plenty of time, some weeks I'm trying to grade a hundred essays, study for a mid-term and write two papers. Those weeks, sleep is usually deemed less important than other priorities. I've tried a few different options - iced tea (in large quantities), coffee, energy drinks, and traditional cola. Of those that I've tried, coffee seems to work the best for caffeine delivery (although the side effects, as keta noted above, can be nasty. I haven't noticed any appreciable difference between the boost I get from coffee and the boost I get from an energy drink (and indeed, the coffee seems to take effect quicker). Does anybody have an alternative view or experiences on this? And any suggestions on legal stimulants?