4 ms·
> They are, however, still extremely addictive. Isn't every stimulant? I'm reluctant to ban things on the basis of their addictive potential without considerin
by tastygreenapple 7y ago
> They are, however, still extremely addictive.
Isn't every stimulant? I'm reluctant to ban things on the basis of their addictive potential without considering the consequences of the addiction. I'm pretty sure at least half the people I know need coffee in the morning, but I don't think that means we should ban caffeine. I don't see nicotine as objectively better or worse than caffeine so it's unfortunate that one is the target of legislation and one flows like the manna from heaven in most gathers of people.
Additionally, I think there's a 'good' in letting people choose the stim that works best for them. I personally prefer amphetamine, others prefer coffee, some people find comfort in nicotine.
- dvtrn 7y agoI've always kind of pondered why so many things get banned or receive strong, moralizing scrutiny under the auspices of "addiction" while coffee/caffeine remains the uncontested king of addicting commoditized chemical compounds. Open mind here, but can someone elucidate this to me? It came up once in a rather intense discussion with my father in my teens once I discovered the devil's lettuce (cannabis) and my curiosity has yet to be abated by a convincing enough take on the matter.
- alexmat 7y agoSocial class divisions. Vaping is seen as lower class. Coffee has always been a white collar stimulant. Weed is becoming more upscale and thus more accepted. Meth and crack are for poor white and black people. Cocaine is for bankers and trendsetters so it tends to have lighter sentences and lenient enforcement. Alcohol depends on the form it takes, wine vs four loko.
- WalterSear 7y agohttps://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/recent-research-sheds-new-light-on-why-nicotine-is-so-addictive/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/recent-res...