3 ms·

I have the same issue, and it originally comes from soft-drinks like Cola, and now I have to drink tons of coffee just to not have headaches and withdrawal synd

by rvnx 3y ago

I have the same issue, and it originally comes from soft-drinks like Cola, and now I have to drink tons of coffee just to not have headaches and withdrawal syndrome. If caffeine was illegal you and I wouldn't have acquired such addiction, so there is a very big + to prohibition; it will prevent future generations to fall into the same trap. Maybe making a law that forbids selling drinks containing caffeine to kids could be a good start.

kerkeslager 3y ago
> If caffeine was illegal you and I wouldn't have acquired such addiction, so there is a very big + to prohibition This hypothetical is not in evidence.
- rvnx 3y ago
  If no caffeine then no addiction to caffeine. You don't get an addiction to a substance that has never been near your body.
  - tomca32 3y ago
    Yeah but legality has nothing to do with that. A whole lot of people put a whole lot of illegal stuff into their bodies every single day
    - rvnx 3y ago
      > Yeah but legality has nothing to do with that. Making a product legal increases its availability, affordability and reach. So, the number of people exposed.
      - noarchy 3y ago
        >Making a product legal increases its availability, affordability and reach. So, the number of people exposed. Really, a prohibition argument made with a straight face? North American governments famously failed to maintain a ban on alcohol. How well do you think they'd fare with trying to ban sales of caffeine, given it's reach is greater (and far more socially-accepted) than alcohol?
        rvnx 3y ago
        Much better, because alcohol can be made with any grocery store items (like fruits and bread for example) so nearly impossible to ban, whereas caffeine without coffee beans or tea leaves is going to be extremely challenging.
        noarchy 3y ago
        >Much better, because alcohol can be made with any grocery store items (like fruits and bread for example) so nearly impossible to ban, whereas caffeine without coffee beans or tea leaves is going to be extremely challenging. Don't forget the vast selection of caffeinated pop/soda, energy drinks, etc. You're talking about a wide ban here, as this is one of the world's favourite drugs, covering a very popular array of beverages. If you're daft enough to propose it, I suspect you'd be laughed out of the halls of legislatures. Regulation of caffeine levels in energy drinks and pop is probably an easier sell, and some jurisdictions already do this.
    - aranchelk 3y ago
      Moreover, legality doesn’t even necessarily imply reduced cost. I’ve heard anecdotally that in California illegally produced cannabis is cheaper: it’s not taxed and there’s no cost to meet regulatory compliance for the producers.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
Then how did I get addicted to all these illegal substances?
- rvnx 3y ago
  You got exposed to such substances because the law enforcement failed to apply the rules against controlled substances. Despite this, the fact that the substance is illegal or controlled, made that less people have been exposed (and eventually addicted) than if the substance was freely circulating. Singapore was well known to have a strong opium problem. Now they have death penalty, no opium problem anymore. Clear example: If cannabis cakes (space cakes) were legal, I'd consume them but they are not, and I do not trust + do not want to fund dealers. So I don't buy them. Another example: Alcohol is forbidden to 12 year old kids. Yes, some of them may find a workaround, and a way to buy it, but because of that you are still helping a large segment of the kids to not get early into addiction. If tomorrow you say to the kids that they can drink wine (in French schools it was possible before for kids!), then they are more likely to get addicted. Yes, there is still a small % that will get exposed, no solution covers 100% of the population, but if you can save 6 out of 10 addictions by regulating the substance, then you are doing a good job.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Just because you can effect health improvements by strict government controls, I don't think that means we should. > Now they have death penalty, no opium problem anymore. Hardly a policy that I think makes sense in the US. We could solve 6/10 instances of obesity by a strict governmental intervention into diets. I don't think that would be "doing a good job", even if the health outcomes would be improved. We could eliminate tons of cancers by banning both tobacco and alcohol. I don't think we should (as a non-user, I hate everything about tobacco; I could easily reduce my ~20 drinks/year to 0). We could eliminate a lot of greenhouse gas emissions and heart disease by banning the farming, sale, and consumption of animals. I don't think we should.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
kevinmchugh 3y ago
Caffeine is long term safe to use, tapering is done easily when its necessary (see my other comment on the thread, I tapered over 10 days with no side effects). And it's a stimulant. I was happily addicted to it for years and other than a couple withdrawal headaches when my routine got disrupted* the only ill effects was occasional morning crankiness. I expect I'll become addicted again at some point in the future. Probably in the winter with a nice hot mug on a snowy morning. I'm looking forward to it. I can't imagine any state or religion banning caffeine. It's the safest, most wonderful drug there is. *Any restaurant or convenience store could fix my headache for me.
- bjt 3y ago
  > I can't imagine any state or religion banning caffeine. Coffee and tea have been banned for practicing Mormons for a long time. Caffeinated soda was kind of an "extra credit" ban for decades until the church more recently started pulling back on that. https://www.npr.org/2016/01/03/461843938/can-mormons-drink-coca-cola https://www.npr.org/2016/01/03/461843938/can-mormons-drink-c...
- scotty79 3y ago
  > And it's a stimulant. It's not even that. It's just blocking the receptors that tell your brain that it's tired. You are still exactly as tired as you were, you just don't feel it. It's marginally less dumb than nicotine when ingested routinely.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    There are many tasks that don't require any particular mental acuity, but do require you to be awake. Caffeine will help with those. For anything where you'd be concerned if an idiot was trying to do it, caffeine is not a great idea.
  - autoconfig 3y ago
    It definitely is a stimulant: > Caffeine is a stimulant, which means it increases activity in your brain and nervous system. It also increases the circulation of chemicals such as cortisol and adrenaline in the body. https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/caffeine https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/caf... I'm pretty caffeine sensitive and I get a crazy buzz from just one cup of coffee. It's not just not feeling tired, I literally get high.
km3r 3y ago
Yet a majority of caffeine users don't get addicted, and the increased productivity and freedom seems well worth the trade off on prohibition. There are better solutions to addiction than making everyone else suffer.
- reissbaker 3y ago
  I think a majority of caffeine users are addicted, given the prevalence of idioms on shirts/mugs/etc like "don't talk to me until I've had my morning coffee," etc. Most coffee drinkers I know feel at the very least tired if they don't have a morning coffee, even if they got enough sleep; that lethargy is a withdrawal symptom from a stimulant. That being said it's a very socially acceptable addiction, and the withdrawal symptoms are non-dangerous (and unless you drink a lot of coffee daily, mild), so people may not feel it's an "addiction" in the same way they think of e.g. heroin, alcohol, etc. I agree it shouldn't be illegal, and that mildly addictive substances with safe withdrawal symptoms should be legal (i.e. not opiates, but marijuana, coffee, etc). Alcohol is a weird one! It's obviously horrible for you, addictive if you drink it enough, and the withdrawal symptoms are lethal, but our societies have socialized it enough that few enough people become alcoholics — and enough people want it — that bans are worse than allowing it legally, because the downsides of prohibition are a strong black market + gang/mob activities, whereas the downsides of legal alcohol are less widespread in their badness.
jliptzin 3y ago
Your inability to control your caffeine intake should not preclude me from legally buying coffee.
gameman144 3y ago
> If caffeine was illegal you and I wouldn't have acquired such addiction, so there is a very big + to prohibition This is true, but this argument can be made for anything with downsides. If cars hadn't been made legal, maybe commutes wouldn't be so bad. If TV hadn't been made legal, maybe people would get out and get more exercise. If the internet hadn't been made legal, maybe fraud would be less widespread.

by rvnx 3y ago

kerkeslager 3y ago

> If caffeine was illegal you and I wouldn't have acquired such addiction, so there is a very big + to prohibition This hypothetical is not in evidence.

rvnx 3y ago
If no caffeine then no addiction to caffeine. You don't get an addiction to a substance that has never been near your body.
- tomca32 3y ago
  Yeah but legality has nothing to do with that. A whole lot of people put a whole lot of illegal stuff into their bodies every single day
  - rvnx 3y ago
    > Yeah but legality has nothing to do with that. Making a product legal increases its availability, affordability and reach. So, the number of people exposed.
    - noarchy 3y ago
      >Making a product legal increases its availability, affordability and reach. So, the number of people exposed. Really, a prohibition argument made with a straight face? North American governments famously failed to maintain a ban on alcohol. How well do you think they'd fare with trying to ban sales of caffeine, given it's reach is greater (and far more socially-accepted) than alcohol?
      - rvnx 3y ago
        Much better, because alcohol can be made with any grocery store items (like fruits and bread for example) so nearly impossible to ban, whereas caffeine without coffee beans or tea leaves is going to be extremely challenging.
        noarchy 3y ago
        >Much better, because alcohol can be made with any grocery store items (like fruits and bread for example) so nearly impossible to ban, whereas caffeine without coffee beans or tea leaves is going to be extremely challenging. Don't forget the vast selection of caffeinated pop/soda, energy drinks, etc. You're talking about a wide ban here, as this is one of the world's favourite drugs, covering a very popular array of beverages. If you're daft enough to propose it, I suspect you'd be laughed out of the halls of legislatures. Regulation of caffeine levels in energy drinks and pop is probably an easier sell, and some jurisdictions already do this.
  - aranchelk 3y ago
    Moreover, legality doesn’t even necessarily imply reduced cost. I’ve heard anecdotally that in California illegally produced cannabis is cheaper: it’s not taxed and there’s no cost to meet regulatory compliance for the producers.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago

Then how did I get addicted to all these illegal substances?

rvnx 3y ago
You got exposed to such substances because the law enforcement failed to apply the rules against controlled substances. Despite this, the fact that the substance is illegal or controlled, made that less people have been exposed (and eventually addicted) than if the substance was freely circulating. Singapore was well known to have a strong opium problem. Now they have death penalty, no opium problem anymore. Clear example: If cannabis cakes (space cakes) were legal, I'd consume them but they are not, and I do not trust + do not want to fund dealers. So I don't buy them. Another example: Alcohol is forbidden to 12 year old kids. Yes, some of them may find a workaround, and a way to buy it, but because of that you are still helping a large segment of the kids to not get early into addiction. If tomorrow you say to the kids that they can drink wine (in French schools it was possible before for kids!), then they are more likely to get addicted. Yes, there is still a small % that will get exposed, no solution covers 100% of the population, but if you can save 6 out of 10 addictions by regulating the substance, then you are doing a good job.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Just because you can effect health improvements by strict government controls, I don't think that means we should. > Now they have death penalty, no opium problem anymore. Hardly a policy that I think makes sense in the US. We could solve 6/10 instances of obesity by a strict governmental intervention into diets. I don't think that would be "doing a good job", even if the health outcomes would be improved. We could eliminate tons of cancers by banning both tobacco and alcohol. I don't think we should (as a non-user, I hate everything about tobacco; I could easily reduce my ~20 drinks/year to 0). We could eliminate a lot of greenhouse gas emissions and heart disease by banning the farming, sale, and consumption of animals. I don't think we should.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

kevinmchugh 3y ago

Caffeine is long term safe to use, tapering is done easily when its necessary (see my other comment on the thread, I tapered over 10 days with no side effects). And it's a stimulant. I was happily addicted to it for years and other than a couple withdrawal headaches when my routine got disrupted* the only ill effects was occasional morning crankiness. I expect I'll become addicted again at some point in the future. Probably in the winter with a nice hot mug on a snowy morning. I'm looking forward to it. I can't imagine any state or religion banning caffeine. It's the safest, most wonderful drug there is. *Any restaurant or convenience store could fix my headache for me.

bjt 3y ago
> I can't imagine any state or religion banning caffeine. Coffee and tea have been banned for practicing Mormons for a long time. Caffeinated soda was kind of an "extra credit" ban for decades until the church more recently started pulling back on that. https://www.npr.org/2016/01/03/461843938/can-mormons-drink-coca-cola https://www.npr.org/2016/01/03/461843938/can-mormons-drink-c...
scotty79 3y ago
> And it's a stimulant. It's not even that. It's just blocking the receptors that tell your brain that it's tired. You are still exactly as tired as you were, you just don't feel it. It's marginally less dumb than nicotine when ingested routinely.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  There are many tasks that don't require any particular mental acuity, but do require you to be awake. Caffeine will help with those. For anything where you'd be concerned if an idiot was trying to do it, caffeine is not a great idea.
- autoconfig 3y ago
  It definitely is a stimulant: > Caffeine is a stimulant, which means it increases activity in your brain and nervous system. It also increases the circulation of chemicals such as cortisol and adrenaline in the body. https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/caffeine https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/caf... I'm pretty caffeine sensitive and I get a crazy buzz from just one cup of coffee. It's not just not feeling tired, I literally get high.

km3r 3y ago

Yet a majority of caffeine users don't get addicted, and the increased productivity and freedom seems well worth the trade off on prohibition. There are better solutions to addiction than making everyone else suffer.

reissbaker 3y ago
I think a majority of caffeine users are addicted, given the prevalence of idioms on shirts/mugs/etc like "don't talk to me until I've had my morning coffee," etc. Most coffee drinkers I know feel at the very least tired if they don't have a morning coffee, even if they got enough sleep; that lethargy is a withdrawal symptom from a stimulant. That being said it's a very socially acceptable addiction, and the withdrawal symptoms are non-dangerous (and unless you drink a lot of coffee daily, mild), so people may not feel it's an "addiction" in the same way they think of e.g. heroin, alcohol, etc. I agree it shouldn't be illegal, and that mildly addictive substances with safe withdrawal symptoms should be legal (i.e. not opiates, but marijuana, coffee, etc). Alcohol is a weird one! It's obviously horrible for you, addictive if you drink it enough, and the withdrawal symptoms are lethal, but our societies have socialized it enough that few enough people become alcoholics — and enough people want it — that bans are worse than allowing it legally, because the downsides of prohibition are a strong black market + gang/mob activities, whereas the downsides of legal alcohol are less widespread in their badness.

jliptzin 3y ago

Your inability to control your caffeine intake should not preclude me from legally buying coffee.

gameman144 3y ago

> If caffeine was illegal you and I wouldn't have acquired such addiction, so there is a very big + to prohibition This is true, but this argument can be made for anything with downsides. If cars hadn't been made legal, maybe commutes wouldn't be so bad. If TV hadn't been made legal, maybe people would get out and get more exercise. If the internet hadn't been made legal, maybe fraud would be less widespread.