| ▲ | ipaddr 2 days ago |
| So is caffeine. |
|
| ▲ | AshamedBadger56 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is always mentioned when people talk about addictive substances being widespread. However, I think the key thing to think about isn't whether somethings addictive or not, but if said addiction comes with significant negative consequences/attributes. I don't think you'll find many people saying Caffeine is GOOD for you, but it just doesn't have significant negative outcomes like Tobacco. |
| |
| ▲ | switchbak 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's lots of evidence for positive influences of Caffeine on the body (some negative as well), especially the brain. In particular, there's active and promising research on the neuroprotective effects for Alzheimer's [1] and Parkinson's [2]. "There is a wealth of accumulating biological, epidemiological and clinical evidence to support the further investigation of selective adenosine A2A antagonists, as well as caffeine, as promising candidate therapeutics to fill the unmet need for disease modification of PD." 1: https://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/13/6/967
2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33349580/ | |
| ▲ | sweetjuly 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Psychology in general tends to make the same distinction. There are lots of behaviors which may be considered abnormal but do not have a meaningful impact on the quality of life of the person or those around them, and so there little reason to pathologize it. The goal of medicine (and, in my mind, well-designed public policy) is to prolong quality of life and not to ensure everything adheres to strict standards. | |
| ▲ | sanktanglia 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | caffeine addictions are good for you? so i guess all of the people taking stomach meds are doing it for fun and not how much coffee wrecks your stomach. also the number of our teens/young adults addicted to energy drinks is insane and no one can argue that stuff isnt a net negative to the body | |
| ▲ | ipaddr 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nicotine has positive and negative effect tobacco is one delivery method. |
|
|
| ▲ | unshavedyak 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Huh, i should look at this. I've been an aggressive drinker for most of my adult life (2 pots a day at my height), but for kicks i decided to cut all caffeine for about 9 months. No real issues aside from very short term headaches, though even those i mitigated by gradually moving down in quantity. Aside from the headaches what addictive effects are you referencing? |
| |
| ▲ | ipaddr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Side effects of caffeine withdraw? Lack of focus, nervous, poor sleeping, vivid dreams. | | |
| ▲ | unshavedyak 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Huh, don't think i had any of those. Though arguably i had "Lack of focus", difficult to say how much is due to the lack of caffeine or due to undiagnosed ADHD though. Generally i felt fine. I'll keep it in mind, thanks |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ralph84 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And sugar |
| |
| ▲ | munk-a 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sugar in moderation is a fine thing the issue the US has is more focused on how pervasive sweeteners have become in what looks like savory food. A ban would be a very silly thing but at some point America needs an FDA with teeth to actually crack down on labeling requirements. | |
| ▲ | parineum 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sugar is required for biology. I'm no more addicted to sugar than I am to water, air or just being alive. | | |
| ▲ | gtowey 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I had a biology teacher who was fond of repeating " everything is toxic, it's just a matter of dosage" And it's true, you can die from water toxicity. Water and air are ubiquitous, so we've naturally evolved defenses against overdosing. Sugar has always been rare and valuable as a food source. In fact most organisms existence revolves around collecting enough chemical energy. It's only in the last 100 years that sugar has become cheap enough for many humans that overdosing is now a problem, and we have little in the way of evolved defenses that keep us from overconsumption. Sugar addiction is real. | | |
| ▲ | parineum 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Your last sentence is non-sequitur. The health implications of sugar consumption have no relationship to it being addictive (or not). | | |
| ▲ | gtowey 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That's like saying the addictiveness of heroin has no bearing on its health implications. It is the literally the most important aspect to consider. Without addictiveness, it wouldn't have such a large impact. |
|
| |
| ▲ | BigTTYGothGF 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is in the same category of statements as "ACTUALLY, everything in food is a chemical". | | |
| ▲ | parineum 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The parent was the same category of statements as, "I don't eat food that has chemicals." While they sprinkle it a chemical based, flavor enhancing, preservative. | | |
| ▲ | BigTTYGothGF 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In both cases, you know what's meant by "chemicals" (the broad category of things like preservatives, colorings, and similar, that you find in lists like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number) and "sugar" (refined white sugar, corn syrup, and similar that are added to foods one would not traditionally expect to have that). |
| |
| ▲ | breezybottom 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which is true. The idea of "chemical-free" food and water is absurd. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | These are incredibly reductionist arguments y’all are engaging in. | | |
| ▲ | rithdmc 2 days ago | parent [-] | | How so? Sugar is having taxes added in many jurisdictions due to the health effects & habituation it can cause. | | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Different things are bad in different ways and need to be handled differently. You can’t functionally just go “both can be addictive and kill people therefore your argument is moot.” You’ve removed all qualifiers and context. To compare them is to respond to a discussion on the threat of guns with some point about people weaponizing their cars and running people over because both can cause bodily harm. I think we can both agree that comparison strips all context and nuance from most conversations about guns OR cars and makes it difficult to talk about either in productive ways outside of the narrow/niche discussions. TL;DR: this comparison spikes the conversation. Sugar and kratom do not present enough analogous health issues or enough of the same types risks to those around you to warrant lumping them together like that. | | |
| ▲ | rithdmc 2 days ago | parent [-] | | We're talking about dangerous substances you can buy OTC, and the health implications of those. Of course kratom and sugar fall into that bucket. | | |
|
|
|
|
