Hacker News Reader

Yes to the moral dimension -- obscured by the health issue.

It's also about children. Most parents won't allow young kids to drink coffee, for instance. Childhood ought to be a preparation for freedom and addictions have the potential to limit that freedom before it even gets started.

Adults may weigh the benefits for themselves. Sometimes the result is indeed positive.

Do any states prohibit selling caffeine to minors?

Googling this: "law minor energy drink" shows that many places are considering it, although I have not seen any that actually passed such a law.

In Russia, "energy drinks" are forbidden for minors (< 18 years), but coffee, tea and coca-cola-like drinks (which AFAIK can have caffeine too) don't have such restriction.

Dosage and sweetness is surly part of the rationale. Coffee is not a cool, sweet, refreshing drink. Soda is but has around 50 mg of caffeine, while energy drinks have between 80-160 mg. Probable harm from high levels of caffeine much easier to hit with energy drinks.

Agree about the age issue... it does change the equation, especially if these companies are targeting their advertising toward younger kids.

I also appreciate that you brought up the issue of freedom. Dependencies do require freedom to be sacrificed, and perhaps that partially explains the aversion to them. When we need something, we give it power over us.

Yet a life without dependencies would be a life without friends and family, a life without valued people, places, and things. We give up total freedom for the benefit of forging deep and meaningful connections. And these connections are, in important ways, like any other dependency: when you lose someone you love, you go through a powerful kind of psychological withdrawal. But a life without love would be an impoverished existence.

I think it would be useful if we, as a society, stepped back and considered the nature of dependency, how our dependencies can hurt us and help us, and why certain kinds are valued over others.

Strangely, coffee is taboo for children, yet Coke is fine.

What world are you living in? The soda tax has been a hot issue for the last 10 years. Schools went from having soda sponsorships in sports to, "the horror"

I'm pretty sure your parent was talking about the caffeine in Coca-Cola, not the sugar.

But it's not like panicking over the sugar is coherent either; you see the same people praising fruit juice.

I don't know a single kid at my current high school or my past high school that was not allowed to drink coffee. I mean, kids literally come into school with starbucks cups and thermoses. My old school actually sold coffee in the morning to students. Furthermore, Caffeine in my opinion is a lot worse than nicotine, because it disrupts sleep a lot, and will cover up the symptoms of short term sleep well enough that someone will think they are fine when in reality they are chronically sleep deprived.

What age roughly do kids start drinking coffee in the US?

Idk, I remember kids talking about drinking coffee as early their 6-7th grade year. I don't think I remember anybody bringing in coffee to middle school though. I think most kids really started drinking coffee regularly in high school.

Im not against drugs by any stretch of the imagination, and not necessarily against addiction- despite the fact that dependency on anything must limit some aspects of your autonomy.

However! Nicotine itself is specifically not a good drug. In the vast majority of people, myself included, it induces cravings that quickly upgrade your brain's ACh receptors to the point where you no longer experience the enjoyable drug effects, and you're only left with a habit. Technology promises to limit the harm of that habit, which is terrific. But the habit doesn't provide any benefit to the vast majority of people, and technology hasn't made any progress on that front.

As someone else referenced: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine - there _is_ research that indicates that nicotine is not as addictive on its own as it is in cigarettes. And that's it's not, on its own, harmful.

And could you not say similar things about caffeine and caffeine dependence?

"And that's it's not, on its own, harmful."

I'm sorry to say, but that statement is incorrect. Even the gwern.net link has a section titled "Health Issues". I'll add that it is an immunosuppressant, which Gwern does not appear to mention (or I missed it when skimming the link).

No. It's a public health issue. while I would not be surprised if some have moral opinions about it, that's not the point. nicotine is objectively a toxic substance; it is an immunosuppressant and there is evidence mounting linking it with cancer. there is science to back this up. if there are other studies that paint a different picture, or other data that is pertinent, then reviewing and comparing the evidence we have so far is what we should be doing, and then shaping public policy based on the best evidence we have.

But to paint this as a moral issue -- and do things like compare it to caffiene -- seems like rhetorical trickery and which results in diverting the discussion.

science and public health are topics that companies like jl, etc., would very much like us all to avoid engaging in, so i am not surprised (though i am saddened) to see the parent post so highly voted.

> You can see this in the way we mix up terms like "dependency" and "addiction".

I don't believe many people have an issue with dependency. Nor do they have any issue teasing apart the two concepts. We do not have qualms with someone who is dependent on an insulin pump, tetanus shots, or HIV medication.

These days most fair people also wouldn't have issues with someone being dependent on marijuana, for example.

So I think the concepts are quite clear in people's minds.

When talking about an epidemic of vaping, people aren't worried about dependency. We're worried about addiction.

Is it, strictly speaking, possible for someone to have a healthy, beneficial relationship with nicotine? Sure. But the trouble is that nicotine doesn't give anyone a choice. You're going to be addicted whether it's good for you or not. That's the issue.

The reality is that human history is filled with death and misery caused directly by substance abuse. And we can see that history reflected in our public consciousness and policies.

And I believe that is rightfully so. I'm happy to agree with you in theory, that we should take a measured approach to substances to view their objective benefits. But reality makes that metered approach difficult.

Because the reality is that we have no real treatments for addiction. Which means we live in a world where a large percentage of people are addicted to substances they probably wouldn't want to be on if given the choice. And of those people, most will have degraded quality of life, some will commit violence against others, and some will die.

So in this world we live in today, I can't fault people for having prejudice against addictive substances. And in many ways I view that prejudice as helpful.

I certainly don't agree with the way we've waged war on drugs (at least in America). But I don't disagree with the reasons, and I don't view a prejudice against addictive substances as "knee-jerk" but rather a well informed policy birthed from a long human history of pain and suffering at the hands of these chemicals.

(P.S. Re: the war on drugs; the crux of the issue is that we demonized not only the chemicals but also the victims of the chemicals. It is the former that I have no qualms with. It is the latter that has lead the war to perhaps cause more harm in itself than the chemicals ever did. But I'm really not trying to incite a discussion on those topics.)

> But the trouble is that nicotine doesn't give anyone a choice. You're going to be addicted whether it's good for you or not. That's the issue.

If something's good for you, you're per definition not addicted to it. That was the main point of the post you responded to.

I know people who can enjoy the occasional cigarette. Are they addicted in your opinion? Nicotine is also used extensively by people to self-medicate emotions. Are they all addicts? Would they all be better off if they didn't smoke? Some would, some wouldn't. Who are you to tell?

Great article, thanks for sharing. Having quit cigarettes many years ago now, I can absolutely relate. I spent the first couple of years fighting myself (mentally and emotionally) on a daily basis, stuck on the fact that I was deprived. Eventually the feelings and cravings subsided, but I still felt like I had lost something. The key and lock analogy were indeed perfect. I didn't feel like myself. I had trouble talking to others. I felt less intelligent. I developed some social anxiety. I often wondered if I was self-medicating through nicotine and if I'd never be the same.

My dependency on chemicals never really went away, but I found a better way to feed it: exercise. Working out gave me that little boost of whatever it is, je ne sais quois, that made me feel more confident, more comfortable in my own skin. It wasn't the same at first (and at this point, I'll never know if I'm back to "baseline"), but for me at this time in my life, it's enough.

It's funny because objectively, life is so much better post-smoking. You don't smell, you don't have mandatory breaks, airplane rides aren't hell, family and friends don't complain, etc etc etc. And yet, while I don't miss smoking, I can distinctly remember all that trouble being worth it at the time.

I agree. I am very dependent upon matcha green tea. If I don’t have at least two cups per day, I feel terrible. But when I do take it daily, it provides an incredible amount of clarity and energy. I’ve come to accept the downsides - and there are always downsides - because overall, it’s a net positive in my life. I don’t doubt there are people in similarly positive but dependent relationships with far harder substances.

what brand / dose do you drink? looking to switch off coffee to something more benign

I don’t remember what I drink right now, but it’s about $16 for a tiny tin at Sprouts, which is very expensive (Edit: it’s Aiya Ceremonial Grade). I’m planning on ordering some from a supplier who ships directly from Japan soon - likely O-Cha. I’ve had their sencha and it’s fantastic, looking forward to trying their matcha.

As for dose, I measure 1tsp (measuring, not table) per cup. I have one or two cups per day. But I drink it more western style than most would.

I’m trying to wean off my one and only cup of coffee first thing in the morning. Coffee makes me jittery and gives me reflux. Tea makes me alert but calm in the most pleasant and bizarre way, and doesn’t cause me reflux.

That’s a fascinating essay, thanks for sharing. I sometimes fret over my caffeine habit - in fact I’ve quit several times, enduring headaches and nausea, just to start again. But maybe caffeine is what would be prescribed to me anyway to optimize my productivity and happiness, and I should stop fighting it and feeling ashamed of “dependency.”

Just make sure your caffeine habit isn't masking unhealthy sleep habits.

Usually when I notice that my caffeine intake is going up, it's because I'm not sleeping enough for whatever reason, including staying up late to play video games.

The reason they go after nicotine is because kids use these vapes and become addicted to the nicotine in them, much of the time without wanting to do so. It is pernicious. It’s why cigarettes were demonized, but not banned. Cigarettes were doing everything that Juul and Co. are doing now, hooking kids, spreading because it’s cool and marketed to children. It’s kind of like rape. Hooking you without your consent, and taking advantage of the most vulnerable market, kids.