So is caffeine.
"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/
Aside from the headaches what addictive effects are you referencing?
Generally i felt fine. I'll keep it in mind, thanks
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.
The health implications of sugar consumption have no relationship to it being addictive (or not).
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.