seriously! like how do you become addicted to coffee, I drink it regularly but I can’t say I am caffeine addict or something. how one become a caffeine addict?
seriously! like how do you become addicted to coffee, I drink it regularly but I can’t say I am caffeine addict or something. how one become a caffeine addict?
No, it is not physical dependence. It is acclimation. A habit is not addiction.
Someone drinking coffee daily for years could stop cold turkey for a day, drink some water and take 2 doses of aspiring throughout that day and actually reduce their coffee consumption once resuming without realizing it due to increased efficacy returning to baseline. The person would go through that day normally despite the predicable headache from blood vessel dilation.
A cigarette smoker going cold turkey for a day does NOT have that experience. After the first hour or so every minute of the day would be thinking about needing a cig, and depending on the severity of their addiction could experience serious life-threatening withdrawal symptoms.
[Addicts] Anonymous meetings serve coffee and tea because it is not addictive. It never ceases to amaze me how insistent people are to defend this mistaken idea that caffeine is addictive and yet we’ll let teens drink it without restriction, and serve it to actual addicts.
Here’s an idea, if you genuinely believe caffeine is addictive start lobbying to set age limits to consumption, or protesting in front of Starbucks.
You very clearly have no knowledge of what the research on addiction says, because this is all complete and utter bullshit.
If physical dependence was the primary issue with addiction, weaning would work. Shockingly, it doesn’t.
Cravings aren’t physical withdrawal. They’re caused by your brain expecting a different balance of neurotransmitters than it receives. Your body also adapts in other ways to drugs to prevent them from killing you as you increase your dosage, but the entire reason you increase your dosage is because the prefrontal cortex is “designed” to decrease the stimulation of the same behavior as the habit is learned, and the goal of hard drugs (again, along with other thrill seeking behavior, and gambling) is to chase that high stimulation. That loop is why you constantly need more, and it’s the habit formation of that loop that defines addiction.
This is all very basic, well understood stuff. The actual low level details are hard to pin down, but the fact that addiction is habit formation caused by neurotransmitter fuckery isn’t something that’s debated by anyone relevant.
So well understood caffeine isn’t in the list of compounds forming addictions. You’re the ignorant one trying to equate a habit with addiction. I look forward to seeing you protesting in front of Starbucks and getting laughed at.
No, it’s the negative impact on lifestyle that defines addiction actually, but you can get addicted before even having formed a habit. Smoke a couple cigarettes the first day and you’ll have withdrawal the next. A couple hard drugs literally get you hooked first try.
Seriously, stop polluting this community with your ignorance.
Just want to chime in with a few things
First and most importantly - drop the attitude, please, everyone. We can have a civil conversation about this topic and disagree in a healthy way. You’ll never convince someone of anything by calling them “ignorant”.
Now, to the debate:
Whose list? Can you share your reference here? Is it the DSM?
I would argue that caffeine does have a negative impact on ones lifestyle. While it is substantially lighter than other substances, the inability to function normally without your morning cup of coffee is a bigger deal, in my mind, than most people realize.
And to your later point I do not believe we should be giving kids caffeine. They don’t need it and it starts an unhealthy relationship early. Of course, that’s just my opinion as a caffeine-avoider
Pg 482 of the DSM-V
Caffeine has a withdrawal syndrome, but is not something associated with substance abuse disorder. People mistake withdrawal for addiction when it is only half the story.
No, it actually isn’t. This perception that people are debilitated without a dose of caffeine is a cultural thing. A joke, or someone’s musing that caught on and grew to a belief supported only by the near instant relief from grogginess caffeine provides. The same effect can be achieved taking a cold shower, being startled, or taking a brisk run to get the body to an alert state again.
I do this every 3 months: take a weekend off from caffeine to reset blood concentration (half life of ~6 hours so assuming consistent daily usage the amount builds in the blood and efficacy drops as the body adjusts). It IS something I plan for, making sure it is a weekend I’ll be active and able to get a full nights rest. Hydrate well the night before, take 2 aspirin in the morning and 2 in the afternoon both days. Monday morning feels good as new.
That experience is NOTHING compared to attempting to quit smoking 1.5 packs a day (2 on weekends) for 10 years cold turkey. Half a day in and every thought is about smoking. “Where is the nearest cigarette?” “Buddy’ll spot me a smoke if I ask. Did I leave a pack in the glove box?” Your mind justifying why you can just have a puff, it’ll be fine! You get the shakes, and chills. Go without long enough and your lungs feel like they’re on fire and that burning/itch only grows and spreads throughout your whole body. This lasted for 3 months. After which I felt fine but still thought the scent of smoke was delicious and still had that nagging ‘It is safe to have a toke, you are all good now!’ for another year. That would have cost my job because I literally told my boss to “fuck off” when he said ‘I looked rough’ in the throws of agony at my post. I had shared my intentions and had the staff’s support so he just walked away smiling but that could easily have gone the other way absolutely.
People that think caffeine is an addiction don’t know what real addiction is like.
You’re clearly very passionate about this issue, but you’re arguing semantics and you are, at least from my reading of the DSM-V, not even correct.
You are against describing caffeine usage as an “addiction” because you claim it is not listed in the DSM-V as such, and yet the DSM-V clearly states that it doesn’t define “addiction” because it’s such an overused term.
From page 485 of a version of the DSM-V I was able to find online.
Also you claim “caffeine isn’t in the list of compounds forming addictions” in the DSM-V, and putting aside the fact that the DSM doesn’t use the term “addictions” as a diagnostic tool, the page you reference has caffeine right there near the top of the table with several serious diagnoses, although granted not substance abuse diagnoses. We shouldn’t discount a substance because one row of that table is unchecked. If it shows up, it’s there for a reason.
From page 482 of a version of the DSM-V I was able to find online.
Caffeine is associated, according to the above table from the DSM-V, with anxiety disorders, sleep disorders, substance intoxication, and substance withdrawal. You give an anecdote of how you handle the withdrawal symptoms even, yet somehow suggest that, despite having a special ceremony with dealing with a substance including taking medication, it is not a big deal just because it doesn’t have the same symptoms as nicotine withdrawal. You also hand-wave the complex biochemical reactions that make caffeine work saying a cold shower is equivalent, when it’s strictly not - a cold shower does not block any chemoreceptors unless your shower has some really wacky features mine doesn’t - and you can’t bring the DSM-V into a discussion unless you plan to talk clinically and consider the chemical pathways of the substance under scrutiny.
All that aside, you’ve correctly edited your original comment to state that you can’t get a substance abuse disorder from caffeine, and you misspoke when you said “addicted”.
So I don’t see why you’re still arguing with people here, nobody used the phrase “substance abuse”, they used “addiction” which is a colloquial term for excessive use of something. There’s no point to this discussion when, if you’re using the DSM-V, you should be in complete agreement with everyone.
Just let it go. According to the DSM-V, it is completely fair to call caffeine addictive in general discussion, and caffeine has real and serious effects on a persons biochemistry that you can’t just brush off because they aren’t as bad as meth.
I’m not just arguing semantics.
Addiction is shorthand for ‘Substance Use Disorder’. Having a headache if you stop drinking coffee is not why people attend [Addict] Anonymous meetings. Someone does not go to their doctor and says “I have a substance abuse disorder”. The line of introduction a speaker uses at those meetings is not “hi, my name is Cepho and I have a substance abuse disorder”.
I edited not to correct my usage of ‘addict’, but to correct others usage of the word specifically because it is overused and to correct the overusage the you yourself admit too and STILL ya’ll insist ‘no, I am addicted’.
No, you are not. You like coffee and if you stop drinking it you’ll have a headache for a day or two. Big woop. You won’t be seeing a professional that refers to the DSM-V for it. Several of the pharmaceuticals those professionals would use to treat actual disorders create side-effects when use is discontinued. ‘Most’ are not addictive to the point patients commonly stop taking them willingly despite being forewarned of the side-effects of stopping (no, I’m not referring to a return of disorder’ symptoms either). So having a withdrawal syndrome is not addiction. Figureidout
See, you’re doing it all again. The severity of one does not discount the severity of another. And “addiction” is not DSM-V defined.
Rarely does anyone go to their doctor and say “I have melanoma” either, they simply tell the doctor they have a weird mole. Part of the conversation with a professional is using common phrases and nomenclature to start the dialog and work towards a proper diagnosis. I’m sure if you told a psychiatrist “I’m addicted to caffeine” they would almost certainly understand what you mean.
I’m afraid I can’t really tell you what they say in those meetings. They are often highly religious processes and have debatable results, so I won’t be taking my clinical terminology from them.
The DSM-V admits to it, as well as the negative connotations of the word. If anything, people with substance use disorders should be inclined to avoid that word in order to prevent the negative connotations. If anything, you are actually doing them a disservice by telling us we should be calling them “addicts” when the DSM-V explicitly states that it is not a proper definition and that it has a negative bias against it.
Not for the headache, no, but for the several other diagnoses that can arise from usage of caffeine. Stop trivializing the issue, please. Caffeine is in the DSM for a reason - it is a drug with chemical and psychological effects.
But that’s your main sticking point, it seems. Your main issue appears to be that people shouldn’t call caffeine consumption an “addiction” - it is entirely semantics. It’s not a medical term, as we’ve said, so we may as well be arguing “gif” vs “jif” right now. It’s just nomenclature, it does not change the underlying issue of caffeine usage.
You are also arguing that caffeine is no big deal, which just seems like an oddly obtuse and head-in-the-sand take. Just because caffeine does not cause you to sell your kidney for a fix does not mean it has zero deleterious effects. Usage results in real consequences for people, even if they are relatively minor in comparison to harder substances. Having a two day headache from a beverage should not be normalized, in my opinion.
Never said it wasn’t. Addiction isn’t one of them though.
I agree with that at least, but you again ignore the salient point: withdrawal syndrome is not addiction. SUD replaced Addiction disorders from previous versions for your aforementioned reasons, but, anyone diagnosed with an Addiction disorder in previous versions wasn’t just suddenly cured. The definition was replaced with SUD, not considered gone and as such Caffeine addiction wasn’t in previous versions either.
As for all the other conditions listed for caffeine in the DSM. It is for diagnostic purposes: Can’t sleep? Are you anxious? Do these symptoms occur shortly after you drink coffee? Stop. Oh, and be sure to drink lots of water and pop a couple Paracetemol if you get a headache. Appointment over.
You are the one arguing semantic BS to avoid the salient points:
Why would I advocate banning an addictive substance exactly?
I don’t support hard drugs being criminalized.
So you support freely dispensing addictive substances to kids? Because there’s nothing stopping kids from buying coffee from Starbucks.