Against Caffeine

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Take pot this time for an example.
Contrary to your ass umption about me, I'm not a Mormon, and occasionally smoke pot here-there.

Do you have to smoke a lot of pot, for a long time to reap any repercussions?
No, a little pot will damage you a little, and a lot a lot.

My ex was a pot smoker, and after smoking it with her a few times a week, over the course of several weeks, I noticed my lung capacity was slightly diminished, it was a little more uncomfortable to breath, I hard a harder time breathing, and as far as I know, I have no preexisting condition that'd make me more susceptible to such things, no asthma, etcetera, my lungs are normally in good condition.

Now guys like Joe Rogan might have better lungs than many-most people, cause even though they smoke pot, they hike, jog, workout (so long as they don't exercise in excess or use steroids or too many supplements), but it's an even thou, they'd probably be even healthier if they gave up pot entirely, particularly if they're chronic consumers of the stuff.

I don't believe there's any strong evidence that pot is bad for your lungs. Regardless, even though that might sound intuitive, I don't think health works like a stat in a video game. There's no gurantee that a person will suddenly be healthier if they ceceed their marijuana usage, because there are other factors to consider. Maybe pot will reduce his stress-levels to such a considerable degree, that any adverse effects are outweighed by the health benefits gained from that. Maybe the person in account gains extra motiviation, and hence excercises more than he would.

I think there are certainly drugs we could say have such adverse effects, we can reasonably say that in any given scenerio they should not be used. I don't think that pot, caffeine or even alcohol is one of them.

Then I take it you have either never smoked pot, or known anyone who has, or sorry to say, you must be delusional.
We can argue over how bad it is, or in what ways, but it's plainly obvious that it is.

I've seen studies on pot that go both ways in terms of the lung thing. But no, I've never smoked pot myself. You shouldn't project personal anecdotes to make such a claim anyway.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Naw what is it is playing dumber than you are, or devil's advocate.

I don't think you know what 'playing devil's advocate' means; Your point "If you can't go one day without it without feeling dreadful" cannot be led to the conclusion "how can it be good for you" because we know there are existing counterexamples to that conclusion.

Besides the fact that not everyone feels 'dreadful' going a day without caffeine

We all already know, or ought to know what the context was, there was no need to provide it.

Then you shouldn't have made a point, and acted like a certain conclusion can be made off of that point. The point of a counter-example is to show how a statement is mute solely based off its premise.

[Harbal]

"I'd rather see more people do just about any drug, even alcohol than coffee."

Unless you like to see people in a state of misery, that's a pretty dumb thing to say, henry.

[Gloominary]

I like how I just completely destroyed all integrity this so-called 'Dr' had and you're still adamant to defend him. You don't even acknowledge the brutal raping that just occurred. You just keep shouting out your propaganda, despite the main source of your propaganda being totally debunked in front of you.

I'll have to look further into this link you posted to see if/how badly I was 'raped'.

Not you, the author of "Caffeine Blues" you sourced for many of your points. Assumable it's also the main driving force for you contention with caffeine, yes? You already replied to the comment where I quoted the key info about him, did you even read any of it?

He got his 'degrees' from an unaccredited college that was later shut down due to illegal activity. He also sells his own formula, which just so happens to 'combat' the negative effects of caffeine. That guy is a scam artist

It's not the main driving force, but it's one of them.
Like I said I'll look further into it.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Maybe next time, you should actually read what you're replying to?

[Gloominary]

I don't believe there's any strong evidence that pot is bad for your lungs. Regardless, even though that might sound intuitive, I don't think health works like a stat in a video game. There's no gurantee that a person will suddenly be healthier if they ceceed their marijuana usage, because there are other factors to consider. Maybe pot will reduce his stress-levels to such a considerable degree, that any adverse effects are outweighed by the health benefits gained from that. Maybe the person in account gains extra motiviation, and hence excercises more than he would.

I think there are certainly drugs we could say have such adverse effects, we can reasonably say that in any given scenerio they should not be used. I don't think that pot, caffeine or even alcohol is one of them.

Then I take it you have either never smoked pot, or known anyone who has, or sorry to say, you must be delusional.
We can argue over how bad it is, or in what ways, but it's plainly obvious that it is.

I've seen studies on pot that go both ways in terms of the lung thing. But no, I've never smoked pot myself. You shouldn't project personal anecdotes to make such a claim anyway.

I look at everything: my experiences, interpretations, other peoples experiences, interpretations, especially ones that seem credible, and alt research, and mainline.

[Gloominary]

Maybe next time, you should actually read what you're replying to?

I did read a bit of it, I'll read more and see how much I can verify.

[henry quirk]

"that's a pretty dumb thing to say, henry."

I didn't say it...I was quoting Gloom.

[Harbal]

I didn't say it...I was quoting Gloom.

In that case I apologize unreservedly. It was a really dumb thing for Gloom to say.

[henry quirk]

"It was a really dumb thing for Gloom to say."

He's a coffee-hating commie...can't expect any better from his kind.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Maybe next time, you should actually read what you're replying to?

I did read a bit of it, I'll read more and see how much I can verify.

I have a feeling you'll choose to rationalize it away by just proclaiming "Big coffee is trying to bring him down!", or some such conspiracy bullshit. That seems to be your MO when confronted with something that goes against your claim

[Greta]

Coffee is overrated, I'd rather see more people do just about any drug, even alcohol than coffee.
If we're going to do drugs we should be smoking marijuana and taking LSD and shrooms, we'd probably have a more laid back, mellow, enlightened society.
Coffee turns people into lemmings, obedient workers.
If some other drugs expand consciousness, coffee narrows it.

The psychedelics don't suit everyone; some find them disturbing. Some people truly love being obedient lemming workers - diversity. They love their blinders and will furiously attack anyone who threatens them because those blinders provide the peace that some crave over freedom.

I used to joke at work that coffee was a performance enhancing drug and should be banned to prevent caffeinated workers having a competitive advantage over others. I'm personally more concerned about the increasing retreat from reason, logic and science in recent years than any drug.

I know, to each their own, at least to some extent, but still I'd sooner recommend psychedelics than coffee.

Why not both? Whether this is our only life or not, it's the only one that we h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶s̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶g̶o̶t̶t̶e̶n̶ remember, so why deny oneself interesting states of consciousness? Surely not due to laws maintained through commercial pressure from the booze industry.

I think the important - and most difficult - aspect of all of this is mindfulness, to listen to your body when it wants or complains.

[Walker]

I think the important - and most difficult - aspect of all of this is mindfulness, to listen to your body when it wants or complains.

Equanimity levels the playing field to where the venue of any particular state of consciousness is secondary and superfluous, a mere detail in the field of perception, which means that wherever you go, caffeinated or alcoholed or toked up or as straight as a church-lady before the afternoon dandelion wine, there you are, undistracted from presence of awareness. After all, we are the body, but not exclusively.

[Harbal]

He also sells his own formula, which just so happens to 'combat' the negative effects of caffeine. That guy is a scam artist

A cynic might suspect that Gloom had a vested interest in this enterprise, being as there doesn't seem to be any other logical explanation for creating such a ridiculous thread as this.

[thedoc]

He also sells his own formula, which just so happens to 'combat' the negative effects of caffeine. That guy is a scam artist

A cynic might suspect that Gloom had a vested interest in this enterprise, being as there doesn't seem to be any other logical explanation for creating such a ridiculous thread as this.

I don't expect that Gloom will admit to any such "vested interest" and he will continue to claim just a general interest in every-ones health.