I was talking to a friend of mine once about the USA, and how powerful we are as a nation. We have one of the strogest, if not the strongerst military in the world, and we are a very proud people, meaning we think what we want, when we want, how we want. Well, not too long ago, I was reminded about this conversation of how great we our country is when I went to work early that morning. I personally don't drink coffee, and through this, I am able to notice a lot easier about how dependend people are on coffee. As I was checking in, I saw this lady who was in great distress that someone had taken the last cup of coffee, and that there weren't anymore filters, so she couldn't make any more. (At about this moment, I was thinking that the worlds smallest violin should be playing her a sad sad song.) A few minutes later, I started to think about this, and thought that it was funny how people acted when they didn't get their coffee. This is when I connected this with the conversation I had had with my friend.
As a country, we are not as invincible as we seem. Far from it. If an enemy wanted to bring the US to its knees, all it would have to do is cut off suppy to the single most consumed beverage in the US. Because of how far more people drink coffee then those who don't, it could halt production of almost anything that we make, transport, and/or distribute. This would be because everyone who drink coffee wouldn't be able to function properly until later in each day, and for the rest of the day after, they would suffer from migrains, a result from coffee withdrawls. Truckers wouldn't be able to drive as long when delivering things across the country. More people would crash in the early and late hours of the day due to falling asleep, causing death, destrution, and delays for everything around them. No one would be able to think clearly causing even further delay in just about anything(except for all of us non-coffee drinkers). Then, after being played into this weakend state, we would be an open target for the picking of anyone who choosed. This may seem a little extreme, but that is how dependent people seem to be on coffee. Think about that the next time you drink or make a cup of coffee. (NOTE:If this happens to majorly offend anyone at all, for any reason, I am sorry. I had no intentions of doing so when writting this.)
So yeah I would miss it, The physical dependance, or withdrawl is less than a week, so the impact on Americas efficiency would not last long, and in that week we are declaring war on whoever took our Coffee.
The military is particularly addicted to coffee, and a drill seargent told me the title to that sad song playing on the worlds smallest violin between your thumb and forefinger: "My Heart Pumps Purple Piss for You"
Was he right?
I must admit that I relish the idea of an entire country, esp. America, being brought to its knees because we can't get our stimulant of choice. A nation of junkies. Oh glorious irony my Puritan, prudish, hyped up friends. I hope at least one person gets killed over the last couple tins of coffee in stores so that I can immediately lobby for its inclusion in Schedule I of the Drug Enforcement Act.
Or maybe everybody will just turn to meth and it won't matter, either way, quite amusing for me. Though I may choose to stay inside for that week or two of collective national withdrawals. Those junkies get cranky when they can't feed their monkey. Well, I guess that they'd be hypes or perhaps tweakers-lite, not junkies.
Fight your drug war without you morning coffee my DEA friends. Those coke smugglers aren't having any trouble getting going in the morning, if you know what I mean. With any luck you will all turn to alcohol to curb those awful withdrawal headaches and I can get any even bigger chuckle from you sloppy, likely bloody, slip ups rather than your unaware morning staggerings.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
It's funny to think of coffee as a strong addiction like any hard drug. But really, there are so many people who subsist on coffee on a day to day schedule. Without that normalcy, people would fall apart. Eventually, most people would move on without their wake-out drink, but I would have to think some wouldn't adjust for a long time.
Your disclaimer:
(NOTE:If this happens to majorly offend anyone at all, for any reason, I am sorry. I had no intentions of doing so when writting this.)
...I don't think you really need to worry about offending the coffee drinkers of America. The blog seemed quite honest to me, and not offensive at all. Then again, I'm a cappuccino drinker.
Well, I talked to someone about this a few days before I blogged this, and she got all pissy about it. I put it up there because of that incase there were anymore like her.
... Isn't cappucino coffee too?
----
If You Swear That There's No Truth And Who Cares, How Come You Say It Like You're Right? [Bright Eyes]
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
yeah. coffee was easier than typing "coffee, cappucino, latees, mochas, and what ever else there is" every time.
Eh, no country would do it. Many of our suppliers are at least partially owned by the United States, and there are enough other sources that if some country decided to do that, we could just stop offering to buy their coffee (or anything else they want us to buy) and stop giving them aid (which we do to a TON of countries, with no expectation that they ever pay back)
It kind of reminds me of someone I knew who lived in Washington state.
They had a professor that suggested that WA could leave the United States if President Bush were elected (this was back in 2000).
When asked why the united states would care about the will of Washington state, and upon what leverage the state would have to keep our military from taking it over again even if they decided to leave... their answer was that unless the united states complied with their demands, they'd withhold the apple crop.
such things may (though in my mind they don't) make sense on paper... in reality, they do tend to end up being laughable concepts that have no more relationship with reality than wondering how Mr. Coyote from the roadrunner cartoons manages to afford ACME gadgets to catch the Roadrunner, but not afford food.
It is true that people depend on the caffeine boost in the morning to get them going. But if our coffee supplies were ever cut, I think we would probably start consuming pop (or soda however you like to say it) in mass quantities. It will pretty much do the same thing.
___________________________________________________________________
"Is it true, said Candide, that people in Paris are always laughing?"
-Voltaire
Not to mention tea.
and, for a while anyway, they had caffinated unflavored water.
I've even seen gum with caffeine in it.
I admit that I drink coffee most mornings, tea on others.
In a big mug that says "I See Dump People"
Yeah, but in the morning, when its really cold (like 20 degrees or so) you want something warm, not cold, right? With the exception of tea, I don't think there are any drinks that have a large amount of caffine that are warm.
I think for quite a few it would causea crisis, but in general I think the american public is smarter than that. I do think tea and pop sales would soar if we 'ran out of coffee'. Anyway I have a belief that Starbucks is a work of the devil. Get millions of people addicted and then control them...brilliant. And what about drugs? Caffiene would really have to be the biggest gateway drug out there. AND there is no regualtion for who can buy it. :P
I think for quite a few it would causea crisis, but in general I think the american public is smarter than that. I do think tea and pop sales would soar if we 'ran out of coffee'. Anyway I have a belief that Starbucks is a work of the devil. Get millions of people addicted and then control them...brilliant. And what about drugs? Caffiene would really have to be the biggest gateway drug out there. AND there is no regualtion for who can buy it. :P
There's no such thing as a gateway drug. I don't mean to nitpick, it's just a dangerous idea that I would like removed from the vernacular.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
while a specific drug, in and of itself, may not get you to try others, it does lower your mental defenses, so that the people you're with are more likely to get you to TRY other drugs.
I've seen too many people decend from 'trying pot' to doing crack within a matter of a year for me to believe otherwise.
Pot is just the easiest, most available illegal drug. The first drugs that most people actually try are cigarettes or alcohol anyway. People who don't want to use other drugs aren't going to use them, whether they do marijuana or not, and no drug is so addictive that you are addicted on the first use.
People who don't want to do crack aren't going to do it just because they are high or smoke marijuana. People who do cocain aren't going to do heroin or crack if they don't want to. People do the drugs that they want to. People don't get addicted the first time that do anything. By definition an addiction is a pattern of use. Someone who doesn't enjoy crack isn't going to continue smoking it, and not everybody enjoys crack, and most people wouldn't even try it.
In other words it isn't the sort of inevitable linear process that the "gateway" theory implies. It's an inaccurate, damaging way to think of drug use. To treat one drug as a sort of entrance point to harder drugs, when it's really just much more available, is silly and unrealistic. The general misunderstanding and ignorance of the conservatives fighting a "war on drugs" is what has put drug policy in the horrible, useless state that it is.
People do the srugs that it is in their nature to do. They may occasionally stray as an experiment but they quickly go back to their comfort zone. Where are you getting this little anecdote by the way? Not that it sounds unlikely, it's just that your general disdain for drug users seems like it would preclude you from actually knowing many regular pot smokers, much less crack smokers.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
I think that you'd have a hard time convincing people that if you're high, your ability to say no to things is just as strong as if you are not.
Particularly if you're mixing... like getting drunk and then smoking pot..
When you are high, your mental defenses are down and you do NOT make rational decisions.
Edit: My views against illegal drugs were largely formed by my experiences with those who did them. Particularly those I worked with as a teen in the retail world, and also those under me when I was in management.
Appreciated, but someone who doesn't want to do heroin isn't going to do just because you push them when they're high. I will assume that you have at least been drunk once or twice. Would you have done heroin or crack if offered? Or even marijuana? Why should the majority of people be different?
I wouldn't say that resistance to further drug use when high is the same as sober, but it doesn't trigger some kind degenerate state where pot smokers or drinkers will just do whatever drug that you put in front of them.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
Amazing how this topic spun off of toppling a country thourgh coffee. lol
What do you mean by
"There's no such thing as a gateway drug... it's just a dangerous idea that I would like removed from the vernacular."
Please explain you thoughts behind this and any other relavant information supporting this.
I sort of covered this in my reply to lancekates, but I will try and go into more it.
The gateway drug theory is that the use of soft drugs leads to the use of harder drugs. It also sort of implies that cutting off the use of soft drugs will keep people from "moving on" to harder drugs. This led to an obsessive focus on marijuana in anti-drug information and advertising. This is wrong on several levels.
if the gateway theory were true it should show a linear progression of drug use from alcohol, cigerettes and marijuana, then pills maybe, then powdered coke and then crack or some other simple progression. It is of course difficult to class drugs as "softer" or harder any level in the first place.
This doesn't happen. Marijuana/alcohol/cigarettes are often the first drugs used, but then harder drugs may or may not be used, and those who smoke marijuana are no more likely to get addicted. Now, obviously those who try marijuana, or try alcohol in their youth, are more likely to use harder drugs, but it isn't an effect of the drugs. People who seek out drugs are going to find and do the drugs that they want to do. It doesn't really matter what drug they do first. Marijuana use doesn't lead to anything, it just indicates a liking for altered states of mind.
It creates a false sense of cause and effect. People use the drugs they want to use and avoid the ones that they don't. I know and have known many, many drug users and abuser and they all used the drugs that they liked. They didn't just inevitably move on to something harder from something softer.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/12/2134
study shows that gateway and alternative patterns are equally adept at predicting substance abuse disorders. This would indicate that the gateway idea, and probably whatever alternative pattern they were testing, aren't terribly effective ways to describe drug users behavior.
The gateway theory provides a false paradigm for policy makers to work with. It is simple, sinister and casts drugs as corruptors of human spirit and nature, which isn't the case at all. It isn't effective, it isn't realistic. Drug use is a natural part of human nature. We wouldn't have things like alcohol at all if they didn't appeal to us a species. Smoking plant material is not something people would just because. The effect provided is appealing to us, and appealing for us to seek out. Not saying that drugs are necessarily positive, but they aren't demons gripping the virgin masses either.
People who don't want to, or don't like, drugs don't do them. Those who do, do. Psychology and economics are much better indicators for drug use than the "gateway theory." The idea that exposure to marijuana or some other drug will necessarily lead to addiction or even other drugs is just not realistic, and it perpetuates unrealistic drug policies. It's one in a long line of misunderstandings that makes the "war on drugs" as violent, ineffective and stupid. Hence I want it removed from vernacular and popular thought.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
Ok. That was pretty intensive. There is a lot of information there and I think you have compressed some. I will address two points only.
First I never mentioned marijuana. It cannot be classified in with alcohol, cocaine and caffiene. Its chemical composition is completely different, and because of that it is a number of substances not just one. But it also does not produce the same highs or the same physical withdrawl symptoms as the others. As far as marijuana is concerend because of these things it cannot be classified as easily and therefore cannot be regulated, thus it wil not readily become legal.
Second, there is no research to say that the gateway drug probablity is true or not. In order to prove that there is no gateway drug reaction you would have to find a test group that has never been subjected to an addictive substance. Good luck on that. How old were you when you had your first chocolate milk or your first chocolate chip cookie? Caffiene is a highly addictive substance that any kid can get their hands on with little or no effort. Caffiene is found naturally in chocolate. It is also readily available in sodas, coffee and tea. None of these substances have age limits to purchase.
I do agree with some of your statements but the first addiction introduced is to caffiene.
I think genetics also play a roll.
If you start with caffiene you are sure to move on and maybe you won't ever sample harsher drugs but enviornment and conscious play a roll also.
I still think that caffiene is a gateway drug. 8-}
If you want me to go on futher please let me know.
I could view caffeine as an introduction to drugs that may help people decide whether they do drugs or not, and what drugs they do or don't do. I would not view caffeine as some kind of inciting drug that leads, or even encourages the use of other drugs. It's the cause and effect of the gateway theory that bothers me.
You say that everybody moves on, and imply that almost everybody has some exposure to caffeine, and then say that some, most really, won't ever try harder drugs. Do you mean move on without doing anything else? I agree that caffeine is a drug, and that it introduces people to the possibilities of altered states of mind. I don't agree that that introduction LEADS to further drug use, and since most people, minus the Amish or some Mormons, have had some exposure to caffeine and don't do drugs it seems that America is an experiment that shows the flaw of the gateway theory.
In fact other countries, with similar exposures to caffeine or other common stimulants and depressants, show lower drug use than America across the board. In fact America has the highest illicit drug use, and legal drug use if I remember right, of any country in the entire world. If the gateway theory were correct, then most countries should display similar drug use habits to America because the first drug leads to the second and then the third and so on. This pattern doesn't seem to be present. Economics and culture and psychology seem to have far to do with it than exposure to caffeine.
My apologies for focusing more on marijuana. It is usually the touch point for the gateway theory. I am not quite sure what you are getting at with the legalization issue. THC is the most active ingredient of marijuana and legalizing the plant itself would be quite simple. Since the plant is illegal, and the most commonly found form of the drug, legalizing the plant and it's constituent chemicals should be pretty simple. I may be wrong, but I think that THC is the only exclusively illegal chemical found in marijuana. I see no reason why every single chemical found in marijuana smoke needs to be legalized, since most aren't controlled at all.
I suppose things like hash, or marijuana butter might fall in some kind of grey area, but that can either be easily addressed, or ignored. Hash isn't exactly common and I doubt that weed butter is some kind of epidemic.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
Ok. That was pretty intensive. There is a lot of information there and I think you have compressed some. I will address two points only.
First I never mentioned marijuana. It cannot be classified in with alcohol, cocaine and caffiene. Its chemical composition is completely different, and because of that it is a number of substances not just one. But it also does not produce the same highs or the same physical withdrawl symptoms as the others. As far as marijuana is concerend because of these things it cannot be classified as easily and therefore cannot be regulated, thus it wil not readily become legal.
Second, there is no research to say that the gateway drug probablity is true or not. In order to prove that there is no gateway drug reaction you would have to find a test group that has never been subjected to an addictive substance. Good luck on that. How old were you when you had your first chocolate milk or your first chocolate chip cookie? Caffiene is a highly addictive substance that any kid can get their hands on with little or no effort. Caffiene is found naturally in chocolate. It is also readily available in sodas, coffee and tea. None of these substances have age limits to purchase.
I do agree with some of your statements but the first addiction introduced is to caffiene.
I think genetics also play a roll.
If you start with caffiene you are sure to move on and maybe you won't ever sample harsher drugs but enviornment and conscious play a roll also.
I still think that caffiene is a gateway drug. 8-}
If you want me to go on futher please let me know.
What do you mean by
"There's no such thing as a gateway drug... it's just a dangerous idea that I would like removed from the vernacular."
Please explain you thoughts behind this and any other relavant information supporting this.
My computer is to say the least a bit slow and sick at times. I will remember to hit post once and then wait next time...maybe
Sometimes it takes a LONG time.
If I'm not sure if a post will go through or not, if it has been sitting there 'spinning' for a while, I'll copy everything I put to the clipboard (CTRL C) and then wait.
If it goes through, it goes through. If it doesn't, as least I can just paste it and send it again.
Just a friendly tip!
No Problem
I have coffee every morning. I will get a headache if I don't have my morning (giant) cup of coffee, but it's very mild and goes away really quickly if I eat something. I have a hard time imagining coffee withdrawal having this big of an effect. From time to time, I won't drink coffee for weeks at a time and have just as much energy as I did when drinking.
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!