Headline from the Arizona Daily Star: "1 coffee a day is enough to cause addiction."
Star quote from Roland Griffiths, a professor of psychiatry and neuroscience: "When people don't get their usual dose they can suffer a range of withdrawal symptoms."
Coffee must be the most studied subject on the planet, funded, almost certainly, by our taxbucks. A Google search on the keywords "coffee" and "study" produced "about 4,340,000" hits.
A sampling proves how coffee is bad for us . . .
USAToday: High coffee consumption could increase risk of stillbirth.
LONDON (AP): Study Hints Coffee May Be Linked To Rheumatoid Arthritis.
BBCNews: Filtering coffee does not remove a chemical linked to heart disease and stroke.
. . . and good for us . . .
ConsumerReports.org: coffee may help fend off Parkinson's disease.
CBCNews: coffee may help your memory.
Boston Herald: coffee may help battle colon cancer.
. . . and simultaneously bad and good for us . . .
OTTAWA (CP): coffee consumption increases the risk of bladder cancer in men.
CNN.com: Drinking coffee regularly might protect smokers from bladder cancer.
. . . and so on and on and on . . .
But, just as the Google search shows that coffee is/isn't good/bad for us, coffee addiction itself is equally a problem/nonproblem:
UF News, University of Florida: Dr. Mark S. Gold, a distinguished professor at UF's McKnight Brain Institute and chief of addiction medicine in the psychiatry department says, "Caffeine dependence is a non-issue for me because people won't leave their home for it, won't mortgage their house for it, won't choose caffeine over their wife."
In a libertarian world this wouldn't be a big deal. We would hear about the privately funded studies and adjust our lives, or not, as each of us sees fit. But this is not a libertarian world. This is a world of coercion. Can't you just hear the former class action tobacco-litigating liability lawyers slobbering at their jowls? Which CEOs knew coffee was addictive and when did they know it? Where's the smoking memo that proves it? How much moola can we legally loot from these mocha merchants?
The article that tells us that coffee is addictive also tells us this:
"Griffiths and colleagues are pressing for caffeine addiction to be included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, considered the bible of mental disorders."
So who are these javaphobes that want to transform our pot of perk into a mental power play? Perhaps they're the same people that Texas Rep Ron Paul recently warned us about:
"A presidential initiative called The 'New Freedom Commission on Mental Health' has issued a report recommending forced mental health screening for every child in America, including preschool children. The goal is to promote the patently false idea that we have a nation of children with undiagnosed mental disorders crying out for treatment."
Funny, isn't it, how people who want everything to be classified as a mental disorder never seem to get around to classifying themselves.
So, using terms these people can comprehend, those who love power are powerphiliacs. Those who become addicted to power are addicto-powerphiliacs.
Here's how their game works: whoever makes the first accusation is automatically the winner. If I accuse you of being an addict and you deny it, you're "in denial," which proves my case. If you defend yourself, you're "being defensive," which proves my case. If you call me an idiot for calling you an addict, you're engaging in an "ad hominem attack," which proves my case. If you demand proof of my accusation, you are revealing an "abnormal and persistent preoccupation with rationality" and are therefore "lacking in compassion, sympathy, or consideration for others," which proves my case. If you just don't give a crap that you're an addict or what harm your addiction might cause you, that means you "lack self-esteem" and "show signs of severe suicidal tendencies," which proves my case. And, if you simply ignore me, that means you suffer "attention deficit disorder" which means you get forcibly medicated, which proves my case.
One definition for addiction from the online dictionary (that I use obsessively) is: "persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful."
Therefore, I proclaim that the persistent compulsive use of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is addictive, and it is known by the users of said manual to be harmful. I said it first. All responses from addicto-powerphiliacs and javaphobes simply prove my case.
I win. Pour me another cup o' joe.
Garry is a prolific writer and many more of his works may be found at:
Bookmark/Search this post with: