Reading this gave me chills - the symptoms of withdrawal described here are not unlike those of a heroin addict gone cold turkey.
I can't imagine normal healthy people routinely taking a drug and teaching their children to take one. And yet this happens with coffee all the time. Many are even proud of their addiction ("coffee snobs").
As a recovered heroin addict I can say they're very different from going cold turkey. The symtoms may be the same but the intensity is the huge difference. Also, the mental process is very different too. Whenever people ask me what it's like I always say I'd rather have the pain of childbirth or terminal cancer. Pure hell is what it is. Oddly enough though, it's often times the more "benign" addictions that are hardest to kick. Maybe because there's less pressure to do so or because they're more socially acceptable.
Caffeine, like heroin,isn't completely bad in and of itself though. It's the effect of taking too much and becoming dependent on it that are the real problems. Even vitamins can be harmful to your health if you take too much (which is luckily quite hard to do because the body just can't absorb them efficiently, at least in pill form).
Drugs aren't bad. Behaviors are bad. What we do with them are bad. I'd have no problem having a cup of coffee with my child (if I had one and the kid was old enough). Now, had I not experienced real, severe addiction myself I don't think I'd feel this way and I can understand if others can't understand why I feel this way.
"'What’s it like,' Karla asked me once, 'cold turkey off heroin?' I tried to explain it. 'Think about every time in your life that you’ve ever been afraid, really afraid. Someone sneaks up behind you when you think you’re alone, and shouts to frighten you. The gang of thugs closes in
around you. You fall from a great height in a dream, or you stand on the very edge of a steep cliff. Someone holds you under water and you feel the breath gone, and you scramble, fight, and claw your way to the surface. You lose control of the car and see the wall rushing into your soundless shout. Then add them all up, all those chest-tightening terrors, and feel them all at once, all at the same time, hour after
hour, and day after day. And think of every pain you’ve ever
known—the burn with hot oil, the sharp sliver of glass, the broken bone, the gravel rash when you fell on the rough road in winter, the headache and the earache and the toothache. Then add them all up, all those groin-squeezing, stomach-tensing shrieks of pain, and feel them all at once, hour after hour, and day after day. Then think of every anguish you’ve ever known. Remember the death of a loved one. Remember a lover’s rejection. Recall your feelings of failure and shame and unspeakably bitter remorse. And add them all up, all the heart-stabbing griefs and miseries, and feel them all at once, hour after hour, and day after day. That’s cold turkey. Cold turkey off heroin is life with the skin torn away.'"
There was a heroin addict who filmed himself going cold turkey for his family, and at the end of the video, was himself on camera, having a brain hemorrhage.
You're right that it's very extremely different than caffeine but a brain hemorrhage? That's not typical of opiate withdrawal at all. In fact, even in the most severe cases of opiate addiction, the withdrawal itself is rarely life threatening. Very rarely life threatening. The drug class that does have a potentially fatal withdrawal syndrome is the benzodiazepines (anxiety meds like Xanax and I'm not sure if alcohol is in that same class but it has the same withdrawal syndrome). The danger with those are fatal seizures most of the time. But opiate withdrawal can't kill you unless there are other underlying conditions or something. I say this because drug education in the U.S. is awful and most people only know the misinformation they were taught in school and get the wrong idea from something like what you mentioned, a video where the guy has a hemmorage at the end which was most likely unrelated to opiates.
That said, all addiction is very similar. I would say that people more often than not really mean dependence rather than addiction when it comes to caffiene but the problem is that most people think of those terms as being the same thing. They're not. Dependence can exist separately of addiction but addiction will always go together with dependence. Dependence is (very simplified here for brevity) when your body relies on a substance from outside itself to function normally. Usually that's because you've put a substance in for so long that your brain downregulates certain chemicals because you're replacing what's already there with something from the outside. Take the substance away and it takes a bit for the body to realize you won't be putting in any more nicotine or caffiene or opiates so it takes a while before it starts producing enough acetylcholine or adrenaline or endorphins or whatever the case may be. Addiction is dependence plus a certain set of behaviors (again, trying to be brief and simple here). A caffeiene "addict" (read: dependant) isn't going to rob the local Starbucks to get a fix like a true addict would. You don't see these caffeine addicts ruining their lives because their persuit of coffee is interfering with their jobs or their marriage and such.
There's a big difference not only between the withdrawal syndromes but I also think an important point is to stop thinking of these people with such stories as addicts. They're probably just dependent. A guy who gets sick if he stops taking his antidepressants is dependent. A guy who can't stop himself from downing medication X and puts his persuit of substance X above all else with serious negative consequences in other areas of his life is an addict.
Opiate withdrawal can be extremely unpleasant, but the direct health risks are very low. Things like methadone exist to make things psychologically easier and reduce the rate of relapse. As mentioned, alcohol withdrawal is actually much more dangerous.
Anecdotal evidence I know, but I was a three cups/day guy for a while then quit cold turkey. After about a week of feeling a bit fuzzy and irritable I was back to normal. Is this atypical or something?
Nope, that's typical. I looked up the data a while back. 1-2 weeks is the general timescale for developing dependence and for withdrawal. Once your neurotransmitters reset, you're pretty much back to normal.
But, yes, drug and alcohol detox units save the beds for alcoholics (who can die during detox) and not for heroin addicts (who tend not to die during detox).
Hey now, let's not lump all addiction together. I'm a coffee snob (I drink 2 2-oz shots a day), but I'd say that 60% of it is because I love the taste of coffee. The other 40% is the ability to regulate my alertness better and that it's tough to find good decaf coffee.
I've quit caffeine several times. Each time I get headaches each morning (which can be controlled fine with aspirin) for about a week. Then I'm done. I've always gone back though after a couple months. I'm also addicted to chapstick. Those are my two addictions and I'm fine with them.
I recommend reading "Shantaram" if you want to get a written sense (not that I can confirm its accuracy) of the total hell that is cold turkey off heroin. Both may be tough and painful to quit, but in "Shantaram" the turn off heroin is described as: imagine everything that is in any way good in your life, your being: warmth between your toes, energy to look up at the sky, hope for tomorrow, etc: now imagine every single shred of that positive-chemical-energy is shredded. What's left is all the horrible pain of being with none of the chemicals that help us get by. Or something like that. Great book, mostly about Bombay in the 80s and heroin only has small focus, but really worth the read!
I've been addicted to coffee before, quit it for a couple of years, then chose to start drinking it again. It wasn't nearly as bad for me as described here. Sure, it's a week in which your life sucks more than usual, and you have a kind of constant nagging headache. But then it's over, and you're fine. It's really nothing like a heroin addict going cold turkey; though I've never tried heroin, from what I've heard of going cold turkey on heroin, it's far more harrowing. Perhaps the OP is exaggerating slightly, or perhaps he had a stronger reaction than I did. Given other people I've talked to who have quit caffeine, their experience is about like mine; a week or so of nagging headaches and just feeling kind of lousy (like a low-grade flu), and then you're fine.
I decided later on that I really liked the regularity of coffee; something hot and stimulating every morning, that I would be able to look forward to. I also like the taste of coffee (once I acquired a taste for it). And caffeine does improve productivity; the additional wakefulness and concentration are helpful. Now, when you get addicted, you lose that benefit; the same amount of caffeine puts you back at your baseline performance. But I can, on occasion, have a second cup of coffee when I need a little boost; it's a lot easier for me to do that when I'm drinking coffee regularly, since if I have caffeine when I'm not drinking it regularly, I find it makes me a little too jittery and anxious. Being used to it helps smooth out its effects.
Now, that's not to say that caffeine isn't without its downsides. That week of withdrawal symptoms did suck; and if I need to quit again, or don't have access to caffeine for a few days, it sucks all over again (especially if I'm too sick to drink coffee, I now wind up with withdrawal symptoms on top of my existing problem). And for some people coffee is too hard on the stomach, or can cause other problems like anxiety; whether that's the case for you depends on your body.
Caffeine can be either helpful or harmful, depending on the person and how you use it. The harm generally is fairly mild. I started drinking it this time around consciously, knowing full well what it's like to quit, and knowing what the advantages are, and I decided that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, at least for myself.
I doubt the author's experience was actually as bad as going cold turkey off heroin, but he does describe a caffeine intake amount that is nearly unbelievable to me and I'm someone who probably drinks way too much caffeine myself.
>I can't imagine normal healthy people routinely taking a drug and teaching their children to take one. And yet this happens with coffee all the time. Many are even proud of their addiction ("coffee snobs").
It also happens with sugars, salt, corn syrup and tons of other stuff.
Lots of things can be a "drug". Coffee, when drank in moderation, is actually absolutely beneficial to one's health.
I can't speak to salt, but the classic explanation for sugar and high fructose corn syrup is Robert Lustig's UCSF presentation[0]. Midway through he discusses the differences between HFCS and sugar in how they metabolized, including the brain aspects. (Hint: consider the long-term effects of alcohol up there.) Definitely worth the 90 minute investment of attention.
Consuming large amounts of them can cause you to have temporary bursts of pleasure, which then cause you to crave them more when they are missing. Have you never had the experience of eating something salty, and realizing that you craved more, to the point where you ate too much salt? Or had some sugar, and then had a sugar crash a little while later, where you got grumpy until you could have something to eat?
That does not make salt or corn syrup a "drug", which is what brador asked about.
Your definition is so broad as to make the term "drug" meaningless, as it means that even water is a drug. Yes, after swimming in the ocean waves for an hour, cold freshwater is pure pleasure, and if I haven't had enough water for a while I start to suffer from dehydration.
A friend of mine has to eat a small amount every few others, else she becomes irritable. I've sometimes forgotten to eat until the afternoon, with little effect on my personality. Does that mean that food is a drug to her, or that she's more addicted to food than I am?
Obviously not.
Can you come up with a better definition of "drug" which makes makes sense? That is, one where "water" and "food" are not drugs, but for which salt and corn syrup is a drug?
I don't really know. I was explaining the above comment, not agreeing with it.
One of the problems is that we have this value judgement associated with the word "drug." Once you label something a "drug", it acquires a negative connotation.
One thing that distinguishes a drug from something like water is that you actually, physically depend on water; you cannot live without it. You can, however, live without sugar (though of course, your body will break down complex carbs into sugar). You can't live without salt, though there's a wide range between how much you need and how much many people eat.
I hope that "drug" also acquires a positive connotation. Aspirin is a drug. Insulin is a drug. Penicillin is a drug. During pollen season, I reach for my loratadine.
Your definition is one characteristic between a drug and a non-drug, but it doesn't suffice. Meat is not essential, as the various vegetarians and vegans on this planet confirm. Does that make meat a drug? A Google search says that a few dozen people have asked, and answered that in the affirmative.
While Vilhjálmur Stefánsson and others showed that people can survive on just meat and entrails; are vegetables drugs?
I read that. It's one of the worse Wikipedia pages I've come across. Did you see that it cites the same paper twice, with different style for each one?
Anyway, I read the paper. It concludes "we suggest that sugar, as common as it is, nonetheless meets the criteria for a substance of abuse and may be “addictive” for some individuals when consumed in a “binge-like” manner. This conclusion is reinforced by the changes in limbic system neurochemistry that are similar for the drugs and for sugar. The effects we observe are smaller in magnitude than those produced by drug of abuse such as cocaine or morphine; however, the fact that these behaviors and neurochemical changes can be elicited with a natural reinforcer is interesting. _It is not clear from this animal model if intermittent sugar access can result in neglect of social activities as required by the definition of dependency in the DSM-IV-TR_ (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Nor is it known whether rats will continue to self-administer sugar despite physical obstacles, such as enduring pain to obtain sugar, as some rats do for cocaine (Deroche-Gamonet et al., 2004). Nonetheless, the extensive series of experiments revealing similarities between sugar-induced and drug-induced behavior and neurochemistry, as chronicled in Sections 4 and 5, lends credence to the concept of “sugar addiction”, gives precision to its definition, and provides a testable model."
As you can see (assuming my HN markup-foo is strong), sugar has not been shown to (or shown not to) lead to the definition of "dependency" for humans, which is a neglect of social activities. So this remains a conjecture with some supporting evidence, but not enough to make the statement that sugar is or even can be an addictive substance.
Do you have a citation for the "caffeine is healthy" claim? This seems like rationalization to me; as a non-drinker of caffeine, coffee seems like the number one legal drug in the Western world.
There is evidence of a bunch of mild benefits (and also mild risks). I'd currently say it looks like a small net benefit, but with a confidence interval that would include negative territory. In general, it seems reasonable to drink coffee if you like it. It certainly is an addictive drug, though.
Caffeine has been relentlessly studied for evidence of ill effect and, as you know, science publishing is biased toward positive results (so expect to see one positive p=0.05 outcome for 20 studies of a non-effect). I suspect that the puritan streak in our society which suspects that anything we enjoy must have an underlying evil plays a role.
In any event, the evidence of the ills of caffeine is so poor as to suggest a smattering of false positives. The studies showing positive effects should be viewed with similar skepticism, although if it does have some role in preventing Alzheimer's surely that's enough on its own.
It seems to me hard to really say whether caffeine is healthy or not. Rather the modern western lifestyle -- a lifestyle we've agreed to, or accepted, for the most part -- that has very little to do with biological rhythm needs to be evaluated for its health effects. As long as we're going to accept that everyone is going to work long mid-days in unison, sleep 8 hours per night, in unison, etc: then we're going to appreciate aids (fluorescent lights, caffeine, heaters, air conditioners, melatonin, food) that help us conform with everyone else.
Some may not feel they need caffeine as much as others: so be it. But the idea that any of us can really be deemed healthy or not, due to whether or not caffeine is part of the diet, seems to me to lose the forest through the trees
I can't imagine normal healthy people routinely taking a drug and teaching their children to take one. And yet this happens with coffee all the time. Many are even proud of their addiction ("coffee snobs").