Culture - Natural Psychoactive Drugs Unsuited To Todays World

[HonestlyChilling]

Swim has stumbled accross a little kinda theory in which he beleives the modern day world might possibly prove unfit for those in which chose to take physcadelics such as MJ, SHROOMS Ect. Is it possible the more we know as a species the greater dangers become when tripping? for example if a typical marijiuana smoker say 400 years ago got high often and new no dangers in which todays scientist continue to push(mental conditions), he would not have any concerns or paranoia of something being mentally induced. Thus the 400 years ago veteran has no worrys and goes about his day to day life being high in the simple life. Fast forward 400 years and we know/think we know more things as a race then ever imagined. So the typical MJ smoker of the modern day world gets high just as his ancestors, but deals with the views of people against drugs due to illegalisation, paranoia of mental illnesses supposedly brought about by smoking and a vast forever changing atmosphere in which promises to change at any moment, with new concepts, ideas and scientific proof. Im kinda just rambling on here but my point proves that by the development of modern culture and illegalization of drugs, ones trips could be nothing of that compared to those in which participated in rituals in the past. Is it possible that drugs today can never possibly be used like they were in true culture? That drug taking is nothing but slefish in todays world. The only drugs in which prove to work are those in which were slefish in the first place xtc,GOEY,Meth, and happen to also be human made.
(sorry about the spelling and editing)

[Nature Boy]

I tend to agree with you. It seems the powers that be are hell bent on proving that marijuana is some sort of ultimate demotivating psychosis-causing demon drug as opposed to the relatively benign and adaptable drug that many people use without any problems. Is it a simple reluctance to admit that they've been wrong in the past e.g. Gordon Brown's recent unscientific reclassification in the UK; or perhaps the alcohol and tobacco companies are just afraid of losing their profits. The more sinister theory is that governments don't like the abstract thoughts that marijuana and psychedelics produce.

[Kada]

in a way i do really agree...but in another more real way i feel like smoking herb helps me not think about the things you mention

but i think with more 'in depth' type plants it could turn your trip right around, totally.

[Bajeda]

I would agree in that drugs are frequently misused as a means for escapism in contemporary society, but I disagree that such drugs (particularly psychedelic, as you mentioned) are ill suited to today's world. If anything, they are needed more than ever, as a means to connect with our heritage and transcend the superficial perspective of the universe that is all too often engendered by the trappings of modern society. Psychedelics can be painful in that they can force you to look at the uglier aspects of our existence that we may otherwise shove in the depths of our subconscious, but they also can help reconcile ourselves to our shortcomings by helping us to see the inherent beauty that permeates the world we live in. Perhaps a more focused and purposeful, even ritualistic use of psychedelics could help strengthen this aspect of the experience, rather than it having you focus on all the negative aspects that are good to be conscious of, but not especially healthy to excessively dwell on and consume yourself with.

That said, even in the past, I think the same issues were present. Even if the world wasn't constantly changing at such a rapid pace (on a societal level that is), you still had all sorts of nasty stuff to deal with. A state of war was the norm, you often had very little autonomy as an individual, you would likely be stuck in the same place doing the same thing for your entire life, and it was probably physically and mentally tiring labour, etc. The world keeps changing, but so far as psychoactives go - particularly those that make you perceive and think about things on a deeper level - you probably always had people who used them to escape their problems by directing their attention elsewhere, or who tried to forge a more spiritual and emotionally fulfilling existence, or who would get locked into a pessimistic cycle of despair by focusing on the negative, etc. I doubt there ever was a single true drug culture with a completely unified and "proper" way of using them, because people are always looking for different things and even then often find different things than they were looking for. Ritualistic drug use framed by cultural / societal strictures may have been more unified, but it still differs slightly (to more than slightly) depending on the location and time period. As for plain old cannabis smoking, even in much older times you had places where it wasn't as culturally accepted, and possibly even prohibited in some areas (certain drugs, coffee for instance, have been banned in various places at different times). I also don't know if the people who would smoke it regularly were looking for much different things than people who smoke it are looking for today. The specific reasons may differ, but the basic impulse is the same.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well written.

[dontbeadumbass]

Guys, most drugs cause cognitive impairments. The reason that many are illegal is because they make the user less economically profitable.

No king or president wants a addictive neurotoxins in society. The drugs that are legal (caffeine and nicotine are good examples) typically have no effect on cognition. This is a sweeping generalization; it is not that black and white. However, this is, in my opinion, a PRIMARY motivation to make drugs illegal.

[enquirewithin]

But what about alcohol? Tobacco also costs most countries millions per year in lost productivity and healthcare.

It's not so much 'impairment' that's the issue. Governments don't like drugs that cause people to think for themselves and question authority.

[dontbeadumbass]

"Tobacco also costs most countries millions per year in lost productivity and healthcare."

Perhaps, but keep in mind that most of the time the worker is at the end of his/her working life (40's/50's) and is ready to be replaced by people of a younger generation. Methamphetamine addicts live nearly their entire post-adolescent life with persistent dopaminergic deficits. Cannabis affects the user for the duration of his/her using life (despite not causing lasting deficits). I do not really see them as analogous.

Alcohol is different. Moderate use may benefit IQ. Heavy use is clearly detrimental. Alcohol has a very deep cultural history. Again, my statement was a generalization. The induction of cognitive deficits is a primary motivator for criminalization of psychoactive compounds.

[enquirewithin]

Originally Posted by dontbeadumbass

Perhaps, but keep in mind that most of the time the worker is at the end of his/her working life (40's/50's) and is ready to be replaced by people of a younger generation. Methamphetamine addicts live nearly their entire post-adolescent life with persistent dopaminergic deficits. Cannabis affects the user for the duration of his/her using life (despite not causing lasting deficits). I do not really see them as analogous.

Alcohol is different. Moderate use may benefit IQ. Heavy use is clearly detrimental. Alcohol has a very deep cultural history. Again, my statement was a generalization. The induction of cognitive deficits is a primary motivator for criminalization of psychoactive compounds.

In the US, cannabis was made illegal for racist not health reasons. Other countries followed. You can can check this on the web.

The government of China, with the world's most smokers, is very concerned about the problem of loss of work hours and have quite ambitious ideas about reducing smoking. Tobacco damages the health of old and young. Older people still need health care and most are still working in their fifties and sixties.

I'm not sure what 'induction of cognitive defects' means really. Cannabis doesn't necessarily affect people for the rest of their lives at all. As for meth, it is not a physically addictive drug and most users stop taking it at some point.

[dontbeadumbass]

I agree that cannabis was initially made illegal for racist reasons to ultimately discriminate against certain groups. Anslinger was a douche-bag, yes. I do not buy into the idea that all other nations followed our racist lead and these effects have persisted for as long as they have over the globe.

Cannabis impairs nearly all stages of cognitive functioning in humans.

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2006 Nov;188(4):425-44. Epub 2006 Sep 26. Links

[top]The acute effects of cannabinoids on memory in humans: a review.

Ranganathan M, D'Souza DC.
Schizophrenia Biological Research Center, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West-Haven, CT 06516, USA.
RATIONALE: Cannabis is one of the most frequently used substances. Cannabis and its constituent cannabinoids are known to impair several aspects of cognitive function, with the most robust effects on short-term episodic and working memory in humans. A large body of the work in this area occurred in the 1970s before the discovery of cannabinoid receptors. Recent advances in the knowledge of cannabinoid receptors' function have rekindled interest in examining effects of exogenous cannabinoids on memory and in understanding the mechanism of these effects. OBJECTIVE: The literature about the acute effects of cannabinoids on memory tasks in humans is reviewed. The limitations of the human literature including issues of dose, route of administration, small sample sizes, sample selection, effects of other drug use, tolerance and dependence to cannabinoids, and the timing and sensitivity of psychological tests are discussed. Finally, the human literature is discussed against the backdrop of preclinical findings. RESULTS: Acute administration of Delta-9-THC transiently impairs immediate and delayed free recall of information presented after, but not before, drug administration in a dose- and delay-dependent manner. In particular, cannabinoids increase intrusion errors. These effects are more robust with the inhaled and intravenous route and correspond to peak drug levels. CONCLUSIONS: This profile of effects suggests that cannabinoids impair all stages of memory including encoding, consolidation, and retrieval. Several mechanisms, including effects on long-term potentiation and long-term depression and the inhibition of neurotransmitter (GABA, glutamate, acetyl choline, dopamine) release, have been implicated in the amnestic effects of cannabinoids. Future research in humans is necessary to characterize the neuroanatomical and neurochemical basis of the memory impairing effects of cannabinoids, to dissect out their effects on the various stages of memory and to bridge the expanding gap between the humans and preclinical literature.

These deficits are reversible upon cessation, however... as far as I have read. Weed won't permanently damage your brain.

Methamphetamine is not really addictive? C'mon, man. You must be kidding.

We can thank Pervitin (Methamphetamine) for WW2 in some ways.

[Bajeda]

He said physically addictive, not just addictive.

Its a huge stretch to say that WWII wouldn't have happened if Hitler hadn't started getting injections of methamphetamine. A HUGE and unbelievable stretch.

The whole 'drugs are illegal because of their neurotoxic effects and the impact they have on productivity' argument is also really stretching it, but I'm not going to get started on that because---->


How the hell did this thread go from a confused rant comparing drug use today with that of our ancestors to a discussion of the economic reasoning behind state prohibition of certain substances?

[cra$h]

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

But what about alcohol? Tobacco also costs most countries millions per year in lost productivity and healthcare.

It's not so much 'impairment' that's the issue. Governments don't like drugs that cause people to think for themselves and question authority.

then why is cocaine and meth illegal? the reason why alcohol is legal is because it's what has acutally saved some of the early colonies from dying. And America has grown to love their alcohol, and we all saw what happend when alcohol was prohibited, and if the prohibition of other drugs got the same response, they'd be legal to.

[dontbeadumbass]

saved the colonies from dying? what do you mean exactly? are you talking about economics?

America was built from the ground up by a tobacco economy though.

[HorseBucket]

I couldn't agree more. I think alot of this drug propaganda subtly hypnotizes people and engrains adverse reactions to drugs in peoples minds. Like advertisement. People won't necessarily believe what they hear on TV but if they hear it enough times it will seep into their subconscious minds.

Heres an example. The Nibbler instantly fell in love with cannabis first time he tried it and used it for years and always had positive effects from it with hardly any side effects up until he moved in with his granny. His granny would say to him about 50 times a day "Don't smoke that stuff it dulls your mind". Swim never took much notice of what she said because he knew she was just echoing the propaganda she's been fed but after a while the cannabis started having adverse effects on his mind. It started dulling his mind. Eventually he couldn't even think or follow conversations when he smoked it.

The Nibbler thinks it was that constant repetition of his granny saying "It dulls your mind" that engrained these adverse reactions into his mind.

We all know the powers of hypnosis so who knows how far this extends. Maybe all those hippies that keep saying "That kinda food is bad for you it gives you cancer" are actually subtly hypnotizing people into believing these things so their minds eventually will give them cancer. We know about the placebo effect. The placebo effect goes both ways. Your mind alone can cure diseases but it can also cause them.

[Nature Boy]

As far as cannabis goes, the main reason why it won't be legalised or decriminalised is because of the bureaucratic framework in place, certainly in Europe anyway. There is also the scientific debate. The mainstream medical community does not advocate its use to fight pain although there are various movements trying to change this. Although effects in regular users are benign compared to other drugs, including alcohol, it is very difficult to convince politicians that its legalisation would actually be beneficial. Instead of seeing that by legalising cannabis a huge chunk of profit is taken from the criminal black market, they see legalisation as opening the door to a new legal form on intoxication (though technically cannabis is not toxic therefore their wording is incorrect), something they are dead against considering the stress they're under from pressure groups and such.

The entire situation is ridiculous. Recreational cannabis users are not criminals and psychedelic drugs in general don't destroy productivity in someone. And if a person isn't productive, who is anyone to judge? People need to live their own lives and make their own choices, not be another cog in the machine that is modern capitalist consumerist society. [/rant]

[enquirewithin]

Legalization/ criminalization/ regulation would be very unpopular with 'middle England,' especially after the scare stories circulated by the government and mainly servile press. Selling weapons, which have been proved conclusively to have been related to untold numbers of deaths, however., are very much allowed to sold-- to foreigners. Britain this year topped the US in arms sales exports. Blair made BAE, the biggest arms manufacture, above the law.

And, yeah, SWIM never understood his granny either, stoned or not

[dontbeadumbass]

"Recreational cannabis users are not criminals and psychedelic drugs in general don't destroy productivity in someone. And if a person isn't productive, who is anyone to judge?"

I agree that pot smokers are not criminals. It is a tragedy that so many are incarcerated.

I disagree with the next contention; by subverting pleasure systems in the brain the user makes "drug rewards" more salient than natural rewards. This probably (IMO) has adverse societal consequences... independent of any cognitive deficits.

Who is anyone to judge?
Who doesn't want to see the region crumble at the hands of a fallen economy driven by psychoactive subversion of adaptive goal-based motivation? Who doesn't want to see a population with a disrupted cognitive capacity?

The same people who do not want addictive neurotoxins in society... the government!? the king!? the president!?

I have used drugs (cannabis is the most "illegal" I have used)... and I once thought that all drugs should be legal and we should all just hang out and have a good time and let evolution figure out everything. So what if the coke-head overdoses? It is his problem, right???

Erroneous! Erroneous on both counts!!!

The drugs we have today are primitive. We need drugs that are neuroprotective, cognition facilitating, performance enhancing, recreational, adaptive and healthy. The only one that meets most of that criteria (for most people and not necessarily everyone) is the most widely used psychoactive on this earth.

Caffeine.

'nuff said...

[Bajeda]

If my panda had to choose one drug to remain on the planet, while all others would be abolished, I don't think he would even consider caffeine as an option. Thats just him though.

I think this thread is getting way out of context, but then again, I don't know if it really had any context to begin with. Hello? Reality? Are you there?

Anyways, carry on.

[enquirewithin]

Yes, this thread is going in funny directions!

The drugs we have today are primitive. We need drugs that are neuroprotective, cognition facilitating, performance enhancing, recreational, adaptive and healthy.

I couldn't agree more.

The only one that meets most of that criteria (for most people and not necessarily everyone) is the most widely used psychoactive on this earth.

Caffeine.

How on earth does caffeine meet most of those requirements? It's not very harmful and gives a short burst of energy but it makes many people jittery and bad tempered and is somewhat addictive, although the smell is wonderful. It gives many (but by no means all) people problems sleeping. SWIM gave up coffee after many, many years. Now green tea, that's something else....

[dontbeadumbass]

Coffee is not to be confused with caffeine... coffee has MAOI's and some other stuff that make it feel too weird. Green tea is a bit better but less "uppity". The best feeling from a caffeine containing plant by FAR is yerba mate (ilex paraguariensis) but it has high concentrations of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Pure caffeine is good stuff. 4 dollars for 100g caffeine anhydrous. All of my drinks are spiked.

Modafinil may meet the criteria as well but its recreational value is limited (but still present).

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by dontbeadumbass

"Recreational cannabis users are not criminals and psychedelic drugs in general don't destroy productivity in someone. And if a person isn't productive, who is anyone to judge?"

I agree that pot smokers are not criminals. It is a tragedy that so many are incarcerated.

I disagree with the next contention; by subverting pleasure systems in the brain the user makes "drug rewards" more salient than natural rewards. This probably (IMO) has adverse societal consequences... independent of any cognitive deficits.

Give examples of these adverse societal consequences. Besides hard drug addiction, I don't see how recreational drug use could damage so society so badly. In case you're forgetting, prohibition or not, many people use both legal and illegal drugs recreationally without having any major impact on society as a whole. Therefore prohibition isn't the same as awarding a free right for everyone to become a junkie. It's just an efficient way of controlling capital, something that is far more beneficial to society than the supposed (and somewhat ridiculous) threat of mass de-motivation.

Originally Posted by dontbeadumbass

Who is anyone to judge?
Who doesn't want to see the region crumble at the hands of a fallen economy driven by psychoactive subversion of adaptive goal-based motivation? Who doesn't want to see a population with a disrupted cognitive capacity?

This seems like a very narrow-minded to me. It is rather insulting that one should consider a drug user as someone with "disrupted" cognitive capacity. What is meant by that exactly? Are you clutching back to old myths such as dropping LSD three times makes you legally insane? Drug use is no more destructive to cognitive capacity than the experiences we all have every moment of every day. There are plenty of things that can cause disrupted cognition, not only drugs. Should we ban human relationships, challenges, hopes and fears and wrap ourselves up in some imaginary protective bubble for the supposed greater good? I think not.

Originally Posted by dontbeadumbass

I have used drugs (cannabis is the most "illegal" I have used)... and I once thought that all drugs should be legal and we should all just hang out and have a good time and let evolution figure out everything. So what if the coke-head overdoses? It is his problem, right???

Should we allow idiots who crash their cars drive? Same weak argument. At least the overdosing coke-head only harm themselves.

Originally Posted by dontbeadumbass

The drugs we have today are primitive. We need drugs that are neuroprotective, cognition facilitating, performance enhancing, recreational, adaptive and healthy. The only one that meets most of that criteria (for most people and not necessarily everyone) is the most widely used psychoactive on this earth.

Caffeine.

'nuff said...

Caffeine is certainly not neuroprotective, healthy or even performance enhancing. Where on earth did you get these notions from? Caffeine, when taken in larger doses, is quite a disgusting bodily experience no doubt. Considering what little amount people use in their caffeinated beverages, it's supposed adaptive effects are merely a reflection of the minute dosage.

You have a lot to relearn it seems.

Reputation Comments on this post:

someone needed to counter that post with a bit of reality.

[Expat98]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

Caffeine is certainly not neuroprotective, healthy or even performance enhancing. Where on earth did you get these notions from? Caffeine, when taken in larger doses, is quite a disgusting bodily experience no doubt.

I actually read an article a few days ago about a study indicating that caffeine may be healthy and regular use may prolong life.

Personally, I don't like caffeine much and fully agree with you about its effects at larger doses. It can be useful at smaller doses if you don't have anything better I guess.

See this: Coffee Drinking May Prolong Life

EDIT: Nevermind, I just read it more closely - apparently they are attributing the beneficial effects to the coffee, but not to the caffeine it contains:

And, according to the researchers, participants who drank caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee had similar death rates, suggesting that caffeine was not responsible for the [life-prolonging] effect.

[Nature Boy]

Keep in mind I said caffeine, not coffee. And that study is merely one assumption. It is well documented that coffee dehydrates individuals and pregnant mothers are advised to avoid large amounts due to its potential mutagen properties. Don't get me wrong, SWIM loves coffee. But he is under no illusions that caffeine is some sort of wonder drug. Coffee's recreational properties have more to do with the taste other than psychoactive effect and even its function towards keeping one awake isn't all that effective, for SWIM anyway.

[dontbeadumbass]

J Neurol Sci. 2006 Oct 25;248(1-2):9-15. Epub 2006 Jun 27. Links
 

• 1Novel neuroprotection by caffeine and adenosine A(2A) receptor antagonists in animal models of Parkinson's disease.
• 2Effect of caffeine on UVB-induced carcinogenesis, apoptosis, and the elimination of UVB-induced patches of p53 mutant epidermal cells in SKH-1 mice.
• 3Ergogenic effects of low doses of caffeine on cycling performance.
• 4Effects of repeated doses of caffeine on performance and alertness: new data and secondary analyses.

[top]Novel neuroprotection by caffeine and adenosine A(2A) receptor antagonists in animal models of Parkinson's disease.

Kalda A, Yu L, Oztas E, Chen JF.
Molecular Neuropharmacology Lab, Department of Neurology, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
The adenosine A(2A) receptor has recently emerged as a leading non-dopaminergic therapeutic target for Parkinson's disease, largely due to the restricted distribution of the receptor in the striatum and the profound interaction between adenosine and dopamine receptors in brain. Two lines of research in particular have demonstrated the promise of the A(2A) receptor antagonists as novel anti-parkinsonian drugs. First, building on extensive preclinical animal studies, the A(2A) receptor antagonist KW6002 has demonstrated its potential to increase motor activity in PD patients of the advanced stage in a recent clinical phase IIB trial. Second, recently two prospective epidemiological studies of large cohorts have firmly established the inverse relationship between the consumption of caffeine (a non-specific adenosine antagonist) and the risk of developing PD. The potential neuroprotective effect of caffeine and A(2A) receptor antagonists in PD is further substantiated by the demonstration that pharmacological blockade (by caffeine or specific A(2A) antagonists) or genetic depletion of the A(2A) receptor attenuated dopaminergic neurotoxicity and neurodegeneration in animal models of PD. Moreover, A(2A) receptor antagonism-mediated neuroprotection goes beyond PD models and can be extended to a variety of other brain injuries induced by stroke, excitotoxicity and mitochondrial toxins. Intensive investigations are under way to dissect out common cellular mechanisms (such as A(2A) receptor modulation of neuroinflammation) which may underlie the broad spectrum of neuroprotection by A(2A) receptor inactivation in brain.
Photochem Photobiol. 2008 Mar-Apr;84(2):330-8. Epub 2008 Jan 7. Links

[top]Effect of caffeine on UVB-induced carcinogenesis, apoptosis, and the elimination of UVB-induced patches of p53 mutant epidermal cells in SKH-1 mice.

Conney AH, Kramata P, Lou YR, Lu YP.
Susan Lehman Cullman Laboratory for Cancer Research, Department of Chemical Biology, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA. aconney@rci.rutgers.edu
Oral administration of green tea or caffeine to SKH-1 mice during UVB irradiation for several months inhibited the formation of skin cancer. Similar effects were observed when green tea or caffeine was given to tumor-free UVB-initiated mice with a high risk of developing skin tumors in the absence of further UVB irradiation (high risk mice). Mechanistic studies indicated that topical application of caffeine stimulated UVB-induced apoptosis as well as apoptosis in UVB-induced focal hyperplasia and tumors in tumor-bearing mice. Oral or topical administration of caffeine enhanced the removal of patches of epidermal cells with a mutant form of p53 protein that appeared early during the course of UVB-induced carcinogenesis, and oral administration of caffeine altered the profile of p53 mutations in the patches. In additional studies, topical application of caffeine was shown to have a sunscreen effect, and topical application of caffeine sodium benzoate was more active than caffeine as a sunscreen and for stimulating UVB-induced apoptosis. Caffeine sodium benzoate was also highly active in inhibiting carcinogenesis in UVB-pretreated high risk mice. Our studies indicate that caffeine and caffeine sodium benzoate may be useful as novel inhibitors of sunlight-induced skin cancer.

caffeine seems to be a friend to humans...

dontbeadumbass added 6 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...

Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2008 Jun;18(3):328-42.Links

[top]Ergogenic effects of low doses of caffeine on cycling performance.

Jenkins NT, Trilk JL, Singhal A, Oconnor PJ, Cureton KJ.
Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
The purpose of this experiment was to learn whether low doses of caffeine have ergogenic, perceptual, and metabolic effects during cycling. To determine the effects of 1, 2, and 3 mg/kg caffeine on cycling performance, differentiated ratings of perceived exertion (D-RPE), quadriceps pain intensity, and metabolic responses to cycling exercise, 13 cyclists exercised on a stationary ergometer for 15 min at 80% VO, then, after 4 min of active recovery, completed a 15-min VO2peak performance ride 60 min after ingesting caffeine or placebo. Work done (kJ/kg) during the performance ride was used as a measure of performance. D-RPE, pain ratings, and expired-gas data were obtained every 3 min, and blood lactate concentrations were obtained at 15 and 30 min. Compared with placebo, caffeine doses of 2 and 3 mg/kg increased performance by 4% (95% CI: 1.0-6.8%, p = .02) and 3% (95% CI: -0.4% to 6.8%, p = .077), respectively. These effects were ergogenic, on average, but varied considerably in magnitude among individual cyclists. There were no effects of caffeine on D-RPE or pain throughout the cycling task. Selected metabolic variables were affected by caffeine, consistent with its known actions. The authors conclude that caffeine preparations of 2 and 3 mg/kg enhanced performance, but future work should aim to explain the considerable interindividual variability of the drug's ergogenic properties.
Hum Psychopharmacol. 2007 Aug;22(6):339-50. Links

[top]Effects of repeated doses of caffeine on performance and alertness: new data and secondary analyses.

Hewlett P, Smith A.
Centre for Occupational and Health Psychology, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, 63 Park Place, Cardiff, UK.
RATIONALE: The effects of caffeine on mood and performance are well established. Some authors suggest that caffeine merely reverses effects of caffeine withdrawal rather than having direct behavioural effects. It has also been suggested that withdrawal may be removed by a first dose of caffeine and further doses have little subsequent effect. These issues are examined here. OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to determine whether caffeine withdrawal influenced mood and performance by comparing regular consumers who had been withdrawn from caffeine overnight with non-consumers. Following this repeated caffeine doses were administered to test the claim that repeated dosing has no extra effect on mood or performance. Secondary analyses of data collected after a day of normal caffeine consumption were also carried out to examine some alternative explanations of their results which showed effects of caffeine after a day of normal caffeine consumption. METHODS: One hundred and twenty volunteers participated in the study. Regular caffeine consumption was assessed by questionnaire and this showed that 36 of the volunteers did not regularly consume caffeinated beverages. Volunteers were instructed to abstain from caffeine overnight and then completed a baseline session measuring mood and a range of cognitive functions at 08.00 the next day. Following this volunteers were given 0, or 1 mg/kg caffeine in a milkshake, glucose solution or water (at 09:00), followed by a second 0 or 1 mg/kg caffeine dose (at 09:40) and the test battery repeated at 10:00. RESULTS: The baseline data showed no effect of overnight caffeine withdrawal on mood or performance. In contrast, caffeine challenge improved vigilance performance and prevented decreases in alertness induced by completion of the task battery. The magnitude of these effects increased as a function of the number of doses of caffeine given. Secondary analyses of data from Christopher et al. (2003) also confirmed that effects of caffeine did not depend on length of withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings show no effect of overnight caffeine withdrawal on mood and performance. Caffeine challenge did have the predicted effect on alertness and vigilance, with the size of the effects increasing with caffeine dose. These findings suggest that the effects of caffeine are not due to reversal of effects of withdrawal, a view confirmed by secondary analyses of data collected after a day of normal caffeine consumption. Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
running from a lion? the caveman might have been able to avoid becoming bait a wee bit better because of this curious little molecule... especially if he was tired.

from the evidence right now... caffeine seems pretty legit.

[Bajeda]

So?

MDMA has been shown to be a potential efficacious agent to treat Parkinson's disease in animal studies (to a greater extent than caffine), and amphetamines and modafinil are more effective at enhancing concentration and alertness.

Really, how is caffeine so much better than the other "primitive" drugs we discuss on this site?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Most useful comment in this whole mess of a 'discussion'

[Mona Lisa]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

I would agree in that drugs are frequently misused as a means for escapism in contemporary society, but I disagree that such drugs (particularly psychedelic, as you mentioned) are ill suited to today's world. If anything, they are needed more than ever, as a means to connect with our heritage and transcend the superficial perspective of the universe that is all too often engendered by the trappings of modern society. Psychedelics can be painful in that they can force you to look at the uglier aspects of our existence that we may otherwise shove in the depths of our subconscious, but they also can help reconcile ourselves to our shortcomings by helping us to see the inherent beauty that permeates the world we live in. Perhaps a more focused and purposeful, even ritualistic use of psychedelics could help strengthen this aspect of the experience, rather than it having you focus on all the negative aspects that are good to be conscious of, but not especially healthy to excessively dwell on and consume yourself with.

That said, even in the past, I think the same issues were present. Even if the world wasn't constantly changing at such a rapid pace (on a societal level that is), you still had all sorts of nasty stuff to deal with. A state of war was the norm, you often had very little autonomy as an individual, you would likely be stuck in the same place doing the same thing for your entire life, and it was probably physically and mentally tiring labour, etc. The world keeps changing, but so far as psychoactives go - particularly those that make you perceive and think about things on a deeper level - you probably always had people who used them to escape their problems by directing their attention elsewhere, or who tried to forge a more spiritual and emotionally fulfilling existence, or who would get locked into a pessimistic cycle of despair by focusing on the negative, etc. I doubt there ever was a single true drug culture with a completely unified and "proper" way of using them, because people are always looking for different things and even then often find different things than they were looking for. Ritualistic drug use framed by cultural / societal strictures may have been more unified, but it still differs slightly (to more than slightly) depending on the location and time period. As for plain old cannabis smoking, even in much older times you had places where it wasn't as culturally accepted, and possibly even prohibited in some areas (certain drugs, coffee for instance, have been banned in various places at different times). I also don't know if the people who would smoke it regularly were looking for much different things than people who smoke it are looking for today. The specific reasons may differ, but the basic impulse is the same.

During the Dark Ages, would have thought anyone using herbs to get high could have been accused of practising witchcraft. The average life expectency was under 50 and probably even under 45. People literally were worked to death. Relentless labour took its toll, as did malnutrition and disease. Believe, though, that people were chronically drunk or at least under the influence of alcohol since the main staples were weak beers or meades, as tea hadn't yet arrived and water was ususually unsafe to drink unless from a spring, of course. People also feared going to Hell. People were cowed by the Church.