Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I'm not just arguing semantics.
Addiction is shorthand for 'Substance Use Disorder'. Having a headache if you stop drinking coffee is not why people attend [Addict] Anonymous meetings. Someone does not go to their doctor and says "I have a substance abuse disorder". The line of introduction a speaker uses at those meetings is not "hi, my name is Cepho and I have a substance abuse disorder".
I edited not to correct my usage of 'addict', but to correct others usage of the word specifically because it is overused and to correct the overusage the you yourself admit too and STILL ya'll insist 'no, I am addicted'.
No, you are not. You like coffee and if you stop drinking it you'll have a headache for a day or two. Big woop. You won't be seeing a professional that refers to the DSM-V for it. Several of the pharmaceuticals those professionals would use to treat actual disorders create side-effects when use is discontinued. 'Most' are not addictive to the point patients commonly stop taking them willingly despite being forewarned of the side-effects of stopping (no, I'm not referring to a return of disorder' symptoms either). So having a withdrawal syndrome is not addiction. Figureidout
See, you're doing it all again. The severity of one does not discount the severity of another. And "addiction" is not DSM-V defined.
Rarely does anyone go to their doctor and say "I have melanoma" either, they simply tell the doctor they have a weird mole. Part of the conversation with a professional is using common phrases and nomenclature to start the dialog and work towards a proper diagnosis. I'm sure if you told a psychiatrist "I'm addicted to caffeine" they would almost certainly understand what you mean.
I'm afraid I can't really tell you what they say in those meetings. They are often highly religious processes and have debatable results, so I won't be taking my clinical terminology from them.
The DSM-V admits to it, as well as the negative connotations of the word. If anything, people with substance use disorders should be inclined to avoid that word in order to prevent the negative connotations. If anything, you are actually doing them a disservice by telling us we should be calling them "addicts" when the DSM-V explicitly states that it is not a proper definition and that it has a negative bias against it.
Not for the headache, no, but for the several other diagnoses that can arise from usage of caffeine. Stop trivializing the issue, please. Caffeine is in the DSM for a reason - it is a drug with chemical and psychological effects.
But that's your main sticking point, it seems. Your main issue appears to be that people shouldn't call caffeine consumption an "addiction" - it is entirely semantics. It's not a medical term, as we've said, so we may as well be arguing "gif" vs "jif" right now. It's just nomenclature, it does not change the underlying issue of caffeine usage.
You are also arguing that caffeine is no big deal, which just seems like an oddly obtuse and head-in-the-sand take. Just because caffeine does not cause you to sell your kidney for a fix does not mean it has zero deleterious effects. Usage results in real consequences for people, even if they are relatively minor in comparison to harder substances. Having a two day headache from a beverage should not be normalized, in my opinion.
Never said it wasn't. Addiction isn't one of them though.
I agree with that at least, but you again ignore the salient point: withdrawal syndrome is not addiction. SUD replaced Addiction disorders from previous versions for your aforementioned reasons, but, anyone diagnosed with an Addiction disorder in previous versions wasn't just suddenly cured. The definition was replaced with SUD, not considered gone and as such Caffeine addiction wasn't in previous versions either.
As for all the other conditions listed for caffeine in the DSM. It is for diagnostic purposes: Can't sleep? Are you anxious? Do these symptoms occur shortly after you drink coffee? Stop. Oh, and be sure to drink lots of water and pop a couple Paracetemol if you get a headache. Appointment over.
You are the one arguing semantic BS to avoid the salient points:
Okay, so why bring up the DSM if you don't care what it says? You seem to be missing my point.
Caffeine is addicting in the colloquial sense that you want it when you don't have it. It is not a cause of substance abuse disorder.
I never said I did and, in fact, I don't think it's okay. I'm an outlier in that fact and that's my concern and the reason I'm even in this thread.
By definition in the DSM, neither caffeine nor meth are addicting. So this is a nil point
Again, addiction means nothing here except a colloquialism. It is no longer a medical term. If you have a source for a strict definition in a scientific sense beyond the DSM I'd be happy to adjust our conversation accordingly
You cannot use an outdated version just because it fits your argument better. The nomenclature was changed, so adapt
By calling them "addicts" you are immediately not respecting them, per the negative connotation and the superior alternative term which we've discussed
And sidelining a conversation about a drug to argue semantics is better? Nobody in this thread will tell you caffeine is as bad as nicotine.
My interpretation here is that you suffer from substance abuse, in the past or currently, and you feel your experience is being trivialized. If that's the case then say that instead. Don't argue about definitions out of the DSM, just state cleanly and kindly that you feel that "habit" is a better term and let the conversation about the topic continue. Don't be so aggressive and self-righteous about it and people will be more inclined to listen and change.
And if you don't suffer from substance abuse then don't get outraged by pedantics on someone else's behalf...
Already said I've quit smoking so i know firsthand the difference.
Appealing to "addiction" as a colloquialism doesn't help your case. The post title expresses concern about getting addicted and that won't happen because you can't. Show me proof that caffeine is defined by the scientific community as addictive. Good luck
I've said this three times now, but: There is no scientific definition of addiction, so you would have equal trouble finding meth described as addicting.
The post title concerns the common usage of the term, this is not a medical forum. A guy just had a question. You're the one who, incorrectly, brought up addiction as a medical term
Nah, you're not going to make this 'well many people think caffeine is addicting, so it is true'. Society as a whole defers to the experts and they say caffeine isn't addicting. When the term 'addict' was used by scientists it didn't apply to caffeine which is why you can't find supporting evidence. Society also says they don't want to expose children to addicting substances yet allows them to consume coffee and tea without issues, so even your idea of 'muh colloquialism' is wrong. Being among a select few who believe this delusion does not make you right. It makes you naive. Wilfully so at this point or you are sealioning.
Either way my point is made for people actually concerned about actually getting addicted, by all reasonable definitions of the word, to caffeine. Namely: don't be.
I don't know how to word this any differently, so I think this conversation is just about done.
You keep bringing up how science says caffeine isn't "addicting" despite you yourself being the one to point out the DSM-V where they explicitly call the word out as not defined in the DSM-V. So for the fourth time: "addicting" is not a scientific term.
Just because it was preciously referenced in a 24+ year old version does not make it still scientifically relevant. It is not a scientific term any longer, and you can stop treating it like it is.
Meanwhile, in the DSM-V, caffeine is associated with withdrawal symptoms. Symptoms you yourself have described and experienced. So we can both agree caffeine use causes withdrawal.
So because (1) "addiction" is not a medical term and (2) caffeine causes withdrawal symptoms when usage is stopped it is therefore more than fair for people to define it as addicting in a nonscientific context like the one we're in. We should reference science, sure, but science has no opinion on whether caffeine is "addicting" because, again, it's not a scientific word.
Again, you're arguing semantics. This is arguing "gif" vs "jif" at this point. You've given up on medical sources like the DSM because they don't support you so now you are just doubling down with no basis in fact.
Hopefully, we see each other around on the Fediverse and maybe even have another discussion, but one that is more beneficial for us. This one seems to be just spinning our wheels. Good luck to you
You're arguing semantics. Sealioning to boot. Avoiding using the word 'addiction' is does not make it scientifically irrelevant. Numerous articles still use the word addiction in them because it is synonymous with SUD in the literature. Science says caffeine isn't addicting. Always has no matter what language you try to ignore. Recovery programs say caffeine isn't addicting, which is why it is served at their meetings. Society says caffeine isn't addicting otherwise it wouldn't allow children to consume it. People that have had at least 2nd hand experience with actual addiction think caffeine isn't addicting because JFC they KNOW better. The only ones that do are the ones that are truly ignorant of the reality. You still haven't shown anybody who's opinion is worth listening to that thinks caffeine is addicting and you won't be able to because they are Karens sitting at a brunch table playfully giggling about their lack of self control over their love for cafe mochas and that is not the level of conversation I am entertaining when someone seriously asks 'is X addicting?'.
You arguing badly (the DSM matters cause withdrawal is mentioned even though withdrawal is not the definition of addiction, but doesn't when SUD is. Religion shouldn't be listened to, but a bunch of ignorant people that agree with you have worthy opinions, etc...) that everything besides your opinion doesn't matter is a you problem.
You're right this conversation is over. I hope you never understand what it is actually like to be addicted to something because the life lesson you need to smarten you up about this is honestly too high a price for anyone to pay.
No the DSM-V did that
Science doesn't use the term, it is antiquated and no longer scientifically relevant. Science says that caffeine does not cause substance use disorders.
Numerous articles define caffeine as addictive as well
You're so close to understanding what I'm wanting from this thread and this conversation. Caffeine is a problematic drug that we take too lightly. I do not believe we should be giving it to children, nor do I believe adults should use it frequently.
But, to your point, society does say that caffeine is addicting (we're in a thread that is sufficient proof of that) but society agrees that the "addiction" is minor enough that it is not a big deal. I'm also sure many people would agree that sugar is addictive and yet we feed that to kids more than anyone else.
The "addictiveness" of one thing being more severe does not mean a less severe substance cannot also be "addictive". Because a gun only kills one person and nuclear warhead kills millions does not mean the gun cannot be described as lethal.
Because I don't work in opinions, I work in science. The DSM-V says (and I can't believe I'm stating this for a fifth time, I'll put it in capitalized letters to make sure you see it) ADDICTION IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TERM, so nobody will say that anything is addictive in scientific contexts because that would be a scientifically invalid statement.
Nice, condescension and sexism. Please, I want to have a civil conversation with you about this topic, you do not need to go disparaging me or others to make your point.
You stated the DSM matters. You started the conversation with it.
No, it is not, because "addiction" is not defined in the DSM-V besides a note about how the DSM-V does not use the term.
In scientific contexts, yes. Absolutely I believe that.
I am quite literally citing sources that are not my opinion but are instead current scientific reality or common interpretations. My opinion just happens to agree with the science and I am not bothered by non-scientists using a non-scientific word in whatever way gets the conversation going. I am also citing the opinions of 90% of individuals in this thread - they seem to agree that caffeine is addictive.
I really want to come to an understanding between us and find some place to land.
I understand your perspective - you don't want people to use a term that you feel has a specific definition because you feel that it trivializes your experience - and I think it's not an unreasonable thing to want. I don't want to trivialize those suffering from substance use disorders.
But my perspective is that people are using "addiction" as a communication tool in a non-scientific context and that there is no harm in that. It gets the point across and we are able to successfully communicate about the topic. Sidelining the conversation with corrections on terminology is really not helpful, especially when that terminology is no longer scientifically relevant.
We should be discussing the impacts of caffeine on our bodies and our society, not whether or not one word is better than the other.
And I'm arguing you're wrong. I have evidence to support it. You don't. End of discussion.
edit:
Cite one.
Come on, now you're just being rude and dismissive. I'm trying to come together here and come to an understanding.
What, where? You've sited the DSM-V and anecdotes, the former disagrees with you and the latter is opinion
Here's two:
News article using the term "addiction":
Inside Caffeine Addicts Anonymous: 'It Controlled Me Enough' which also mentions a support group, like the ones you reference: Caffeine Addicts Anonymous
Scientific article using the term "addiction":
Caffeine Intoxication and Addiction
Whether or not you agree with them, the point is that it is commonly used.
It took how many comments for you to finally say something of substance? That is why this discussion is dead.
FTR lol at citing a news article about recovery programs you dismissed ages ago, and an article dated back to the DSM-IV supposedly in the era of invalid language.
Bye
So I give you articles that are not only referencing the exact version of addiction you want and mention a support group that you keep referencing and you dismiss them because it's inconvenient. I fit the references to something you might find convincing. I didn't find sources that convinced me I found sources that might convince you.
But please, provide your own evidence, as you referenced earlier. I have provided mine, and I await yours.
You have literally said nothing at this point beyond referencing outdated version of the manual and anecdotal evidence.