Slashdot Mirror


Energy Drinks May Trigger Future Substance Use, Says Study (medscape.com)

New research suggests persistent consumption of energy drinks may predispose young adults to substance use. "Investigators, led by Amelia M. Arria, PhD, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, found that college students who regularly drink highly caffeinated energy drinks were at increased risk for later use of alcohol, cocaine, or prescription stimulants," reports Medscape. From the report: The research included students enrolled in an ongoing longitudinal study that began in 2004 at a large public university. The analysis included 1099 participants (54% women; 72% non-Hispanic white) who completed at least one annual assessment in which patterns of energy drink consumption were assessed. In interviews, participants were asked which energy drinks they had consumed, and how often, in the past year. They were categorized into three patterns of use: Frequent (52 or more days); Occasional (12 - 51 days); Infrequent (1 - 11 days). The investigators found that sensation seeking, conduct problems, and behavioral dysregulation were all positively associated with a higher probability of energy drink consumption, with the nonuse group having the lowest and the persistent group the highest risk scores. The study was published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.

233 comments

  1. If you want a kick to the system energy drink by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Drink some Green Tea Beaver Buzz. Almost 400mg of caffeine https://www.amazon.com/Canadia...

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Drink some Green Tea Beaver Buzz. Almost 400mg of caffeine https://www.amazon.com/Canadia...

      But watch you don't accidentally kill yourself.

    2. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      Hmm.....

      So, let' see, if energy drinks are "gateway drugs", shouldn't they too be classified as Schedule I drugs, like heroin, and marijuana?

      Hell, like pot, shouldn't mothers milk be also schedule 1, as that it really leads to all other substances and possible abuse of them...?

      [/sarcasm]

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no

      Learn how to read:
      "Green Tea Extract 402mg, Caffeine 131mg, "

    4. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by Salgak1 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Well, if you want REAL gateway drugs, there's always dihydrogen monoxide. EVERY hard-drug user, used DHMO first And used O2 as an inhalant!

    5. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I expect that is the reason between the correlation of Energy Drinks and drug dependencies.
      If you take a substance any substance, because of the buzz or numbing feeling, (which these feelings often happen when your body is chemically out of wack) then chances are you will get addicted to that feeling and move up.

      I drink coffee in the morning, I don't get a buzz, but I like the taste. If I don't have coffee in the morning I function just fine. If I have too much and get a buzz, I don't like the feeling, so I stop. The same is if I am drinking a hard drink. Once I start feeling it, I stop, because I know I had too much. But if I was in search for the Buzzed feeling, chances are I would keep drinking to keep that feeling.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re: If you want a kick to the system energy drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simple explanation: if you simply don't care what you're putting into your body, it doesn't matter what you're going to put into your body.

    7. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you want REAL gateway drugs, there's always dihydrogen monoxide. EVERY hard-drug user, used DHMO first And used O2 as an inhalant!

      Yup, those are CHEMICALS. And we know we must avoid ALL chemicals.

    8. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If caffeine were discovered today, it would be made Schedule I.

    9. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I drink 2-3 16Oz rockstars/day + some heavily caffeinated tea. That's down from up to 6 rockstars + coffee.
      Incidentally, I cut over to rockstars as I was cutting out other stimulants.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    10. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by Phusion · · Score: 1

      Sweet mother of GOD.. you drink 2-3 rockstars a day? I drink 2 on the weekend to fuel my BF1 binges, but chrissakes man.. that can't be good for you. I can't really talk, I have 4-5 cups of coffee a day..

      --
      640k ought to be enough for anyone.
    11. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I only have one 'cup' of coffee a day. It's 30 ounces out of a french press, almost gone...always sad to see. Time to switch to 'Max'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re: If you want a kick to the system energy drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found some mints at Fry's, each mint had 1 gram of caffeine.
      That was a weird day.

    13. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...that can't be good for you. I can't really talk, I have 4-5 cups of coffee a day..

      I drink 4-5 cups of coffee/caffeinated tea on weekdays, but I wouldn't remotely compare that to drinking 2-3 Rockstars a day as far as health goes. To hell with the caffeine, that's a shit-load of sugar which I consider a much bigger deal. Black coffee's almost like caffeinated water compared to an energy drink or a soda.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    14. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by semper_statisticum · · Score: 1

      INGREDIENTS PER 473ml/ 16 Fl. Oz.: Caffeine 131mg. You may want to reread that.

      --
      The Spanish Inquisition of Psychometrics; Burning all the heretics.
    15. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      They do make sugar-free ones. Perhaps that's his preference.

    16. Re:If you want a kick to the system energy drink by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      indeed it is.
      Specifically because I don't need to kill my pancreas in addition to my liver...

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  2. Same relation as income? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would surprise me if the relation was anything else than social. The same social groups that drink energy drinks also use more drugs. If there is a hard reason for this, my first guess would be to look at the income.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if income is low it makes sense to spend it on expensive drinks.

      Maybe low income isn't the root cause, but stupidity - causing both low income AND energy drink consumption?

    2. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is advertising to kids. Or just advertising. Ban advertising of all shitfoods and consumption will drastically fall.
      Might seem radical today, but banning tobacco advertising was radical at the time.

    3. Re:Same relation as income? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      It would surprise me if the relation was anything else than social. The same social groups that drink energy drinks also use more drugs.

      Yep. Definitely got the cart and the horse the wrong way around here.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Same relation as income? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Yep. Making these drinks the social norm for kids is wrong.

      Then again, CocaCola has been doing it for decades. Banning this would be anti-American.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Same relation as income? by ffreeloader · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As someone who spent a decade in active drug addiction I can say from experience that this research has it right. The people who drink highly caffienated drinks on a daily basis over a period of time are developing a psychological, and physical, addiction to a mind altering substance. They drink massive amounts of caffience for the buzz it gives them. And they come to rely on that to get them to an altered mental state.

      That altered state is the goal. And that is what addiction is all about. People get to depend on that altered state, and that is the psychological part of addiction, and actually the worst part of addiction. Why? Because the physical addiction is fairly easy to break compared to the mental habit of relying on something outside of yourself to make you feel good. That mental habit is extremely hard to break. That memory that feeling good is only a substance use away.

      That buzz off caffiene is a gateway drug effect. Scoff if you want, but as an addict I can tell you that is how an addict thinks. I've been clean for 25 years now and the urge is less than it used to be, but that thought still crosses my mind when I'm having a really bad day.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    6. Re:Same relation as income? by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      I'm going to place my money on the fact that sugar is highly addictive, and people who are susceptible to addiction will be attracted to both sugary energy drinks, and other substances.

    7. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is caffience what covfefe contains?

    8. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would surprise me if the relation was anything else than social. The same social groups that drink energy drinks also use more drugs. If there is a hard reason for this, my first guess would be to look at the income.

      Not so much social as biological. The same people that are predisposition to drink energy drinks in excess are the same people prone to get addicted to drugs or use them excessively. Correlation yes.

    9. Re:Same relation as income? by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      No, that's contained in typo-ience.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    10. Re: Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how you concluded that stupidity leads to caffeine abuse. I'm a PhD student in physics, and can attest to about 80% of my peers being caffeine abusers, many of them using energy drinks and not just tons of coffee and tea.

    11. Re:Same relation as income? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If one goes to any 12 Step Meetings then they will discover that there is coffee and lots of people that claim, like you, that they "know how addicts think". If you go to your local Starbucks you will find coffee and lots of people who claim they have no idea how "an addict thinks". If you can't see what is wrong with your claim that coffee leads to addiction now, you should probably stop filling your head with the nonsensical cognitive distortions prevalent in said meetings.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    12. Re: Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Norway, advertising to kids is actually illegal. The broadcasters worked around it by moving their Norwegian channels abroad, since there was a loophole to prevent banning watching foreign TV...

    13. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coffee is a far cry from "highly caffienated drinks", though. He never mentioned the former... Neither did the post.

      But let's not spoil the fun with the facts, right?

    14. Re:Same relation as income? by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Obligatory: Awkward Yeti

    15. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say this as a recovering alcoholic: 12 Step Meetings are cults and their "science" is complete bullshit. This idea that they "know how you think" has driven many an addict away from group therapy. I wish non-12 step group therapy were more common, because AA is complete bullshit.

    16. Re:Same relation as income? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You have clearly never ordered a quad Grande white chocolate mocha at starbucks. You can get the same caffeine from multiple coffees as from energy drinks. The individual claims to have first hand experience from more than 25 years ago, which pre-dates energy drinow. None of your attempts to discredit hold even a modicum of water.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    17. Re:Same relation as income? by Kazymyr · · Score: 2

      Getting high on covfefe is wrong.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    18. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That buzz off caffiene is a gateway drug effect. Scoff if you want, but as an addict I can tell you that is how an addict thinks. I've been clean for 25 years now and the urge is less than it used to be, but that thought still crosses my mind when I'm having a really bad day.

      Can you honestly say you never had a bad day prior to drinking caffeine, or that having bad days was not itself an initial motivator for you to consume caffeine? This is a rubbish conclusion. Caffeine is a gateway drug? What's next, drinking warm milk is a gateway drug? I never touched an energy drink until having been drunk off of alcohol multiple times. Some people just don't like anything remotely psychoactive, while others do. That's a much clearer delineation than some bogeyman of having fallen down the trapdoor of substance abuse by drinking a can of soda.

    19. Re:Same relation as income? by swillden · · Score: 1

      It would surprise me if the relation was anything else than social. The same social groups that drink energy drinks also use more drugs.

      Could be social, or it could be biological, or some of both. Either way, it seems likely that this correlation is caused by a third factor.

      That said, energy drinks are a bad idea. They knock your system around pretty hard with a massive shot of caffeine plus a big jolt of sugar... and lots of them have several other mind-altering ingredients, all relatively mild in small doses, and therefore unregulated, but energy drinks use a lot of them. A handful of teens have actually been killed by caffeine overdoses, which are pretty easy to achieve with energy drinks.

      If there is a hard reason for this, my first guess would be to look at the income.

      That seems unlikely. At least in my anecdotal experience, I don't see any correlation between income and energy drink use.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Covfefe contains a large cup of Shut the F' up.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL89M9D40oY

    21. Re:Same relation as income? by gnick · · Score: 1

      If one goes to any 12 Step Meetings then they will discover that there is coffee...

      Doesn't that support GP's assertion that people who are seeking an altered mental state will demonstrate that behavior with caffeine as easily as they do with other drugs? Smoking used to be huge at 12 step meetings too. An alcoholic's addictive behavior isn't necessarily limited to alcohol.

      All of this seems to imply to me that people who like using stimulants continue to like using stimulants.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    22. Re:Same relation as income? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No, it does not. It supports the idea that free coffee is much cheaper than free healthy beverages. Also most ex users are STILL cigarette smokers, and they prefer to enjoy their cigarettes with coffee not milk. You disingenuously left out the point I made regarding Starbucks and other coffee houses of course.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    23. Re: Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spent more than a decade in addiction. Go that long and I can tell you that your brain gets completely rewired. But I don't think caffeine is any kind of gateway drug, and in fact I don't think it's the drug at all. It's your dopamine hook that matters and you can get that from gambling as much as from cocaine (not the same levels). Dopamine is the motivator brain chemical, the drive chemical, when in need of a fix, or just food, it's spiking high to get you off your ass and get that thing that your brain thinks it needs. Addiction is just when that gets hijacked by something not useful. Like poker machines, or cocaine, or porn, or all number of things. The key word is hijacked. When your addicted the normal "seek sex" "seek food" "seek social" etc gets all fucked up by this other thing, that's better than all those (from the brains current wiring). Most addicts relapse long after the physical addiction is gone, because the brain wiring takes a hell of a lot longer to undo. But not 25 years; at least not for everyone. I was a problem drinker once, couldn't touch a drink for about 5 year's, but I can drink a glass or two now with no problem (except I don't want to, because the unwiring also means I get very little out of it, except a slight sluggish feel the next day). I was addicted to porn once, but now if I see a bit of nudity it doesn't drive the compolsive behaviour it once did. There have been other substances. You don't stay an addict forever; you just stay the same easily addicted to stuff person you always were. It's not the caffeine that did it, it's just me and my neuroticism (in the strict scientific definition of the word). Addict forever? No; just highly susceptible forever.

    24. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or people like us are just predisposed to seeking altered states, and whether we start on energy drinks or weed or opiates doesn't really matter, it all leads to the same path.

      I've been clean for years (after 2 decades of active abuse) and "Which drug was first" doesn't seem important to me. For me it was alcohol at first, but it could have been anything.

    25. Re:Same relation as income? by imrahilj · · Score: 1

      This is what I would suspect as well - some people just have more of a tendency for substance addiction, those people are likely to gravitate to both energy drinks and other drugs later.

    26. Re:Same relation as income? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Actually caffeine addiction exists, but it is quite rare.

      I for my part used to drink "out of habit" about 6 coffee a day.

      But since 4 or 5 years I stopped (without any special afford).

      I still drink green tee, though. About a can a day when I work ... none at all when I'm not working.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    27. Re: Same relation as income? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      That's probably more a feature of socialism than the average intelligence level. Socialism leads to shortages and rationing. Resources are limited to what government beaurocrats are willing to allocate.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    28. Re: Same relation as income? by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      Gulags, don't forget the gulags..

    29. Re:Same relation as income? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The personality that wants to get such a buzz from caffeine, means they may want to get a buzz from something else.

      Some people don't like the feeling of a caffeine buzz, so they don't go after that food, and also don't try other things, as the buzzed feeling is unpleasant to them.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    30. Re: Same relation as income? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      As opposed to capitalism, which leads to shortages and rationing as resources are limited to what the capitalists are willing to share?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    31. Re:Same relation as income? by gnick · · Score: 1

      Also most ex users are STILL cigarette smokers, and they prefer to enjoy their cigarettes with coffee...

      Yes, people with addictive personalities are attracted to addictive substances. OP never said coffee leads to addiction - He said that people who are looking to alter their state of mind will do it with what's available. When they cut off one addiction (e.g. alcohol), the others don't vanish with it.

      Leaving out your point about Starbuck's wasn't meant to be disingenuous. You seemed to be hopelessly confused while trying to conceive a point there, so it was omitted as nonsense.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    32. Re:Same relation as income? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Which would seem to suggest to me that caffeine addicts by and large simply aren't aware of their addiction in those terms, possibly because it's one of the few addictions that our society actively encourages, and which carries no social stigma even when indulged at dangerous levels.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    33. Re:Same relation as income? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Again, plenty of people smoke cigarettes but don't drink excessively or do other drugs. You are the one trying to present a subset of the facts to prove a point, while claiming ignoring facts is important if you want to have a valid point.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    34. Re:Same relation as income? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I don't really see what income got to do with it.
      If anything people with a greater income can more easily afford high-price energy drinks. They always cost more than the normal soda and if it's something like red bull or burn then it cost much more. And those are likely the brands which helped make it a thing in the first place.

      Anyway. I don't think it's weird at all. If one actually use the stimulants to get a boost then of course you may be looking for something else which can give a stronger, different or better boost.
      As for caffeine though I more drink it to "get back to normal" though I have used it for workouts too but that also kinda become "to get back to normal" because one get used to having it and being without suck. But the discomfort/jitter och very high dosages of caffeine isn't nice, neither is it when your brain is speeding like crazy and can't calm down when you are trying to get to sleep. So I don't really think strong dosages of caffeine is a good thing but that's just another reason to look for some other stimulant which may do the work better if there's such a possibility.

    35. Re:Same relation as income? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Way to start on the assumption that the claim is correct and then come up with a ridiculous argument to arrive there. It isn't even a believable rationalization.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    36. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you must be in deep poverty if energy drinks are "expensive". (my local supermarket has B-tier brands for 30 (euro) cents)

      your reaction supports his position

    37. Re:Same relation as income? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Thank you for a good laugh over my morning cup of caffience.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    38. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't about caffeine alone, it is about energy drinks, which have all sorts of other stuff in them. Caffeine is the most used drug in the world, many people drink tea and coffee. To my knowledge this use doesn't correlate with addiction to more dangerous substances.

      Further, people who have addictive personalities are likely to like both energy drinks and other, more dangerous drugs. So I would be surprised if there was a causal link between energy drinks and other drug use.

    39. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of your attempts to discredit hold even a modicum of water.

      Neither do yours. Your anecdote does not cut it.

    40. Re:Same relation as income? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Which assumption is that? That caffeine is addictive? I'd say the science is pretty conclusive on that one.

      Or maybe that addictive behavior tends to continue and usually increase over time without significant personal effort to change the pattern? That's pretty well established as well.

      Not that that makes caffeine any more of a "gateway drug" than anything else - except possibly that it's marketed to children, and unlike most other drugs there is no serious social stigma against abuse to help most people manage their habit before it gets too far out of control.

      Of course ffreeloader is over-concluding a causative link, while it seems at least as likely to me that it could simply be an early warning - with those individuals prone to addiction being more receptive than most to what is likely the first significantly mind-altering substance they get easy access to.

      Either way, it would seem to behoove everyone who cares about a young caffeine addict, themselves included, to take proactive steps to help them learn productive addiction-management skills while they're still young and mentally flexible, before patterns of excess become firmly habituated. Because the conclusion that the study actually *does* support is that those individuals are more likely to at least experiment with more dangerous substances.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    41. Re: Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the old saying that "under capitalism, man exploits man â" but under communism, it's the reverse.

    42. Re:Same relation as income? by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Your logic is something else. It's pretty easy to beat up a straw man. I never said coffee leads to addiction. I said that the using of high levels of caffiene over periods of time leads to addiction. If you don't think caffiene is physically addictive, well, you're going to have to argue that with the scientists. They say it is. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

      My experience with it says it is too. When I stopped using it I felt lousy for weeks and had major headaches besides. Those are the withdrawal symptoms of caffiene addiction.

      Yes, there is a lot of coffee at 12 step meetings. There is also a whole lot of tobacco. What else do you expect from a bunch of addicts, than for them to move from one addictive behavior to another? True, caffiene isn't as destructive as heroin, meth, coke, opioids, etc... but it doesn't mean it isn't addictive. If addicts didn't think alike 12 step programs wouldn't work, and they do work. First time I went to a 12 step meeting I thought I was listening to people telling my story, rather than their own.

      It has been proven time and time again that addicts think very much alike. They have problems they don't like to deal with so they like to alter their mental state rather than deal with the issues. Twelve step programs work because, if a person follows the steps, the addict deals with those issues that they have never dealt with before and thus get past their addictive behaviors.

      The only way to beat addiction is to deal with the inner demons every addict has. As long as a person will not deal with those, they will never stop using the substances that are killing them and ruining their lives.

      Here's a link to how addicts think. http://www.edrugrehab.com/how-...

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    43. Re: Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not stupidity, but sensation seeking and low impulse control.

    44. Re: Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think people who crave an altered state are people whose default state is somehow unbearable to them. Do you agree?
      I seldom use caffeine and never anything stronger, because my default state is pleasantly creative and relaxed. If that was my substance mood, and my worst moods my default state, I'd be a user too.

    45. Re: Same relation as income? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Good for them. I hope they don't pay Norwegian taxes anymore either.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    46. Re: Same relation as income? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Become a capitalist, duh. If you own any means of production (like a computer or tools) you already are.

      You can't seriously be suggesting that shortages are similar in both types of society? Why did the Russians kick out the commies?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    47. Re:Same relation as income? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If you make it right or very wrong it sure is.

      The right way is with Arabica and a French press, the wrong way is with Robusta and a percolator. Most AA/NA meetings do it the wrong way, terrible flavor, but loads of caffeine.

      Not a 'quitter' but know enough of them to keep near beer in my fridge.

      This (any mind altering chem is addictive) is all LDS dogma BTW. They aren't amenable to discussion about it. They believe it, that settles it etc.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    48. Re:Same relation as income? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You're implicitly referencing at least two different definitions of addict but treating them as the same.

      Are you addicted to water? Breathing? Fapping?

      The difference is 'continue to use despite negative consequences'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    49. Re:Same relation as income? by swb · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the researchers controlled for users who drank sugar sweetened vs. artificially sweetened energy drinks.

      There are some serious people who claim that sugar has addictive properties on par with cocaine.

    50. Re:Same relation as income? by maestroX · · Score: 1

      That altered state is the goal. And that is what addiction is all about. People get to depend on that altered state, and that is the psychological part of addiction, and actually the worst part of addiction. Why? Because the physical addiction is fairly easy to break compared to the mental habit of relying on something outside of yourself to make you feel good. That mental habit is extremely hard to break. That memory that feeling good is only a substance use away.

      Addiction roots from biological makeup, the physical, not character. It requires tremendous amounts of will-power to start quitting smoking over and over again, while some may smoke on occasions only (yes, inhaling) and not be addicted. The mental consequence of the feeling-good memory for substances is a symptom, which starts unconsciously and is more or less absent with the "un-addictable" .

      Sure, when happy the addiction is far away, because addiction starts when your body fails to provide.

      Once blessed with this addictive trait (in such a way you drown in it) you better not start any addictive (substance) habit, though it's tough looking into a mirror constantly.

      Your best bet is regular physical exercise (running), balanced diet to keep a stable sugar level (no liquorice or chocolate) and don't watch food/beverage commercials that appear to make people happy.

    51. Re:Same relation as income? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Let me start with your most easily disproved claim, to wit that 12 Step programs work. The CDC and the NIMH both have studied it and concluded that success rates are lower for those who attempt recovery with the 12 Step model than those that don't. In other words, those few who do stay away from drugs including alcohol succeed in spite of AA, not because of it. The next ridiculous thing you assert is that addicts substitute using nicotine, as if they didn't smoke or drink coffee prior to abstaining from drugs (incl. Alcohol). Finally, you don't even know the clinical definition of addiction. I assure you coffee is not in the DSM.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    52. Re:Same relation as income? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Your lack of understanding astounds. Coffee is not in the DSM. Nobody drinks coffee and winds up homeless because of it and keeps drinking coffee. You are literally conflating "coffee gives you headaches if you drink a lot then stop" with "addiction to drugs ruins lives."

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    53. Re: Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you own a means of production and derive income by actually using it, that's pretty marxist.

      If you run a business of two or more people equally owning the walls, land and tools this might well be late stage socialism, or could be if you were to wear funny hats with red stars.

      Not sure if that's accurate, but it's fun to me to pretend it works that way.

    54. Re:Same relation as income? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not all smokers are alcoholics, but not long ago, virtually all alcoholics were smokers. The demonizing of cigs has changed that, a little.

      It's one of the best arguments for not hiring smokers. Smoking won't kill them until you're done with them, but keeping the drunks off staff makes it worth it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    55. Re:Same relation as income? by nasch · · Score: 2

      My parents once accidentally ran a double blind study on caffeine addiction. My dad gave my mom decaf in the morning thinking it was regular. She felt sick all day and he discovered later that it was decaf. Only problem with the study is n=1.

    56. Re:Same relation as income? by epine · · Score: 1

      That altered state is the goal.

      Which came first? The goal or the behaviour?

      I like a mild buzz, and maybe every year or three I like to get ripped for all of one evening, but mostly I like my buzz mild.

      Eventually I worked out that two 7 g pour-overs spaced about four hours apart is my optimum caffeine intake for the day. I now think twice before adding a green tea. My buzz is perfectly dialed in.

      It's the difference between Larry Flynt kicking his addition after surgery (his distress was mainly physical) and Althea Flynt not kicking her addition (her distress was mainly emotional). At least that's how The People told the story.

      Craving more buzz, no matter how much buzz you already have, that's a recipe destined for trouble if I've ever seen one.

      Some people seem to believe that behind every gate lies an even bigger (and better) gate. Other people don't. Caffeine is only a gateway for the most extreme of the gateway believers.

      Hmmm, didn't Anne Murray once sing a song about "gateway believers"?

    57. Re:Same relation as income? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      What does the DSM have to do with whether or not people are addicted to a drug? We're not talking about the damage caused by the addiction, but about the addiction itself. That coffee is a drug is not under debate. It is. Just because it rarely causes any serious life-coping problems even when heavily abused doesn't make it any less habit forming.

      As I see it freeloader's statement can be broken down into three separate logical claims, though I believe they conflated the last two:

      The first claim is that coffee addiction acclimates people to a "consumption -> rush" feedback loop. I think that's hard to argue against. And those that routinely heavily overuse are going to be strongly habituated to indulging in that feedback loop on an extremely frequent basis. That's just operant conditioning in action.

      The second claim, which I'm somewhat less convinced of but still inclined to believe, is that the same basic feedback loop is common to most/all drug addictions, so that once overindulgence is established with one drug it will tend to promote similar behavior when using other drugs regularly i.e. a coffee abuser who begins also drinking alcohol regularly will tend to abuse alcohol as well. NOTE: THIS DOES NOT IMPLY that they are more likely to take up another drug, just that they've been "pre-trained" to start abusing it more rapidly *if* they do.

      The third claim, of which I'm not at all convinced, is that a heavy caffeine addiction will increase the probability of using other drugs regularly in the first place. It seems to me more likely that rather than a causal link, heavy abuse of caffeine is likely to often be a sign of a personality type that's already inclined to seek out more intense states of chemical influence.

      However, while I find the third claim unlikely, the first two alone give cause for concern when combined with two other completely independent facts: that the majority of people try at least a few other drugs in their early decades, and that many of those will end up using at least one of those drugs on a regular basis. There's nothing wrong with occasionally having a drink or two with dinner, even doing so frequently is unlikely to cause problems. But if 1&2 are correct, then a "caffeine junky" that begins having a drink with dinner may rapidly advance to a more problematic alcoholism. Or may not - there's also the matter of what kind of "high" appeals to a person. Cocaine for example is probably more likely to appeal to a caffeine junky, it gives a vaguely similar increase in energy and alertness (I understand it's quite popular within the executive and financial sectors for that reason). But again, for someone who is pre-trained to heavily abuse caffeine... the second addiction might rapidly progress to a similar level of abuse, with far more self-destructive results.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    58. Re:Same relation as income? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Not long ago viritually all adults were smokers.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    59. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Energy drinks have always fucked me up more than cocaine ever has. I just say no to energy drinks! I'll consider a bump if someone is offering though.

    60. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel the desire to reply.

      I used to eat caffeine pills in college - we didn't have "energy drinks" back then. I used cocaine a few times but never any other stimulant like meth. I love caffeine and for that matter I love cocaine too. No doubt about it, cocaine makes me feel great - like frosted flakes covered in cocaine!

      I never got too into cocaine though because I was afraid of addiction. The "drugs are bad" rhetoric of my youth took hold and I refused to ever buy it and there's only so much people were willing to share with a leech like me when it came to that.

      But I love the buzz - especially from cocaine. I once had access to some coca leaf tea and for the month or so before it was all gone I don't think I touched coffee at all.

      But the desire for a buzz is still there. Coffee and bong hits in the morning on weekends used to be a ritual. Booze and more ganja used to be the evening ritual.

      Those times I tried to stay straight I would sometimes get a strong caffeine buzz going to the point that I wouldn't stop drinking coffee until it started churning my stomach and making me shake and then I'd have to get some booze to counteract the effects.

      I think there are some of us who just like it too much. I can't explain it. And I'm drunk right now.

      With stimulants I feel I need them to wake up, but when I use them then I can't get to sleep. I'm kind of wanting to quit everything.

    61. Re:Same relation as income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't see what is wrong with your claim that coffee leads to addiction...

      Caffeine addition is very real. It doesn't have quite as severe withdrawal symptoms as other physically addictive substances such as alcohol and opiates (for which cold turkey quitting can be life threatening), but there are definite withdrawal symptoms when a caffeine addict quits.

    62. Re:Same relation as income? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Withdrawal from opiates is not life threatening. You can die from withdrawal from alcohol and benzodiazepines, but not opiates. You seem to be confused about what the term addiction means when used in a clinical setting. Minor withdrawal symptoms alone do not meet the criteria by any stretch of the imagination. You can consult the DSM if you would like to be educated on this subject but as it stands you make it perfectly clear that you have zero knowledge of the subject matter.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  3. Drug users may use drugs, water is wet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're telling us people who use stimulating drugs are more likely to use drugs than other people? Who would've thought??

  4. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I smoked weed first and drank energy drinks second.
    I can see now what triggered my drinking...

    1. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Noooooo! Not the devil's herb! It will lead to energy drinks and god knows what else.

  5. How many times? by Marcpek · · Score: 2, Informative

    Correlation causation. Correlation causation. Correlation causation. The original article acknowledges this and it does not reach that conclusion. Yet, the title reads "energy drinks MAY trigger future substance use". By the same logic I guess we can also say "eating vegetables may trigger schizophrenia" or "eating hamburgers may trigger a healthy lifestyle" or "doing drugs may trigger a happy and fruitful life" or "staring at the sun may trigger improved gaming skills". Those are all true statements, aren't they?

    1. Re:How many times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Correlation causation. Correlation causation. Correlation causation. The original article acknowledges this and it does not reach that conclusion. Yet, the title reads "energy drinks MAY trigger future substance use". By the same logic I guess we can also say "eating vegetables may trigger schizophrenia" or "eating hamburgers may trigger a healthy lifestyle" or "doing drugs may trigger a happy and fruitful life" or "staring at the sun may trigger improved gaming skills". Those are all true statements, aren't they?

      You do realize that the only way you ever conclude "causation" is by first finding "correlation"?

    2. Re:How many times? by Cigaes · · Score: 2

      Indeed, I was about to post that this was a typical “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, but you beat me to it.

      In this particular instance, there is an obvious common cause: being open to artificial stimulations of the mind.

    3. Re:How many times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do realize that the only way you ever conclude "causation" is by first finding "correlation"?

      True. Very observant and astute of you.

      Why does the idiot slashdot editor need to come to that conclusion without evidence?

      Clicks.

      This place is getting retarded. They found a way to get lots of clicks (post lots of political bullshit) and now it's in the tank. Just like long time users predicted would happen when a marketing company run by millennials bought it.

      It's going to be a steady stream of "this housewife figured out how to impeach trump with this one trick" crap very soon.

    4. Re:How many times? by hord · · Score: 1

      Multiple correlations. Not just one. From one experiment. Multiple from multiple experiments attempting to test multiple facets of the same problem domain. Yes, correlation and causation are correlated! One more so than the other!

    5. Re:How many times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Correlation causation. Correlation causation. Correlation causation. The original article acknowledges this and it does not reach that conclusion. Yet, the title reads "energy drinks MAY trigger future substance use". By the same logic I guess we can also say "eating vegetables may trigger schizophrenia" or "eating hamburgers may trigger a healthy lifestyle" or "doing drugs may trigger a happy and fruitful life" or "staring at the sun may trigger improved gaming skills". Those are all true statements, aren't they?

      Do you realize that this is the way any study/research is done? You first have to have a hypothesis. Then you perform the study/research using at least one method against (or go along with) the hypothesis -- finding correlation. Regardless what the result is, you make a conclusion. If the result seems to go along with your hypothesis, then you could say it MAY be the cause. If it does not, they could conclude it to be the opposite. The higher the confident value of correlation, the higher probability of it to be the cause. Is it hard to understand that correlation -> causation in any case?

      Also, the wording use "MAY" because the study could be expanded to confirm/contradict the hypothesis. The finding is just a correlation, so they CANNOT say that "ED triggers future substance use." It is perfectly fine to use the word MAY. Your analogy is comparing apple to orange because you are comparing a statement WITHOUT support evidence with something that has already been proven at a certain degree.

    6. Re:How many times? by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      ... "staring at the sun may trigger improved gaming skills"...

      You finally figured out how to get gamers Outside!

    7. Re:How many times? by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      There are different degrees of "may." Treating all uses of "may" as equivalent is intellectually dishonest, something you accuse the summary of. "Driving faster may increase risk of injuries in a crash" is more reasonable than "staring at the sun may trigger improved gaming skills", even if for the sake of argument the former isn't proven causation.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    8. Re:How many times? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      The problem isn't the research. The problem is the sloppy reporting about the research.

      For my part, I'd hypothesize that the more likely trigger is something else that is responsible for driving BOTH energy drink use and substance abuse. For instance, people who have their lives together generally have no reason to turn to energy drinks; they've structured their lives so that they don't need them. On the other hand, many folks are poor at sleep and time management, resulting in more stress as they move from one matter that they've allowed to become unnecessarily urgent to the next unnecessarily urgent matter. Energy drink use would be a natural result in that situation for many people, as would turning to other mind altering substances to alleviate the underlying stress.

      Again, the research did nothing to suggest a causation, so it's possible my little theory may one day be proven right (or not), but sloppy headlines suggest conclusions beyond those that are backed by science.

    9. Re:How many times? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It's going to be a steady stream of "this housewife figured out how to impeach trump with this one trick" crap very soon.

      Tell me more about this housewife!

    10. Re:How many times? by fafalone · · Score: 1

      The correlation is simple: Use of one psychoactive drug means you're more likely to use other psychoactive drugs. Caffeine is a drug. A legal drug, but a drug nonetheless.

  6. So... what the study found... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    People who use stimulants are likely to use stimulants.

    Where do I apply for money for such studies? I'm asking for a friend...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:So... what the study found... by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      Studies show that mothers breast milk is a gateway drug which leads to death.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    2. Re:So... what the study found... by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People who use stimulants are likely to use stimulants.

      Where do I apply for money for such studies? I'm asking for a friend...

      My thoughts exactly.

      What's interesting to me is that in so far as I can tell they did not do any kind of comparison with regular old coffee, you know, the age old stimulant that's even more potent in caffeine than some energy drinks. As a curiosity this sort of panic over 'energy drinks' such as coffee is not new

      Coffee first arrived in Sweden around 1674, but was little used until the turn of the 18th century when it became fashionable among the wealthy. In 1746, a royal edict was issued against coffee and tea due to "the misuse and excesses of tea and coffee drinking". Heavy taxes were levied on consumption, and failure to pay the tax on the substance resulted in fines and confiscation of cups and dishes. Later, coffee was banned completely; despite the ban, consumption continued.

      Gustav III, who viewed coffee consumption as a threat to the public health and was determined to prove its negative health effects, ordered a scientific experiment to be carried out.

      The king ordered the experiment to be conducted using two identical twins. Both of the twins had been tried for the crimes they had committed and condemned to death. Their sentences were commuted to life imprisonment on the condition that one of the twins drank three pots of coffee, and the other drank the same amount of tea, every day for the rest of their lives.

      Two physicians were appointed to supervise the experiment and report its finding to the king. Unfortunately, both doctors died, presumably of natural causes, before the experiment was completed. Gustav III, who was assassinated in 1792, also died before seeing the final results. Of the twins, the tea drinker was the first to die, at age 83; the date of death of the surviving coffee drinker is unknown.

      In 1794, the government once again tried to impose a ban on coffee. The ban, which was renewed multiple times until the 1820s, was never successful in stamping out coffee-drinking. Once the ban was lifted, coffee became a dominant beverage in Sweden, which since has been one of the countries with the highest coffee consumption per capita in the world.

      The experiment has jokingly been called "the first Swedish clinical trial"

      The arguments raised then were pretty much exactly the same as they're now with energy drinks, namely that 'oh the youth of today does nothing but sit at cafes sipping this brown liquid, it's going to make them decadent idiots and losers!"

      As a Finn I do have to point out as the centuries long neighborhood 'feud' between us and the Old Kingdom necessitates that we've got the nr. 1 place in coffee consumption. Filthy casuals. ;)

      I've got to go now, my IV drip of Ecuadorian dark roast is running empty and the typing speed is falling to below 500 words a minute.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    3. Re:So... what the study found... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I generally liked Finnish food (like blueberry soup, kotikalja, Karelian pies, Tupla, egg butter and omg the cloudberry, the cloudberry) when I worked there for a year or so, but I never really got the coffee obsession. Tea or herbal infusion fit the climate better, I think.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re:So... what the study found... by hord · · Score: 1

      Hitler drank mother's milk. Think of the children.

    5. Re:So... what the study found... by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      I generally liked Finnish food (like blueberry soup, kotikalja, Karelian pies, Tupla, egg butter and omg the cloudberry, the cloudberry)

      Thank you, you have a fine taste, herr Falke.

      when I worked there for a year or so, but I never really got the coffee obsession.

      Well, it's not exactly clear to us either why it's become as prominent as it has, but seriously the aforementioned bans from the age of Swedish rule affected it greatly. You see, even though we were loyal subjects of the kingdom for close to 8 centuries, the language barrier created a sort of caste-system of those who could speak Swedish, and therefore be able to rise into positions of power and/or nobility, and the 'lower caste' of Finnish speaking working class and peasants who really didn't have all that much power or representation in matters of policy but they were however still taxed and made to fight in wars when the king so required. So needless to say, among a big chunk of the population, the royalty/the elites in Stockholm were not all that popular among the Finnish speaking crowd.

      So during the eras of bans, drinking coffee became and easy way to practice sort of civil disobedience, a caffeinated way of giving the middle finger to elites.

      Tea was also harder to get so far as I know, because Russia was and is a huge consumer of tea. I don't have figures to back this up but my estimate is that the traders of Hansa & al who provided the majority of exotic imports such as coffee and tobacco got a better price per kilo of tea by selling it to Russia or to mainland Sweden instead of to the relatively poor Finland (or Österland, 'the east land' as we were then known), so the availability of coffee probably also played into why it became such a big thing here over the centuries. It's even become a sort of 'coming of age ritual', in the sense that I still vividly remember the first time my grandmother allowed me to sit with them for a cup of coffee at our old summer cottage up north. I mean, I sat with them anyway most of the time but I wasn't given any coffee until about the age of 7ish, and that felt like such a big thing because 'coffee time' much like afternoon tea for the Britts, was like a grownup thing.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    6. Re:So... what the study found... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hitler's mother was gender fluid social justice warrior and xe was married to an angry white male who espoused rape culture. So that's why Adolf was so mean.
        That's what I learned at my antifa meeting last month.

    7. Re:So... what the study found... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Tits aren't for little kids! Have some decency!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:So... what the study found... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I would like to be your friends guinea pig, and try the substances ;D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:So... what the study found... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      At least we know now that drinking tea is "more dangerous" than drinking coffee.
      Alas, and i mostly gave up drinking coffee and switched to green tee.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:So... what the study found... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's probably going to be the first scientific study where the guinea pigs don't get paid but have to pay to get in...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. I drink energy drinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll often spend late nights reading articles or studying some subject (like neural nets), then realize that I spent too long and I'm too tired to think clearly. Energy drink to the rescue...it's definitely not healthy.

  8. Correlation and causation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another one of these half-blind statistical studies? You'd have thought people would have wised up to this blatant clickbait years ago but apparently this type of stuff still keeps science news moving on a slow news day. This type of context-free "studies" should have fallen to the wayside decades ago when people thought drinking caused lung cancer because of similar correlation, caused by heavy drinkers also being smokers more often than the average person.

  9. Maybe unrelated by skovnymfe · · Score: 2

    Cool kids drink energy drinks, and they drink alcohol and they do party drugs. So conversely drinking energy drinks and alcohol and doing drugs makes you one of the cool kids, right? Only you'll never be one of the cool kids, because frankly you're just an imitating loser, only now you're also an addict, and a point in a statistic which has no basis in reality, and which is created by people who never experienced being one of the cool kids, or one of the addicts. Or possible was one of the addicts at one point, but got better and had their opinion of the cool kids turn sour. So now they're after the least prickly of the three - can't chase down the drugs, that doesn't work, and can't chase down the alcohol, that doesn't work either - DEATH TO ENERGY DRINKS!

  10. Didn't need science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The investigators found that sensation seeking, conduct problems, and behavioral dysregulation were all positively associated with a higher probability of energy drink consumption

    So what they're saying is the textbook definition douchebag drinks a lot of energy drinks. No surprise with that finding.

  11. substance use triggers energy drinks by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    gotta get sober somehow

  12. O...K..... by Puff_Of_Hot_Air · · Score: 1

    So people who habitually seek out a stimulate are more likely to also be the the same people who go on to seek out other stimulates you say?

  13. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who waste money on shit later go on to waste money on other shit.

    1. Re:Idiots by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      It's called the American Dream.

  14. Now look into sleep deprivation by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    How many of these people either work, study, or work and study to the point they're often tired and/or sleep deprived and use energy drinks as a crutch to keep going?

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re: Now look into sleep deprivation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, it's strongly correlated. If I'm stressing out about a project, I'll down energy drinks to keep working efficiently at late hours, and then down a couple of beers after a post-midnight dinner to manage to fall asleep with residual stress hormones and caffeine in my blood. When work calms down, intake of both caffeine and alcohol drops. And of course, I start eating a bit healthier too.

  15. Drug use ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought drug use was ok and fast becoming the norm since marijuana legalization?

  16. Will power is a limited resource by Togden · · Score: 1

    Studies have shown that will power appears to be a limited resource, and may potentially be topped up by sugar consumption.

    https://en.wikipedia.org

    If this is true, this suggests these people are regularly running low on will power, which then goes on to fail and they become addicted. This builds on the existing addiction model that suggests it happens to people rather than by them, caused by other problems in their lives.

    http://kurzgesagt.org

  17. WHY COULDN'T YOU PUT THE BUNNY BACK IN THE BOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks like meat's back on the menu, boys.

  18. This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    My older brother has an addictive personality. He chugs Red Bull and cigarettes in equal measure.

    1. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you totally don't chug a skinny vanilla latte every day, or shitpost dozens of times per day on here.

      Not at all. You're a muscular, first-rate intellect.

    2. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You're a muscular, first-rate intellect.

      Thank you!

    3. Re: This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you stopped raping your neighbor's goats yet?

    4. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your shitty blog's definition of morbid obesity conflicts with the ASMBS defintion, which reads:

      Morbid obesity, also referred to as “clinically severe obesity” or “extreme obesity,” was defined as the criteria for bariatric surgery by the 1991 NIH Consensus Conference Statement on Gastrointestinal Surgery for Severe Obesity as a BMI 40 kg/m^2^ or a BMI 35 kg/m^2^ in the presence of high-risk comorbid conditions. Obesity was further classified in the 1998 NIH Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults into Class I (BMI 30.0 kg/m^2^ to 34.9 kg/m^2^), Class II (BMI 35.0 kg/m^2^ to 39.9 kg/m^2^), and Class III (BMI 40 kg/m^2^).

      Who's the ASMBS? Well, they're the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Which means they're pretty much the doctors who get to *define* the clinical meaning of these terms. As such, I'm inclined to accept their definition as the "true" definition. And for what it's worth, this definition is identical to the CDC's definition, as well.

      So, are you morbidly obese? All we have to do is calculate your BMI. From your many shitposts here, we know that you are 5'10, and 357 pounds. According to the NIH, that gives you a BMI of 51.2, which means that you fall WELL above the 40 kg/m^2 line for morbid obesity.

      Conclusion: Yes, you are morbidly obese. You can deny it, you can refuse to hear it, you can pretend you're the one single special exception to the rule... but you're not. You're just another in-denial fatty who thinks that his pants are too tight because he walked up the stairs then took a nap, which totally must have led to some serious muscle gain.

      To fall below the 40 kg/m^2 line of being morbidly obese, you would need to reach 278 pounds, where your BMI would sit a hair below that line, at 39.9 kg/m^2. That's 79 pounds below your current weight, which means you should hit the point of being "merely" obese sometime around the 5th of Never, given your current weight loss progress.

    5. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound bitter, sweet tits

    6. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Your shitty blog's definition of morbid obesity conflicts with the ASMBS definition [...]

      I thought about updating that part of The Original Slashdot F.A.Q., but I left it "as is" since it would piss off today's troll just as it pissed off the trolls from 11 years ago. Your angry response just proved that.

      You're just another in-denial fatty who thinks that his pants are too tight [...]

      My clothes fit fine. I buy them at Target just like everyone else.

    8. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy is so fat, photographic evidence barely exists.

      " he walked up the stairs then took a nap"

      I'm older than he is, I work out in the morning, and it energizes me! I can't fall asleep after my workout. creimer's headed for the ER soon...

    9. Re: This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Do you want to go next?

    10. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound lonely, salty balls

    11. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought about updating that part of The Original Slashdot F.A.Q. [bit.ly], but I left it "as is" since it would piss off today's troll just as it pissed off the trolls from 11 years ago. Your angry response just proved that.

      Angry? Hardly. I just find it hilarious how deluded you are. Where did you get your definition of morbid obesity? Because according to the ASMBS, it was defined in 1991 by the NIH Consensus Conference Statement on Gastrointestinal Surgery for Severe Obesity. So it's not like a proper clinical definition didn't exist 11 years ago when you wrote your original tirade.

      I just thought it would be amusing to see what you did when confronted with actual facts that contradict your off-base, delusional ideations. It turns out, you just duck, dodge, dip, dive, and dodge like usual. What I really don't understand is how you remain a functional adult with all of this disconnection from reality. Do you have a home health aide? Be honest - you must.

      My clothes fit fine. I buy them at Target just like everyone else.

      No, your clothes don't fit fine. Every photo I've seen of you shows a too-small t-shirt stretched to just short of its tearing point over a mound of doughy fleshy, hairy man tits, and rolls of greasy back fat that bulge out around your arms. And your pants seem to compress your belly fat so much they leave visible, obvious indentations on either side as they displace and compress the fat in against your internal organs.

      Meet Zach Banner. He's an offensive tackle for the Indianapolis Colts. He's 6'9 - nearly a foot taller than you, and weighs 360 pounds. All the football players who are 5'10 tend to play positions like running backs, and most of them are in the 200-225 pound range. So to get somebody who weighs the same as you, I had to find an offensive tackle who's nearly a foot taller than you are. And he's obviously in far better shape, with a lot more muscle. Do you see why, when you say "think football player," we all snicker? The only football players that weigh what you do are 8-12 inches taller than you, and obviously in much better condition. They also look far better in their clothing than you do, because they buy clothes that fit. I'd suggest you go shop at some of the "Destination XL" or "Big and Tall" stores - they have sizes up to 6x (maybe even higher, but they advertise up to 6x here), and they'd definitely have some tent canvas you could wrap around that belly.

    12. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Every photo I've seen of you shows a too-small t-shirt stretched to just short of its tearing point over a mound of doughy fleshy, hairy man tits, and rolls of greasy back fat that bulge out around your arms.

      Stereotype much?

      I'd suggest you go shop at some of the "Destination XL" or "Big and Tall" stores - they have sizes up to 6x (maybe even higher, but they advertise up to 6x here), and they'd definitely have some tent canvas you could wrap around that belly.

      ROFL

    13. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stereotype much?

      What a curious response. A stereotype is defined as, "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing."

      I wrote, "Every photo I've seen of you shows a too-small t-shirt stretched to just short of its tearing point over a mound of doughy flesh, hairy man tits, and rolls of greasy back fat that bulge out around your arms." How is that a "stereotype"? I am describing the impression left after seeing multiple specific images of you - and there are at least 4 or 5 that I've seen linked around here. I'm not drawing conclusions about your character, I'm simply stating that you appear to be wearing clothes that are far too small for your large size in every single one of them.

      The only "conclusion" I drew is that you are completely *deluded* to think that you are heavily muscled, built like a football player, or not morbidly obese. All of these conclusions are reasonable given the information you've posted about yourself here, plus the evidence gathered with my own eyes from images you've posted on the internet.

      ROFL

      Oh dear. Once creimer starts rolling, his inertia can be very dangerous. But if you're going to be moving around, I'd recommend rolling by your DXL store to pick up some new shirts and shorts. Your fellow gym members and co-workers will thank you.

    14. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, he has to step outside if he plans on rolling on the floor in his apartment." And with those thin walls everyone can hear it and think it's an earthquake!

      Oh shit, did I just post publicly available information about creimer that he makes trivially easy to find? I hope he isn't going to send a DMCA takedown against his own apartment management...

    15. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I wrote, "Every photo I've seen of you shows a too-small t-shirt stretched to just short of its tearing point over a mound of doughy flesh, hairy man tits, and rolls of greasy back fat that bulge out around your arms." How is that a "stereotype"?

      You're projecting on to my pictures what you think is a fat person. I wear 2XL t-shirt and Large gym shorts comfortably, nothing is "just short of its tearing point". What makes you think I have "hairy man tits" and "greasy back fat" when I'm wearing a t-shirt that exposes neither?

      Once creimer starts rolling, his inertia can be very dangerous.

      Again with the stereotype!

    16. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I hope he isn't going to send a DMCA takedown against his own apartment management...

      Keep failing at your repeated attempts of INTIMIDATION.

    17. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you solve partial differential equations in your head while you bench press? How much do you bench press?

    18. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I'm older than he is, I work out in the morning, and it energizes me! I can't fall asleep after my workout.

      I haven't taken a nap all week. Probably because the weather has cooled down and I'm too busy working.

      creimer's headed for the ER soon...

      So I've been told for the last 40+ years.

    19. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're projecting on to my pictures what you think is a fat person. "

      No, no... We are SEEING a fat person.

      " gym shorts comfortably"

      Yes, which explains the four inch wide band cutting into your flesh.

      "What makes you think I have "hairy man tits" and "greasy back fat" "

      You're 47 and have no money for epilation or skin care?

    20. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      No, no... We are SEEING a fat person.

      No. You're seeing Fat Cartman.

      http://www.punjabigraphics.com/images/17/fat-ass-south-park.jpg

      Yes, which explains the four inch wide band cutting into your flesh.

      Thank you for acknowledging that I wear gym shorts and not a corset or girdle.

      You're 47 and have no money for epilation or skin care?

      Still clinging to that stereotype. How pathetic.

    21. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " You're seeing Fat Cartman."

      No, just fat as usual, never been skinny, Christopher Dale Reimer. No muscles either. Chubby arms, flabby tits.

      "Thank you for acknowledging that I wear gym shorts and not a corset or girdle."

      Not really, there are no gym shorts with 4 inch elastic bands. And who can wear gym shorts all day? With all that heavy creaming you boast about, how can you get enough support for your impressive, yet untouched, manhood?

    22. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares?

    23. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Christopher Dale Reimer

      Another failed attempt at INTIMIDATION. You think you're the first asshat to try this?

    24. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your own apartment complex publishing (public) floorpans of an apartment is intimidating how, exactly? Did they have to hang a double-wide door when they rented to you?

      Jesus fuck, dude. Your brain is flashing the "CHECK ENGINE" light and you're wasting time talking about t-shirts and your 1500 calorie diet!?

    25. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're on to something? Just statistically, your BMI puts you as having a lifespan 10 years shorter than average.

      Actually, your BMI is off the chart, so it's probably more like 11.

    26. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Your own apartment complex publishing (public) floorpans of an apartment is intimidating how, exactly?

      Because it's implied threat that you know where I live. That I should stop commenting on Slashdot before something bad happens. Under the law, it's called INTIMIDATION.

      On a related note, don't bother sending any "packages" to my apartment. The ~30 suspicious packages I get each year are sent back unopened.

    27. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're projecting on to my pictures what you think is a fat person.

      No, I'm drawing very natural conclusions based on what I see in your photos.

      I wear 2XL t-shirt and Large gym shorts comfortably

      Perhaps comfortable for you is tightly packed inside shrink wrap. Babies, for instance, love to be swaddled and wrapped tight. Autistic people have their hug boxes. Maybe your t-shirts perform a similar soothing function for you. But make no mistake, those t-shirts are very tight on you - generally people with extra weight try not to wear such form fitting clothing because it accentuates their bulges and rolls and folds.

      What makes you think I have "hairy man tits" and "greasy back fat" when I'm wearing a t-shirt that exposes neither?

      The obvious bulges of fat that are visible on your chest qualify as man tits. That you are a man and wear beards as documented in multiple photos of yourself you've posted strongly suggests that you have hair on your chest, because if you don't bother shaving your face smooth, it's unlikely that you shave your chest. The back fat you have is also quite visible in your multiple "flexing" poses, as nobody without large rolls of back fat has a massive bulge jutting out from their back behind and under their upper arms. That it's greasy is a natural conclusion, given your size & your limited range of motion - hard to wash your back when you can't bend your arms around behind yourself to reach the large expanse of flesh it presents.

      Again with the stereotype!

      Again, not a stereotype, it's simple physics. Force equals mass times acceleration. You have a large mass for a human, and if you begin rolling around on the floor, you're accelerating in some way, which means that the force you're exerting on things around you is proportionally larger than the forces exerted by a person with smaller mass. Therefore, when you are "ROFL," your movements become dangerous to the people and objects around you, as you are exerting a great deal of force on them.

    28. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're on to something?

      I didn't drop dead when I was [10 | 20 | 30 | 40]-years-old. I suspect 50 will come and go without incident, as I'm in better health today than I have been in decades.

    29. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, citizen.

    30. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's implied threat that you know where I live.

      So you sharing with the public that you live at a certain apartment complex, and somebody mentioning that they know your apartment is small and rather dumpy is intimidation... but you threatening to "exercise your second amendment rights" is not intimidation?

      Under California law, making criminal threats may be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. In order to convict a person of making criminal threats, the prosecution must prove:
      (1) The defendant willfully made a threat to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury to the victim
      (2) The threat was made with specific intent that the statement be taken as a threat, regardless of whether Defendant actually intends to follow through.
      (3) The threat was communicated to the victim either verbally, in writing, or by electronic communication.
      (4) The victim believed the threatened harm to be imminent.
      (5) The victim's fear of harm was reasonable.

      Saying "this is the floor plan of your apartment," unquestionably fails test #2. It arguably fails test #1, and #5, as well.

    31. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The paranoid interpretations that your sick brain comes up with have nothing to do with the law. You think I'm going to fly there to visit your fat ass?

      That's called grandiose narcissism. Also generalized anxiety disorder if you always extrapolate to the worst scenario.

      Look at it this way.

      You are an intensely annoying person, equivalent to the itch of a thousand mosquito bites. All the personal information you post about yourself is very interesting. I've never encountered someone as dysfunctional as you outside of a lunatic asylum.

      That's all there is to it. You're a pebble in a shoe, you're an itch on the crotch.

      You're an STD, Slashdot Transmitted Disease.

      ". The ~30 suspicious packages I get each year are sent back unopened."

      I just spent 75$ buying you a pink fuck you gnome and this is the thanks I'm getting? For the ONE time you cracked me up for two days? I was also going to send you a Super Pochaco figurine! Fat can be sexy too! (On a voluptuous woman)

    32. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Under California law, making criminal threats [...]

      What part of the law. By doxing me on Slashdot, you're interfering with my constitutional right to express my opinion.

      http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-422-6.html

      (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

    33. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go read this, maybe you'll understand why you're off your rocker: http://www.shouselaw.com/crimi...

      You have to prove that you've been "intimidated" or "threatened" in a way that comports with California's definition of a criminal threat.

      Simply saying, "I know, because you've told us endlessly where you live, what floor plan your apartment has," is not a specific threat against you. Therefore the person cannot be in violation of S422.6, because there is no "force or threat of force" being used to "willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person."

      If there is no threat, then you have no case. Simply stating public information about you is not a threat.

    34. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The paranoid interpretations [...]

      I'm not being paranoid. Because I don't fit the Fat Cartman stereotype, some people take great offense at my existence. Death threats, fist fights and trolls are what I had to deal with over the years.

      You are an intensely annoying person [...]

      You would find me less annoying if you and your fellow trolls stopped this six-month campaign against me on Slashdot.

    35. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Simply stating public information about you is not a threat.

      Please explain why you find it necessary to search out public information about me and then re-post it here on Slashdot?

    36. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain why you find it necessary to search out public information about me and then re-post it here on Slashdot?

      I don't, and I have not done so. Are you making the delusional assumption that everybody posting as "Anonymous Coward" is the same person?

      If I were to guess why another AC would "find it necessary to search out public information about you and then re-post it here on Slashdot," I'd guess they find it amusing to tweak you by throwing your incredible tendency to over-share information about yourself back in your face. And obviously, your jimmies are rustled, so it's working.

      Simply stating / repeating public information is not a crime, especially when you share most of the information I've seen commented on here yourself. You've told Slashdot where you live yourself - were you trying to intimidate yourself by doing so? You told Slashdot about your Uncle "Hive-fucker" Reimer. You've told Slashdot about your mother's drinking problem, your father's disappointment with you for wanting to pursue a less "manly" career. You've told Slashdot about your years of special ed, your failures in college, your struggles with weight loss...

      Given all of that, why the FUCK are you even remotely surprised anybody is going to repeat that information back to you when trolling you?

      You feed the trolls, and then you complain about their continued existence. What's your diagnosis, exactly?

    37. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You've told Slashdot where you live yourself - were you trying to intimidate yourself by doing so?

      Only in most general terms. I never mentioned the apartment complex by name or the street address.

      You told Slashdot about your Uncle "Hive-fucker" Reimer. You've told Slashdot about your mother's drinking problem, your father's disappointment with you for wanting to pursue a less "manly" career.

      But I never mentioned their names.

      You've told Slashdot about your years of special ed, your failures in college, your struggles with weight loss.

      Also in the most general terms. I'm surprised no one tried to pull my college transcripts. But I guess that's harder than getting my credit report.

      Given all of that, why the FUCK are you even remotely surprised anybody is going to repeat that information back to you when trolling you?

      Because decent human beings don't do that. Of course, trolls are neither decent nor human.

      You feed the trolls, and then you complain about their continued existence. What's your diagnosis, exactly?

      Content creator. ;)

    38. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would find me less annoying if you and your fellow trolls stopped this six-month campaign against me on Slashdot.

      Creimer, that sounds like a threat. "I'm going to continue being an annoying turd, until you leave me alone." Maybe you should also mention your second amendment rights.

      If you keep making threats like this, I'll have no choice but to report you to the FBI and the IRS, or maybe MI5 or Mossad.

    39. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in most general terms. I never mentioned the apartment complex by name or the street address.

      The most trivial of web searches with your name turns up your address. From there, it's trivially easy to find the name of the apartment complex.

      But I never mentioned their names.

      The same search on your name turns up "Likely Relative" names, and those are the names of your parents that I've seen tossed around here.

      Also in the most general terms. I'm surprised no one tried to pull my college transcripts. But I guess that's harder than getting my credit report.

      How does someone get your credit report, when that's illegal without your written permission? And, when it shows up *on* your credit report, showing who obtained it, you can see that someone's pulled it. What information do you imagine was only available about you via your credit report, that you'd assume somebody fraudulently obtained it?

      Because decent human beings don't do that. Of course, trolls are neither decent nor human.

      You've admitted here to "trolling" the trolls... does that mean you're neither decent, nor human as well? No information I've ever seen tossed around here about you has required more than a simple search on your legal name - which is your username, which is your pen name - via google. If you don't like that that information is available about you, you should probably investigate ways of opting out of online services that list & catalog that data. Pro tip: bitching about how "unfair" it is on Slashdot isn't going to make it disappear.

    40. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      What information do you imagine was only available about you via your credit report, that you'd assume somebody fraudulently obtained it?

      I was asked which two specific street names did I previously lived at in the past. That type of question is typically reserved for verification of credit report information. One of the street names was ONLY available on a credit report because it was related to identity theft.

      If you don't like that that information is available about you, you should probably investigate ways of opting out of online services that list & catalog that data.

      I'm a bit surprised how widespread my personal information via public records is on third-party websites. That wasn't the case several years ago. Back then you had to visit the government websites to pull my information.

    41. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I don't fit the Fat Cartman stereotype

      Morbidly obese but still talks like he's "beefcake" instead of just fat? Full of himself? I don't normally make South Park comparisons (I am an adult and not particularly fluent with cartoons), but that actually seems to match you extremely closely.

    42. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " One of the street names was ONLY available on a credit report because it was related to identity theft."

      It's publicly available to anyone with an IQ above room temperature, Chris.

      "I'm a bit surprised how widespread my personal information via public records is on third-party websites. "

      With your reckless self-disclosure, how can you be surprised? You're like a whore who fucks without a condom and gets indignant about the chancres.

    43. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm not being paranoid. Because I don't fit the Fat Cartman stereotype, some people take great offense at my existence. "

      " six-month campaign against me"

      That's textbook paranoia. And you fit the Cartman stereotype perfectly.

      You're fat. Deal with it. Everyone sees it.

    44. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain why you feel it necessary to SAY so much personal information about yourself here on Slashdot that it's TRIVIAL to find out everything about you?

    45. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Content creator. ;)"

      I guess that wink means "not really". I've seen the "content" you "create", and there's nothing of value there. At all.

      Most of your reviews are overwhelmingly negative. You are a terrible, awful, skill-less writer.

    46. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Please explain why you feel it necessary to SAY so much personal information about yourself here on Slashdot that it's TRIVIAL to find out everything about you?

      When your life is an open book, it makes blackmail attempts impossible. Yes, people tried unsuccessfully to blackmail me. No, I'm not being paranoid.

    47. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more public information about you we post, the stronger you become! What are you complaining about?

      And what could anyone possibly blackmail you about? You're an unimportant person who has no relevance in the community, you don't even have a girlfriend!

      You're an unimportant, anonymous, irrelevant shlub.

    48. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They tried to blackmail a man who lives in a studio apartment and brags about his $3/day "side-business"?

    49. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      And what could anyone possibly blackmail you about?

      Small-minded people sometimes think that they can put me into a compromising situation by threatening to expose my "secrets" to the world. Not aware that I've been blogging about my life for the last 20 years. I can easily provide a link for just about everything in my life. By attempting to blackmail me, small-minded people find themselves in a compromising situation. No one wants to be known as a blackmailer.

      You're an unimportant, anonymous, irrelevant shlub.

      Except for Slashdot. I have the third most recognizable user name on Slashdot. All thanks to my adoring trolls.

    50. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Small-minded people sometimes think that they can put me into a compromising situation by threatening to expose my "secrets" to the world. Not aware that I've been blogging about my life for the last 20 years. I can easily provide a link for just about everything in my life. By attempting to blackmail me, small-minded people find themselves in a compromising situation. No one wants to be known as a blackmailer."

      Then what, exactly, are you upset about? Loosen that cargo strap around your belly, fat man, the molasses can't get to your brain.

      "Except for Slashdot."

      It's cute that you think Slashdot matters in the real world.

    51. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You are a terrible, awful, skill-less writer.

      That's interesting. The typical Slashdot visitor to my blog spends 3.5 minutes looking at three pages on average. I don't think they're staring at the ads.

    52. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like people rubber-necking a car wreck. They go to see blood and guts and pain and suffering. Which your writing induces in copious amounts.

      "I don't think they're staring at the ads."

      Nah, not with adblockers, true.

    53. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Because decent human beings don't do that."

      Decent human beings also don't tell us about his uncle raping a tree, or how big your bowel movements are in casual conversation.

      You're autistic, creimer, and you don't notice (and don't even care) about how strange, weird, and off-putting you are.

    54. Re:This doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your very own Slashdot bio:

      https://www.kickingthebitbucket.com/
      C.D. Reimer writes about the everyday reality

      The first asshat to try using your name is YOU , fat man.

  19. Oh, for eff's sake, here it goes again... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    I hate energy drinks. Diggusting. Having said that, this study is another one of those "look at the study!" pieces of garbage.

    I'd love to see a study done at some University about how people with an increased desire for a high intake of sugary products on a regular basis have a higher tendency toward substance abuse. How about that one?

  20. War on Drugs by zifn4b · · Score: 1

    ZOMG - Redbull and Rockstar are gateway drugs that ultimately lead to heroin abuse. Quick, add that to the list of illegal substances! Think of the children.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  21. Legal way to put crap in your body by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Their is probably a correlation between drinking soda and drug use to. You've proven you will put anything in your pie-hole.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  22. Self-medication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correlation does not equal causation. I have ADHD. I only recently learned (in my 30s) that people who are NOT medicated for ADHD are significantly more likely to develop a substance abuse problem (I am an alcoholic). It's the complete opposite of when I was a kid (I was always told that if I should avoid being medicated because alcoholism runs in the family). Most likely, there are enough people self-medicating for SOMETHING to cause a correlation between future substance use/abuse (and caffeine is great self-medication for ADHD). I am medicated now, and it makes not drinking alcohol much easier. I'm not searching for substances to even me out (I drink a lot less, smoke less pot and drink less coffee, the three substances I used in large amounts before). I would be careful claiming causation here.

    1. Re:Self-medication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correlation actually does equal causation. You must have missed it. It is one of the many laws passed during the Obama administration to make alt-left statist claims and Bernie Sanders' campaign plausible.

    2. Re:Self-medication by DMFNR · · Score: 1

      Glad you found something to help curb your drinking! I hope you keep making progress and get to where you want to be.

  23. Makes sense. by CODiNE · · Score: 2

    There's a particularly nasty case of ADHD on one of my parents family's, on the other multigenerational alcoholism.

    It's as if the two families were in competition for which side can screw their lives up the most. Knowing this from an early age I've always been careful to avoid ending up in any kind of dependency situation. I'll keep alcohol consumption limited to 2 or 3 drinks, and refuse any non-prescription drug, heck I even avoid painkillers.

    Personally I've noticed a real sensitivity to things as simple as sugar messing with my moods. I can have a soda or juice and a short time later "What the heck am I saying??" Yep, there was corn syrup in that.

    So definitely, I'm the people in the article, who can't even have an energy drink without increasing their chance for ending up in heated arguments, lack of impulse control and general sketchy behavior.

    At least I've never been arrested.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a particularly nasty case of ADHD on one of my parents family's, on the other multigenerational alcoholism.

      It's as if the two families were in competition for which side can screw their lives up the most. Knowing this from an early age I've always been careful to avoid ending up in any kind of dependency situation. I'll keep alcohol consumption limited to 2 or 3 drinks, and refuse any non-prescription drug, heck I even avoid painkillers.

      Personally I've noticed a real sensitivity to things as simple as sugar messing with my moods. I can have a soda or juice and a short time later "What the heck am I saying??" Yep, there was corn syrup in that.

      So definitely, I'm the people in the article, who can't even have an energy drink without increasing their chance for ending up in heated arguments, lack of impulse control and general sketchy behavior.

      At least I've never been arrested.

      Or maybe you're just a total pussy.

    2. Re:Makes sense. by CODiNE · · Score: 2

      You're right, my meth head cousins are so brave. Just like my imprisoned brother. Nobody told him what to do. Being the only undivorced person in my generation is so boring, I hate my life, hand me the Red Bull. Gonna get CRAZAAAY.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    3. Re:Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Props. The world needs more like you.

    4. Re:Makes sense. by brewthatistrue · · Score: 1

      Props. The world needs more like you.

      (It looked possibly insincere when posted as AC.)

    5. Re:Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I've noticed a real sensitivity to things as simple as sugar messing with my moods. I can have a soda or juice and a short time later "What the heck am I saying??" Yep, there was corn syrup in that.

      So definitely, I'm the people in the article, who can't even have an energy drink without increasing their chance for ending up in heated arguments, lack of impulse control and general sketchy behavior.

      This. I hear you brother and can sympathize. I have an extreme sensitivity to sugar and caffeine. If I drink a standard 12 oz. Can of Coca Cola my heart rate will spike to 110 beat per minute in about an hour. The caffeine in the coke is even worse. Genetically, I'm in that subset of humanity that suffers from Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Anything over about 45 mg of caffeine makes me edgy and anxious/scared. Long term drinking of Diet Coke made me defensive, edgy, argumentative (for no good reason) and generally unable to have normal relationships in life. And it directly lead to the alcoholism that was rampant in my family (people drank to not feel anxious). It took me years to get off of Diet sodas. Shifted to Diet Dr. Pepper, which, for some unknown reason, made me less anxious than the Diet Coke. But it was still a fight. But I got there. It's very fascinating to see the world with new eyes, without the moods and anxiety that you so well describe.

      The problem with these energy drinks is that they (and the manufacturers that make them) are purposely pushing the boundaries of the amount of stimulation that the average person can handle without becoming addicted. Because that is the goal for this drink: physical stimulation and getting people to like that stimulation so that they buy the drink again. For people with genetic or psychological predispositions to addictive substances, an energy drink is most definitely a possible gateway to future substance abuse. Just an opinion from someone who can never have one of those drinks.

      Gordon

  24. Nailed it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Daily 5-hour Energy consumer. Goes great with Adderall!

  25. Caffeine: the new gateway drug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's time to put coffee, tea, soda/energy drinks into the same category as marijuana.
    Or we could put marijuana into the same category as coffee, tea, soda/energy drinks.
    Or we can do nothing (most likely).

  26. non-hispanic white??? by alantus · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one here that thinks that "non-hispanic white" is a bizarre classification?

    Is a hispanic white a different race than non-hispanic white? Both have the same genetic background after all.

    How are the genes from a white person that grew up in Montevideo Uruguay any different than the ones of a white person that grew up in Minnesota?

    1. Re: non-hispanic white??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read: "Northern European ancestry" (Britain, France, Germany, Scandinavia) vs. "Southern European ancestry" (Spain, Portugal, Italy). There probably are some genetic differences between Germanic and Latin peoples, although I have no idea what's genes and what's just culture.

    2. Re:non-hispanic white??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is a different ethnic group but not a separate race. This is a big distinction in the U.S. If your ancestors inhabited the boundaries of the current lower 48 states, when Columbus arrived, and the tribe is federally recognized, you can claim membership in the "American Indian" race. If your ancestors were inhabiting either of the American continents when Columbus arrived, you are considered "white" but can also claim the Hispanic ethnicity.

    3. Re:non-hispanic white??? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Hispanics are either white or not. Depending on what statistical lie is being told that day and by who. Non-hispanic white is just removing the ambiguity.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:non-hispanic white??? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Some people distinguish between white and hispanics.
      I guess the guy you refer to, wanted to be explicit that he is excluding hispanics.

      How are the genes from a white person that grew up in Montevideo Uruguay any different than the ones of a white person that grew up in Minnesota?
      If one of both is a hispanic, yes :D but it is only marginally ... no idea if it could be considered a racial difference.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:non-hispanic white??? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Race is primarily a social construct anyway, and has varied over the centuries. (The German race. The white race. The non-hispanic white race.) I prefer to think about the human race.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:non-hispanic white??? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Nice virtue signal.

      The basic fact remains that socially constructed of not, being inconsistent is just 'lying with statistics'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:non-hispanic white??? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'd probably respond to your second sentence if I could understand it.

      As far as your first sentence, I stated a belief I have and wish everyone shared. If you don't agree with me, I haven't virtue signalled to you. If you don't agree with me, but are uncomfortable with disagreeing with me, it's an invitation to come over to my side. I don't normally accuse people of saying things for reasons like that, although I'm getting the strong impression that using the phrases "SJW"* and "virtue signalling" are in fact normally virtue signalling.

      *I don't like playing warriors. I like magic in my games. From now on, please call me a Social Justice Mage.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:non-hispanic white??? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Did you close your eyes and smile while you typed that out? Like a South Park character putting out a smug cloud.

      People that like to treat mexicans as white or not, depending on the story they are telling are liars from the beginning...inconsistent definitions in common useage. Where the discussion started.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  27. Addictive behavior indicates addictive behavior: by sabbede · · Score: 1

    News at 11.

  28. So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This study also shows that post secondary studies lead to stimulant abuse.

    The lesson - Don't stay in school kids, you might end up becoming a crack smoking researcher who decides to post "studies" that don't provide any actual proof.

  29. Gateway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tobacco and caffeine seem to be rather significant gateway drugs. Obviously, correlation is precisely equal to causation, and their prevalence has nothing to do with the correlation.

  30. Future abuse? by plopez · · Score: 1

    From what I've seen of the users of energy drinks many of them are already abusing drugs, caffeine and whatever else is in those drinks.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  31. Substance by elistan · · Score: 1

    It's almost as if substance abuse isn't about the specific substance, whether it be caffeine, alcohol, marijuana or heroin, but rather is all about the abuse and the behaviors surrounding it. As if even were those substances totally eliminated off the face of the Earth, substance abusers would find something else to abuse.

  32. Water is wet... or is it? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1
    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  33. Water, Milk, Juice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coca Cola
    Red Bull
    Pot
    Heroine

    I see the pattern, but I believe we should focus on root cause. I think we should ban use of all liquids. It's clear to me that banning all liquids is guaranteed to eliminate the risk of drug use.

  34. Hmm ... no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's sort of like saying coffe leads to heroin. The only things that are missing nowadays is information withheld in the name of profit, and good parenting. Ironically, 'helicoptering' and trying to keep your kids from hating you (they will sometimes if you are doing your job right) is an extreme form of neglect. Kids are not likely to moderate themselves or pull values out of thin air. Also, how can you know something is toxic if it isn't possible to educate one's self with limited information? Pretty tired of blaming everyone but the people responsible, and it isn't corporations or inert substances or objects. Most behavior, even adaptive behavior, is learned, it isn't instinct. A baby will happily drink anti-freeze if you let them.

  35. Stop trying to make gateway drugs happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The study equally suggests that kids predisposed to abuse drugs start with the most readily accessible, like energy drinks.

  36. That Shit's Just Silly -Someone Needs Clicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone that actually knows anything about addiction knows that it's built-in from the git-go. IT isn't "triggered." It's "realized."

    I'll bet that if you balanced the survey, you'll find addicts prefer using energy drinks, because they act like a "cheap drug."

    That means that the test is already weighted for results out of the norm.

    This kind of garbage "science" appears all over the place, when it comes to addiction.

    It's really that simple.

  37. Once again I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been a heavy drinker of energy drinks for over 15 years, I've never done hard drugs, and I'm in really good shape and health.

    Go shove your study up your ass.

    I also used Jack3d - before it was banned
    I also drank Joose / Four Loko / Sparks - before they were neutered and/or banned

    For the love of God please stop banning products I buy / love / enjoy.

    1. Re:Once again I call bullshit by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Be careful. Those are gateway drinks. You'll be sucking cocks for Irish coffee before you know it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  38. If ever correlation not causation by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Correlated with future substance abuse- okay.

    TRIGGERS?

    only way you can know that is if you pick a random sample of the population and give them all energy drinks and see if that population has a higher level of substance abuse than the general population.

    you can't base a damn thing on a group that self selected to take energy drinks.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  39. story of another ex-addict. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before I met her, my wife was a Coke (Coke-Cola) addict. In college she started the day with a Coke, had one for lunch and supper, then another in the evening. She reported being wired all day and most of the night. By the time I met her, she had figured out what was wrong and had dried out. I thought she exaggerated the effect but at a party she had one social drink of Coke, that night she was bouncing off the walls and ceiling until 5 am. Caffeine has extreme effects on some people.

    Drugs affect people differently. Some people can quit tobacco or cocaine w/o any problem. Others struggle to do so w/o success (and are looked down on for their "weakness".)

    1. Re:story of another ex-addict. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Bouncing her off the ceiling? She's got a sex trapeze? Lucky bastard.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  40. Re:Energy Drinks May Trigger Future Substance Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Energy Drinks May Trigger Future Substance Use

    then again, they may not.

  41. Yes, but in the opposite direction... by denzacar · · Score: 2

    Most "highly caffienated drinks" can't hold a candle to espresso coffee, and even "regular" coffee contains more caffeine for the same amount of liquid.
    And that's using the lower-end quantities of caffeine found in brewed coffee.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Those "highly caffienated drinks" are made to strict, regulated rules, regulations and recipes.
    Which are created in such a way to match or be lower than amounts of caffeine "found in nature" and which has been proven to be non-harmful to most humans.
    I.e. They are made to contain the same or lesser amount of caffeine as the same amount of coffee.
    For safety reasons, they mostly contain lower-end rather than the average values.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  42. Water by Gabest · · Score: 1

    Study finds ever energy drink consumer tried water before. 100%

  43. Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Future Substance Use May Choose Energy Drinks

  44. In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Water is wet.

    Duh.

    Substance abuse begets substance abuse. Who woulda thunk it.

  45. How can we encourage this behavior more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can we encourage this behavior more?

    We need to sell more energy drinks.

  46. Correlation vs Causation Fallacy by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    Or, alternatively, some people have biology susceptible to substance abuse (or are trying to self medicate) and start with things that legally give them minor mood alteration (coffee, sugar, chocolate, energy drinks, etc.) and eventually graduate to illicit drugs?

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  47. Title fail, disagrees with summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary clearly states correlation, not cause and effect.

  48. Legislation to make COFFEE Sched. 1 by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1
    I think I'll start lobbying to get support for legislation to make coffee a Schedule 1 drug, requiring a doctors prescription to obtain it, and stiff penalties involving fines and jail time for driving while under the influence of it, or allowing access to it by a minor. How do you all think that'll go for me?

    Seems like a couple times a year shitty 'studies' like this get into the news, but they never talk about coffee, now do they? Or No-Doz, which you can buy at any grocery store, and nobody is going to question you when you buy a bottle of that, now will they? No-Doz is 200mg of caffeine per pill. You take 5 of them at once, you can land yourself in the Emergency Room. I also never see them talking about how a 20 ounce Mocha Frappacino with 4 extra shots from Starbucks should be banned or regulated, even though that's pretty goddamned close to an 'energy drink', with all that caffeine and sugar. But again, that's coffee, so it's untouchable, right? Did you all know, you can buy coffee that's so high in caffeine, that a 16 ounce mug of it would send the average person to the hospital? Just like heroin addicts that get stuff that's too pure; they overdose on it. But that's coffee, so it's exempt from any such discussions about caffeine.

    Double standards

  49. Logo Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you looking for professional graphics designer to create your company, photography pages or brand logo. Do you like caricature or vector arts? Dont know what to do? Then, contact with me to help to create these. Contact me: https://goo.gl/hdZizG

  50. Sensation seeking by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 1

    Opposite of "sensation seeking" would be "sensation avoiding". Wouldn't it? Perhaps "sensation-indifferent". Or maybe "numbness seeking".

    When did "sensation seeking" become a symptom of a mental disorder?

  51. Litterbugs by KingTank · · Score: 1

    I've noticed that a large portion of street litter seems to be energy drink containers. When I left an old sofa out for the garbage man to pick up, some people came by in the middle of the night and threw the cushions all over the alley and left a bunch of energy drink cans lying around. I have a hunch this is all related. Can't quite explain why. Maybe people who like that stuff are constantly looking for stimulation, and littering provides that because it's a little bit naughty.

  52. No Surprise -- Intended Consequences by Mkkby · · Score: 2

    The corps selling this stuff know exactly what they are doing. Get your customer hooked and you have a customer for life.

    Caffeine, nicotine, sugar/hfcs, the original coke with cocaine, etc... It's an endless cycle of sociopaths who will sell anything for a profit.

  53. I don't need a study... by dddux · · Score: 1

    I don't need a study to tell me that people who like to use substances will eventually use other. more potent substances. What are these people paid for again? To do useless studies?

    --
    "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti