In message <47951044$1@news.cadence.com>
          pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote:

> >> He stated that he also didn't like the symptoms of *not* having
> >> coffee.
 
> >I think you'll find that all addicts - from alcohol to hard drugs - could
> >make a similar statement.

> I already said I was addicted.   But I made the decision during a time when
> I was not addicted.

No you didn't. You made the decision at a time when you were addicted and
suffering withdrawal.

You can't switch addiction on and off like a light switch. An addiction is
life-long.

> But, again, my caffeine addiction is not damaging to me.  My food "addiction"
> is far more damaging as I am currently overweight.

Two cups of coffee a day double your chance of miscarriage; so you're not a
woman and not pregnant, but that doesn't mean that coffee is not doing you
any harm.

Ken Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

In article  fburton@nyx.net (Francis Burton) writes:
>In article ,
>Cynic   wrote:
>>*Many* substances that are usually considered to be perfectly safe to
>>take are not recommended for a pregnant woman because the foetus is
>>particularly vulnerable. ...

>Thalidomide is an example of a drug that is relatively safe
>for everyone *except* pregnant women's foetuses. Extreme case,
>but it illustrates the point that one shouldn't generalize from
>adult human to foetus (or vice versa).

Not only that, but Thalidomide is the best treatment for leprosy so far.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"It may soon be time for you to look for a new line of work."

In article  Kendall K. Down  writes:
>In message <479641b0$1@news.cadence.com>
>          pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote:

>> Bullshit.  Physical addiction does not last when the substance one is
>> physically addicted to is no longer being consumed and withdrawal symptoms
>> have subsided.

>1. In your case it is obvious that the withdrawal symptoms had *not*
>completely subsided.

I don't remember being examined by a doctor for caffeine withdrawal symptoms
during that period.  Did you sneak into my house and examine me without my
knowing?

Or are you a psychic doctor?

>> There is also psychological dependence, but that's a completely different
>> thing from physical addiction.

>Indeed it is - does that make it better?

It's different, that's all.

>> It also doesn't mean it is doing me any harm.  So far most studies show that
>> moderate intake of caffeine is not harmful for most people.

>Or that the level of harm is so small that it has not yet been recognised.

That would make it pretty small, then, and in any case none of your business.

>> Why are you so bent on proving that something I'm doing is harming me?  What
>> business is it of yours?  If you are really worried about what I'm doing to
>> myself, you should worry about my consumption of snack foods.  That's doing
>> me far more harm than the coffee I drink.

>Well, seeing as you have raised the subject, I'm happy to urge you to avoid
>snack foods.

I have no problem with your urging me to avoid caffeine, snack foods, or
anything else.  It is when that urging takes on the force of law that I
protest.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@seeheader.nospam)

"They [preachers] dread the advance of science as witches do the approach
 of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions
 of the duperies on which they live."
					-Thomas Jefferson

In message <4797d03a$1@news.cadence.com>
          pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote:

> I have no problem with your urging me to avoid caffeine, snack foods, or
> anything else.  It is when that urging takes on the force of law that I
> protest.

Indeed - because you are stupid enough to resist the urging. It's when
people do something that has profoundly deleterious effects on themselves
and others - like getting high on heroin - that the law intervenes. So far,
at least, the harmful effects of caffeine appear sufficiently small that the
law has not involved itself with tea or coffee drinking. You will notice,
however, that the government is taking an increasing interest in the subject
of food. At the moment it is just urging, but if people continue to resist
...

We cannot afford the NHS bills already.

Ken Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:58:24 GMT, Kendall K. Down
 wrote:

>> I have no problem with your urging me to avoid caffeine, snack foods, or
>> anything else.  It is when that urging takes on the force of law that I
>> protest.
>
>Indeed - because you are stupid enough to resist the urging. It's when
>people do something that has profoundly deleterious effects on themselves
>and others - like getting high on heroin - that the law intervenes. So far,
>at least, the harmful effects of caffeine appear sufficiently small that the
>law has not involved itself with tea or coffee drinking. You will notice,
>however, that the government is taking an increasing interest in the subject
>of food. At the moment it is just urging, but if people continue to resist

I urge you to stop posting to Usenet because studies have shown that
it can adversely affect the wellbeing of some people, and has led to
the break-up of families.  Of course, should you resist my urging, you
will not mind if I smash your computer and throw you in jail?

By the way, have you come across anything yet to support your
ridiculous assertion that there are foods that are illegal to sell to
children?

-- 
Cynic