More Reason to Legalise Khat?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:14 PM

I just realised that I somehow went through the day without a single cup of coffee. (Oh, there was some tea, and even half a can of Vanilla Coke, so I can't claim caffeine withdrawal.) This was unplanned. Perhaps I am subconsciously responding to higher coffee prices?:

Large coffee roasters including Folgers owner Procter & Gamble Co., and Kraft Foods Inc., which sells Maxwell House, said they are raising the price they charge supermarkets and mass retailers for their coffee by about 7%, or 20 cents for containers in the 11- to 13-ounce range. The price of instant coffee also is going up.

This was the second round of price increases this year. Just last month Procter & Gamble and Kraft added 15 cents to what they charged supermarkets for a typical can of ground coffee. Combined, the two increases raised Kraft's suggested retail price for Maxwell House by almost 10% to $3.94, and Southern California supermarkets often charge more than that.

At least the absence of coffee (and decline, though not to zero, of caffeine consumption) kept me from being as dehydrated as usual. What? That's a myth, too? "Most studies have found that in moderate amounts, caffeine has only mild diuretic effects -- much like water."

Incidentally, did you know that Snickers now is offering a version of its delicious treat that is specially caffeinated? It is called Snickers Charged; I might experiment by consuming only Snickers Charged bars for a week. (On a serious note, are we going to start seeing legal controls on sales of highly caffeinated products to children?)

Labels: caffeine, coffee, solipsism

 
Coffee, Inexpensive and Expensive
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:47 PM

Well, those are relative terms. The inexpensive version is the small cup of coffee that Starbucks is now offering in Seattle for $1, with free refills included. This might be in response to the increased competitive pressure from McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts. The expensive coffee is made by fancy equipment that can cost $10,000 or more -- this is for brewed coffee, not for espresso. One might think that expensive coffee-making equipment substitutes capital for labor, but it isn't obvious from the description in the linked article: the $20,000 coffee-making process requires stirring the brewing coffee with a bamboo paddle in a rather precise fashion. (Here's a photo set of the bean-to-cup transformation.)

Other caffeine news this week was that even relatively modest caffeine consumption could increase the risk of miscarriage for pregnant women: "Of 264 women who said they had used no caffeine, 12.5 percent had miscarriages. But the miscarriage rate was 24.5 percent in the 164 women who consumed 200 milligrams [about 10 ounces of coffee] or more per day." My uninformed reaction is that this result suggests an effect from caffeine that is more extreme than what actually exists. Among other issues, I think that pregnant women who consume no caffeine at all might differ from others in ways that are hard to control for in an experiment, and could influence miscarriage rates. One nice feature of the Chicago Tribune's coverage is a separate little box that indicates some of the reasons that one might question the experimental finding.

Finally, if you are robbing a bank, you might want to skip the coffee, alluring as it is. The coffee may look free, but that will prove to be an expensive cup.

Labels: caffeine, coffee

 
Could Use Some Caffeine
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:50 PM

It's late, but I wanted to post to keep up the Vice Squad streak of having precisely one post for every day of 2008 -- a streak that is the envy of the blogosphere, I understand. And so we turn to coffee. Starbucks is having a shake-up at the top, and feeling pressure from McDonald's: "McDonald's, whose U.S. coffee sales increased 39 percent during the first nine months of 2007, plans to add espresso counters at as many as 14,000 locations." (Here's another look at Starbucks v. McDonald's from Newsweek. Incidentally, Caribou Coffee also is undergoing a shake-up.) Starbucks will cut back on its plans to open new stores -- is that good news or bad news for independent coffee shops? It looks as if a Starbucks in the neighborhood might stoke the demand for premium coffee in ways that redound to the benefit of independents. Will the new competition from the UK similarly spur the coffee output of leading producers Vietnam and Brazil?

Labels: Britain, caffeine, coffee

 
Decaffeinated
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:46 PM

The process that removes caffeine from coffee -- to produce some sort of strange concoction known as "decaffeinated coffee" -- is imperfect, and in practice, it seems, highly variable. This is more than just a nuisance, as some people really shouldn't consume caffeine for health reasons, but they might have a cup of decaf, only to find that they consumed a fair dose of the addictive, psychoactive drug. Consumer Reports recently bought and tested 36 small cups of coffee. The results:

More than half of our decafs had less than 5 mg of caffeine, but some had quite a bit more. One of the six cups from Dunkin' Donuts had 32 mg; one from Seattle's Best had 29 mg; and one from Starbucks had 21 mg. Levels of caffeine in the decaffeinated coffees we tested varied within chains, but in our sample, McDonald's decaf consistently had less than 5 mg.

While the caffeine levels in caffeinated coffee vary quite a bit too, I feel as if the distress suffered by those who order regular but receive decaffeinated coffee has been underappreciated.

A story on the Consumer Reports test in the New York Times has been causing a hullabaloo among crazed coffee drinkers and their deluded decaffeinated brethren. Incidentally, Consumer Reports has gone all ga-ga over McDonald's caffeinated coffee in the past. (OK, I am a bit bitter -- ha! -- because I think I am the only person who preferred McD's old coffee to their newish "Premium". Nor am I excited over this prospect.)

Thanks to Alcohol and Drugs History Society for pointers to some of the links; they also link to an article that explains how coffee won the Civil War, if I misread things correctly.

Labels: caffeine, coffee

 
Pregnancy and Vice
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:37 PM

The direct costs and benefits of traditional vices, almost by definition, fall almost entirely upon the vice practitioner him or her self. (This is one of the most important features that distinguish, say, a drug addict from a thief.) A drinker enjoys the intoxication and suffers the hangover, a gambler risks her own money and reaps the (usually negative) reward. But there are exceptions, two of the most common being the harms that second-hand tobacco smoke can cause to proximate non-smokers and the harms that some drugs can bring to the fetuses of pregnant women. (Less-than-direct effects, such as those that arise from drunk driving, also fall upon folks other than the vice consumers or producers.) These direct harms to others from vice involvement, not surprisingly, can lead to both government regulations and social disapproval.

Zoe Williams, a now-pregnant columnist for the Guardian, looks at some of the advice that both the British government and others provide to expectant moms about various hazardous behaviors -- including alcohol and caffeine consumption. The government last week altered its alcohol advice to pregnant women, from a regime of very moderate consumption to one of total abstinence. This change occurred in the absence of any new scientific information concerning the effects of alcohol on fetuses. But as Williams notes, limited, non-binge consumption of alcohol does not really seem to pose any risks, and of course, moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy was common both in the previous generation and throughout human history. Modest caffeine consumption also appears to be safe for babies, but some people (including medical professionals) urge pregnant women to give up caffeinated coffee and even chocolate bars, which contain fairly low doses of caffeine. Williams distrusts much of this advice:

Despite having got yourself into a spot of bother, pregnant women, you are still in the possession of adult judgment, and you are still allowed to use it. If the official advice sounds stringent to the point of insanity, examine it more closely - you aren't just a selfish person, looking for loopholes for your own sorry enjoyment.

Labels: alcohol, Britain, caffeine, chocolate, coffee, externalities

 
Marketing Caffeine to Young Athletes
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 1:39 PM

Sunday's New York Times included this article about AdvoCare International's product Spark, an energy drink aimed at kids. According to the article, Spark "contains several stimulants and is sold in two formulations: one for children 4 to 11 years old that includes roughly the amount of caffeine found in a cup and a half of coffee, and one containing twice that amount for teenagers and adults." The marketing seems to hope to appeal to young athletes, in particular, though the Times story indicates that AdvoCare International executives claim that Spark is directed towards healthy living, not just sports. The Times article also notes many voices of concern at the marketing of high-caffeine products towards kids. If the popularity of products such as Spark increases, I expect that litigation or legislation eventually will impose limits on marketing, if not on caffeine content directly. Will schools suspend students who bring substances such as Spark to class?

Labels: caffeine, marketing, teens

 
High School Students Suspended for a Drug: Caffeine
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:53 PM

One of the Detroit-area students apparently purchased online a caffeine syrup -- used for adding a caffeine jolt to other foods or drinks -- and brought a small amount of it to school, and the other student sipped it. They were planning a video game marathon and wanted to stay awake, according to this report. I think that we'll see more stories about juveniles and high-caffeine substances, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is a regulatory response.

It's unlikely, however, that coffee and other products that are not marketed for high caffeine will be subjected to controls, even age-based restrictions, in the near future. Here's an article that notes the appeal of caffeinated drinks to law students, all-night dance club patrons, and their teenage siblings.

Speaking of caffeine, I had a wonderful cup of coffee in this fine establishment today. If Vice Squad concerned private policies instead of public policies towards vicious activities, this cafe' would be highly recommended.

Labels: caffeine, solipsism, teens

 
Caffeine Buzz at National Geographic
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 9:25 PM

Caffeine is the subject of this month's National Geographic cover story (written by T.R. Reid, with photos by Bob Sacha), and it is chock full of interesting tidbits. Caffeine from coffee was first isolated in 1820, and eighteen years later, it was determined that the stuff in tea was the same darn chemical -- though a 12-ounce cup of coffee, with 200 milligrams, contains four times as much caffeine as am 8-ounce cup of tea. At 145 grams per year, Finns lead the world in caffeine consumption. In the European Union, beverages that contain more than 150 milligrams of caffeine per liter must have a warning label about the high caffeine content: coffee generally would qualify, but most soft drinks do not. "Black tea, green tea, and oolong are all made from the same plant; the differences in taste and color come from their processing." While caffeine is an addictive, psychoactive drug, "the consensus view seems to be that the world's most popular drug is not dangerous at moderate levels of consumption -- up to 300 milligrams (one to two small -- 12-ounce -- take-out cups of coffee or six to eight cans of soda a day.)" Moderate caffeine consumption appears not to harm the fetuses of pregnant women, either. [Update: Or maybe it does.]

The National Geographic’s "Flashback" at the back of the magazine runs a 1954 photo of tea tasting. The tasting was a demonstration conducted by the U.S. Board of Tea Experts, which was tasked with, yes, creating federal standards for tea quality and taste, from 1897 to 1996. Oddly enough, there does not seem to be a groundswell to revive this now-defunct regulatory body.

Vice Squad keeps one, half-open eye on caffeine, as attested to by this post from last April.

Labels: caffeine, coffee

 
Lazy Link-Based Post
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:04 PM

(1) Hallucinogen hoasca legal (for now) in US when taken for approved religious ceremonial use. From Mark Kleiman.

(2) The New York Times looks into "dirty driving," where DVD-equipped motor vehicles play porn movies that are clearly visible to pedestrians or those in other cars. Will Baude at Crescat Sententia provides the pointer and the legal analysis. Concerned Women for America have a legal analysis, too -- in which the fact that possession of (adult) porn cannot constitutionally be criminalized in the US is lamented.

(3) While at Crescat, keep up with Will (here and here) on Chicago liquor regulators and a major Chicago wine store.

(4) More bad news for moi: even one cup of coffee per day can harm you. From a blog by Edward Staines entitled "One More Cup of Coffee"

(5) Vice Squad hasn't had too much to say about the recent vice Supreme Court cases, medical marijuana and interstate wine. I think that the "liberalizers" are going to have a hard time in both cases, but especially in the cannabis case. But if my pessimism proves to be warranted, I hope that the losing sides nevertheless use the resulting publicity to make the case that the laws in question -- the federal demonizing of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, and the protectionist wine shipment bans -- should themselves be repealed. (Of course they make these cases all the time, but I hope they will "redouble their efforts.") Bad laws that are Constitutional are still bad laws.

Labels: alcohol, caffeine, Chicago, coffee, hallucinogen, Kleiman, pornography, Supreme Court

 
Link Potpourri
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:03 PM

Yes, a lazy blog post....

(1) Randy Cohen, "The Ethicist" at the New York Times Magazine, is asked if it is unethical for a former federal prosecutor who has helped lock up drug offenders to use currently illicit drugs him or herself. Cohen reads the query as being motivated by a re-evaluation of the justice of the drug laws:

A major part of ethics is considering the effects of our actions on others. Yours did real harm to those you prosecuted. If you acted in service of policies you now consider unwarranted, you have an ethical obligation to undo that harm, perhaps by working to free those currently in jail as a consequence of your efforts, perhaps by helping to reform the laws that put them there. When you've done harm in the past -- and your query suggests that you now believe you have -- your duty isn't merely to lament, but to make amends.

The second query to The Ethicist this week might also be considered a vice topic, though I am not sure I would lend that dignity to the semi-public nudity the question concerns. (Incidentally, The Ethicist has met with some severe and, I think, frequently justified criticism in the blogosphere. Even his critics, I think, would have to admit that Randy Cohen is a really funny writer -- his old "News Quiz" columns at Slate were gems.)

(2) An Alabama schoolgirl was sent to an alternative school for 15 days for taking a Motrin to relieve menstrual cramps. It is not an aberration: at least 10 other students met a similar fate for over-the-counter medicines last Fall in Jefferson County, courtesy of the school system's zero-intelligence policy. Thanks to the Media Awareness Project for the pointer.

(3) If you are drinking so much alcohol that you are risking liver damage, you should cut back on your drinking. A complementary policy, it seems, is to increase your consumption of caffeinated beverages. Thanks to Newmark's Door for the pointer.

Labels: alcohol, caffeine, recreational drug use

 
New Orleans Vice
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 8:04 PM

Alas, I have little first-hand experience to report upon, despite having spent the last few days in the Big Easy. I will note that the caffeine/gambling connection seems to be growing, as there is now a Starbucks inside the twice-bankrupt Harrah's casino. (Yes, casinos can go bankrupt -- even multiple times.) Perhaps in an attempt to avoid further bankruptcies, the casino is on the verge of opening a new 516-seat theater that will offer Las Vegas-style entertainment. Oh, and earlier this month it started knocking down some 19th century buildings to build a 26-story hotel, though a couple of the 19th century facades will be maintained, and one old building will be incorporated into the hotel design. In case those two previous bankruptcies have you worried, well, I wouldn't be too concerned. Harrah's New Orleans managed to win $27.6 million from its customers in March -- and, I am sad to report, $4.50 from me in April. I even turned down the free drink offer -- though if a Starbucks' coffee was one of the alternatives I might have reconsidered.

Or maybe I lost more. People wildly underestimate their gambling losses. A report prepared for the National Gambling Impact Study Commission a few years back indicated that survey respondents underestimated lottery losses by two-thirds or three-quarters, while the responses by casino players indicated a net win -- all the casinos should go bankrupt! Similar results have been found in asking participants in zero-sum situations like a regular Friday night poker game: people either purposely mislead researchers, or mislead themselves, about the true state of their gambling balance.

I am sticking with my "lost $4.50" claim, nevertheless.

Labels: caffeine, gambling, solipsism

 
More on Caffeine
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 3:49 PM

"Caffeine -- an atypical drug of dependence," by John W. Daly and Bertil B. Fredholm, appeared in Drug and Alcohol Dependence in June, 1998. I will draw upon it to develop yesterday's coffee post a bit further.

I mentioned some health benefits of caffeine. Daly and Fredholm note that "caffeine has been used therapeutically to treat narcolepsy, asthma, and apnea, and as an analgetic adjunct."

Folks typically find a little caffeine to be pleasant and stimulating, though higher doses become unpleasant. "Most individuals adjust their intake of caffeine-containing beverages so as to minimize the undesirable effects." As with other "addictive" drugs, caffeine is reinforcing, though only weakly, and physical withdrawal symptoms are common. "In humans caffeine withdrawal typically manifests itself in symptoms of headache, fatigue, apathy and drowsiness. Withdrawal symptoms generally begin slowly, maximize after 1 or 2 days and are over within a few days. In both animals and humans the withdrawal symptoms are rapidly relieved by caffeine."

The Daly and Fredholm paper also offers an encapsulation of the health risks (as understood circa 1998) of caffeine: "Health hazards are small if any and caffeine use is not associated with incapacitation. Thus, although caffeine can be argued to fulfill regulatory criteria as a dependence-producing drug, the extensive use of caffeine-containing beverages poses little apparent risk to the consumer or to society."

Labels: addiction, caffeine

 
Caffeine Variance Among Coffee Sellers
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 1:17 AM

Caffeine is the most commonly used psychoactive drug in the world, and is available in a wide variety of beverages -- notably, tea, coffee, and many sodas. We are used to a regime of "free availability" of caffeine -- even children can buy these beverages -- but there have been times and places with stricter regulations. Coffee has been banned in the past in Turkey, for instance, and was nearly banned in Britain, largely due to its connections with political activity unliked by those in power.

There are health effects from drinking coffee, it seems -- some negative, some positive -- but in moderate doses coffee consumption is not very dangerous (though perhaps people with heart ailments should steer clear of it.)

The Wall Street Journal has compared the caffeine concentration in popular coffees. The study was picked up by many TV stations; here is a quote from a Houston TV station that relayed the story: "The [Wall Street Journal] study found that house blends at Starbucks, Gloria Jean's and other gourmet-coffee chains have an average of 56 percent more caffeine than samples from 7-11, and 29 percent more than Dunkin' Donuts." I guess I am not surprised: I drink larger servings of Dunkin' Donuts coffee than I do of Starbucks.

Co-blogger Nikkie's previous post ended with "Breaking News" about Air America; here's the New York Times story (registration required) on the contract dispute.

Labels: caffeine, coffee

 
Victories #2, #3, etc.
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:02 PM

From the Chicago Tribune on Thursday, September 18

Victory #2: The UN Drug Control Program has released a report suggesting a 32 percent fall in
Colombian coca cultivation. (Wow, what specificity: I was sort of expecting only 31 percent.)
Even with some increased production in Peru and Bolivia, “overall coca production in the Andes
Mountains region is dropping at a rapid pace.” More specificity, by the way: Colombian coca
fields fell from 251,940 acres in December to 170,430 at the end of July. How the former coca
farmers are managing to scrape out a living was not mentioned in the article, though perhaps
later I’ll look for the UN report itself. I understand that opium fields have increased in popularity
in Colombia, however.

This welcome news from Colombia, following yesterday’s revelation of a seizure in the Chicago
suburbs, indicates that we have won the war on drugs, and we never again have to fear that one
of our fellow Americans will pursue pleasure by snorting cocaine.

Victory #3: 6,000 marijuana plants growing in a forest preserve in Cook County were
confiscated. On the heels of this week’s eradication of the cocaine problem, this seizure provides
more evidence of victory in the war on drugs. No longer must you live in dread that your friends
and neighbors will smoke marijuana. Rather, they will have to confine their intoxication efforts
to alcohol, glue, various household solvents, prescription medications, and whirling dervishly.
VD Day will no longer just be September 16 – perhaps we can celebrate the entire third week in
September as Victory over Drugs Week. Incidentally, we are informed that each of the plants
has an estimated street value of $6000 (coincidence? 6,000 plants, 6,000 dollars?). Wow. And I
thought ferns were expensive.

Seattle: A proposed 10 cent per drink tax on espresso was voted down in Seattle yesterday. An
initiative to allow police to give marijuana possession laws the lowest enforcement priority was
approved, however. Normally I would suggest to our nation’s Attorney General, John Comstock
Ashcroft, that he immediately flood Seattle with DEA agents to ensure that the new local
enforcement priorities do not lead to a surge in folks walking around with a little marijuana in
their pockets. But given the news above, there is no longer any marijuana in the US, so the
enforcement reduction should not make any difference.

As for espresso, yesterday in a coffee shop I thought I saw a 12 year old consuming an espresso
(though I could be wrong as I am not an expert in identifying the age of children or the contents
of coffee-based beverages). He seemed to be doing homework, too. Espresso can’t be good for
kids - shouldn’t there be a law against selling such poison to our youth, and a prohibition on
possession by a minor? (And because we care so much about our kids, those who are caught
using espresso should probably be kicked out of school and possibly jailed, to deter others.) If
espresso is homework performance enhancing, and we don’t nip this in the bud, soon all the kids
will feel pressured to consume the stuff. If I see that kid again, I think that I will read him the riot act.
Zero tolerance for kids and espresso!

Flagger death update: The suspect in the death of the construction worker has been charged with “aggravated DUI in the death of another,” which carries a 7 to 14 year sentence upon conviction. The victim was 36 years old and the mother of seven children. For some reason, the fact that the suspect has children of his own was mentioned to the judge by the public defender at a Bond Court hearing.

More Comstockery: Speaking of our nation’s Attorney General, he told the president of the American Library Association that he would make public the number of times the FBI has sought bookstore and library records under the powers in the USA PATRIOT Act. I’d also be interested in how many terrorists these records have helped identify, and how many innocent civilians have had their records examined to produce the intelligence windfall that has uncovered this bevy of terrorists. What does this have to do with vice? Well, nothing really. I noted it because I am still contemplating the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which the Supreme Court upheld against Constitutional challenge in June, 2003. Most public libraries in the US receive federal funds earmarked to help them establish and maintain Internet access. CIPA requires public libraries that receive such federal funding to install filters on all of their computers that are connected to the Internet. This one hits close to home for this vice researcher, who frequently accesses the Internet at public libraries and who likes to run searches on such terms as vice, obscenity, pornography, prostitution, cocaine, and so on – the very kind of searches that most filters don’t take well to.

Labels: caffeine, CIPA, cocaine, driving, marijuana, opium, UN