Caffeine’s primary mode of stimulation is by inhibiting adenosine receptors in the brain. Adenosine is a substance that works to reduce neural activity in order to protect the brain. Essentially, it is the substance that makes you feel sleepy at the end of the day, and caffeine is a substance that blocks it.

Check out – “Caffeine as a psychomotor stimulant: mechanism of action” by Fisone G, Borgkvist A, Usiello A.

I whole heartedly agree with the authors statements on our cultures “type A” speed driven mentality. We worship the ability to “get it done” and “do it fast/faster”. Which is, I also agree, a sign of serfdom. American’s will not EVER want to see themselves this way.

We have a collective Fantasy Bond with our own mythology. We’re rough riders, explorers, FREE, and full of our own choices. Yeah…ok.

If everyone we’re to truly become aware of how deeply we’ve bought into the slavery of our workaday worlds the feelings would detonate the entire culture…so we don’t.

Our television/computer/cultural feedback is that Work is GOOD. Hard Work is BETTER. WEALTH is imperative and we want to spread the word to other less “enlightened” cultures who live closer to the earth and actually feel and have time to feel who and what they are.

Now, I’m no saint. I use coffee. Yes, I used the term “use”. I fully comprehend it’s drug like abilities. I have “focusing” problems…and it helps me. I prefer it to the pharma drugs. I’m VERY careful to only use it once or twice a day. But then again I’m very aware of what I put into my body.

Because I have children who prefer the American Lifestyle, I remain here. My husband and I have plans though to move to another country where they are more “sane” in their choices and more in harmony with the greater good of living a life more in balance with nature.

Will American’s (USA) wake up (without the use of neuro-stimulants)? It’s a young country, give it a couple more centuries.

A couple points of clarification: The term “free trade” was coined by an ad agency, which is possibly why it stuck in the writer’s head. What the writer meant, presumably, is fair trade. It is a misconception to think that fair trade items cost more. Fair trade items cost the same as items of comparable quality which are not fair trade. Thus you can get FT or exploitive coffee for $6-12 per pound. While you can get coffee for cheaper than that, it is not the label that changes the price- cheap coffee, in addition to being lower quality beans to begin with, is not sorted before throwing it into the roaster. Therefore, cans of cheap, pre-ground coffee contain among other things: sticks, twigs, bullet casings, rusty nails, finger nail clippings, and cockroach parts.

Also, good quality coffee is produced in the mountains, in the shade of hardwood trees and fruit trees. Responsible coffee cultivation allows campesinos to make money to live on on land which, in order to produce vegetables or grains, would have to be cleared.

Finally, choosing fair trade items does change the system in a substantive way. Mainstream supply chains are impersonal connections that go through approximately 10 middle men between the producer and the consumer. The farmer thus gets a tiny fraction of the purchase price, and the consumer doesn’t know or care. Many, many fair trade items, including my favorite coffee roasters, are part of a much shorter, more personal arrangement: producer (grows and picks coffee–small farmer or co-op) sells to processor- co-op (dries and ships coffee, also provides evaluations, technical assistance, and financing), who sells to roaster (roasts and packages coffee), who sells to consumer or retailer. Thus, there are only about 3 “middle men” all of whom are actively involved with the product. The greater the percentage of the “market” which is handles through these more personal, accountable transactions, the more we change the real, macro-economy, slowly persuading it to be about people, not just profit. Keep thinking!

You bash the article, yet provide no references of your own to refute the article’s claims? Why would anyone take you seriously, either?
If you don’t agree, that is fine, but you won’t make anyone think beyond “what a jerk” if you don’t provide cited counter-points.

“Coffee, according to my nutritionist friend, gives you that great little high because its toxicity stimulates your body…”

My nutritionalist friend? That is an attribution? Sorry, that is merely a silly opinion of some friend of the author, a friend with no name and no qualifications

This article is not even worth wasting the electrons it took to send it. It is just a baseless ploy to play into greenie herd mentality. Why is it that people supposedly concerned with health, with sustainable practices, with a sound basis for living life are so gullible as to accept a bunch of strung-together myths like this? It is disheartening.