Sign in or 
Location: POD (Philosophy Of Disciplines)
Discussion: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
crapptalker |
20. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 14 2008, 12:09 PM EDT
Is caffeine a drug?To answer this question, one must first define the word “caffeine” and “drug”. Caffeine, is a better, white crystalline alkaloid compound that is usually extracted from the coffee bean and tea leaves. It is also a central nervous system and metabolic stimulant and it is often used to reduce physical fatigue and restore mental alertness when a person feels drowsy or weak. When caffeine is used, it can result in increased alertness and wakefulness, faster and clearer flow of thought, increased focus, and better general body coordination. A drug is a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being. So, is caffeine a drug? The obvious answer is, yes, caffeine is a drug. But there are also many definitions to the term drug. There are drugs that are available off the shelf on supermarkets, those that are dispensed by pharmacists, and those that require a doctor’s prescription. Then, there are those that are “a habit forming and illicit substance”, termed narcotic drugs. So, caffeine is a drug, but it is not an illegal drug. this is the first part of my argument, the second of which i shall continue in me next post. -Wei Jian 4 out of 7 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
crapptalker |
21. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 14 2008, 12:12 PM EDT
(this post is a continuation of the argument from above)Should caffeine be allowed in competitions? Yes, although caffeine is a drug that stimulates the central nervous system, as well as the metabolism of a person, it should be allowed as it does not give a big boost in a person’s physical ability, like steroids, and it also does not have many side effects (if taken in small doses e.g. one cup) In a mental competition, such as chess competition or chess, it will also depend of how well a person can play chess, and for exams, how well the person has studied. Banning coffee would not be the solution, as some people simply cannot function without coffee, as they have become slightly dependent on coffee. (Such as those who consume it everyday) These people can then have the following symptoms: 1. Headache 2. anxiety and irritability 3. nausea and vomiting 4. fatigue and sluggishness 5. difficulty concentrating 6. depression 7. muscle aches By giving the people who do not take coffee a fair chance, this rule would take away the chance of those who have become addicted to coffee. Also, a sportsman is allowed his own choice of equipment—one which suits him best. They are also allotted the same number of hours to train, same for those in exams and other competitions. By banning caffeine, we should also regulate the equipment used, and also the hours set aside for training. One possible solution would be to alert all competitors to this positive effect of caffeine on ones performance, and then let them have a choice of whether they want to take it or not. Therefore, I conclude that caffeine should not be banned from competitions, as it is up to the person if they want to have an advantage in that competition. -Wei Jian 2 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
crapptalker |
22. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 14 2008, 12:19 PM EDT
The sites that i have used for this discussion are as following:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=caffeine http://www.substanceabuseinfo.com/caffeine.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotics http://www.mycaffeineaddiction.com/ This post should be counted as, along as the first two posts, a total of 1 post, due to this website's limit on the number of characters on each post. 0 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
zyeapp |
23. POD
Mar 15 2008, 4:38 AM EDT
Do we still have to post here or do we compile all into one doc and send it?
1
out of
11 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
arjunk1 |
24. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 15 2008, 9:54 AM EDT
Regarding the use of caffiene in competition and sports, I think we should first review the conditions under which substances are banned in the first place. These are the basic anti-doping principles of sport by the IOC1.Protection of the athletes health 2.Respect for medical and sports ethics and 3.Ensuring an equal chance for everyone during competition Now let us assess where caffeine lies. As WeiYang mentioned above, caffeine does have some detriment on our body. However, as mentioned, these generally only occur in cases of excessive intake, or are usually because of the dehydration that caffeine causes. With proper and sufficient hydration, there are almost no side effects of caffeine, long term or short term. Hence, the first condition is cleared. The second, ethics, is naturally a very subjective and contestable issue. The main issue with drugs is that they are ‘cheating’ But why? One reason is that it may allow athletes to avoid putting in the tremendous hard work required to be a successful competitor But hard work is not the only thing we reward. We also reward unearned advantages, like talent or luck.So which group is caffeine in? It would be easy to group it in the first one, as the usage of caffeine is within one’s control. But then again, so is the consumption of powerbars and energygels. They improve one’s performance too, yet are not banned. In this sense, this rule is is difficult to apply to things like caffeine, which improve performance yet not to the extent of other truly illegal drugs. The final provision is to ensure that every competitor has an equal chance. As said countless times above, caffeine is readily available to just about everyone. The effects of caffeine are well known, and caffeine is cheap and easily obtained too. Hence, there is no dispute here. In conclusion, as caffeine has satisfied 2 out of the 3 requirements, and the remaining one is inconclusive, caffeine should be allowed for use in competitions. 3 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
crapptalker |
25. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 15 2008, 11:06 AM EDT
I have to disagree with people like SamOng (Samuel Ong) when he classifies all drugs as “illegal substance”(s). evilavatar (David Lim) also mentioned that caffeine “does not have a negative effect on its user as opposed to drugs.” I would like to point out that not all drugs are illegal and have side effects. These specific drugs are called narcotic drugs, such as heroine, ecstasy, marijuana, and opium. There are also medicinal drugs, those which can be easily purchased in the pharmacy, like pain killers and panadol. Therefore, they should think twice before claiming that caffeine is not a drug. And DerrickLim (Derrick Lim) says that, “They (athletes) get to choose their foods, clothes, shoes, etc. So why not choose their own drugs?” It is rather obvious that athletes cannot just choose their own drugs, as most drugs are illegal in competitions. One probable reason that caffeine is not yet classified as a banned, is because of its abundance, it can be found in (obviously) coffee and tea. It can also be found in energy drinks. About 80g of caffeine can be found in each 230 ml drink, and 150g in a 480 ml drink. Recently, energy drinks containing up to 344mg of caffeine have been discovered. NeoTheChosen (Gareth Neo) states that, “This (referring to people not having any withdrawal symptoms when they stop drinking caffeine after a long while) is never the case in harmful drugs, whereby the consumer will feel terribly sick if he does not take the drug.” This has been proven wrong in http://www.substanceabuseinfo.com/caffeine.html where it states that “withdrawal symptoms may occur most intensively between 12 to 48 hours after the latest caffeine use” and the symptoms are in my first argument, second post. (i will continue this ranting in my next post.) 4 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
crapptalker |
26. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 15 2008, 11:06 AM EDT
(my ranting obviously continues...)In samuelanonymous’ (Samuel Yee’s) second post, he states that “Many people take vitamins and other health supplements, to improve their physical well-being. I don't think these can be considered drugs. ” once again, these are drugs, though are pharmaceutical drugs, and not harmful drugs. Also, “Qin Xiang's definition from the CNB is more specific, as it says that drugs have to be addictive, and alter normal bodily function.” Drugs do not have to be addictive. Those (again), are only the narcotic drugs. When people have a headache, and eat panadol (a drug used for medication), do they get addicted? The obvious answer is no. Finally, tanyjr (Ryan Tan) states that “some students might be so poor that even water is a luxury, let alone coffee and tea.” This is obviously wrong. If the family knows that there is an upcoming exam, and wants their child to have an added advantage, they can save up, even 10 cents every day, and in a month (give or take a week) they can head to the supermarket and buy a big packet of instant coffee power, most packets with each satchel not exceeding 30 cents (some not even exceeding 20!) He also states that, “If everyone has access to a drug which may be BOUGHT, then richer people would most obviously have access to more drugs than poorer people and thus it is not fair.” Of course, the richer people would be able to afford more caffeine filled drinks, but they will still have to take it in moderation, as an overdose would have harmful effects on the body, such as muscle twitching, increase of urine production, and digestive tract disturbances. Instead of helping the child, they will instead cause the child to fail through his frequent visits to the toilet, and muscle spasms during the exam. - Wei Jian 6 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
eagleofnone |
27. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 15 2008, 12:34 PM EDT
Caffeine shouldn't be considered as a drug in the first place. I do agree with David's point that trying to control an individual's characteristics is futile, as it is impossible to try to ban a drug that is so easily acquired. The banning of coffee or even products containing caffeine from competitions shouldn't be too heavily considered either. However, David's definition of a 'drug' as "a substance that affects the structure or function of our body" is dubious. If we apply David’s definition, then basically ALL foods would fall under the categories of changing body structure (growth) and altering the function of the body (cardiovascular disease due to too much cholesterol from fatty foods). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't eat food at all. Hence, while David's definition is not wrong, it doesn't fully satisfy the definition of a drug in such a context. I also agree that trying to ban the use of coffee is not possible as it is absurd to suggest that we regulate everything about a competitor in a competition or tournament. However, although Gareth is right in saying that it is the competitor’s fault if her doesn’t take such performance-augmenting drugs, I think that such a form of regulation might require some sort of limit as different people would have different reactions to the beverage, the most obvious being an allergy to the caffeine in a drink. In this case, although coffee doesn’t act as a permanent strength or mentally enhancing drug, it should be limited to a certain extent as it can widen the gap between different competitors. (I will continue from the above point by tomorrow.) 2 out of 9 found this valuable. Do you? |
leonheng |
28. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 16 2008, 6:44 AM EDT
After reading some of the post so far, I have picked up some valuable points as well as some mistakes made. In David’s first post, he has stated that caffeine should be considered nutrition instead of a drug. I disagree with his point. Nutrition is defined by the online dictionary as a source of nourishment for the body, and nourishment is defined as food or substances necessary for life and growth. Therefore, nutrition refers to a source of food or substances necessary for life. Therefore, caffeine cannot be classified under nutrition as it is not essential in sustaining life. David also mentioned that caffeine cannot be considered a drug as it has no negative effects like other drugs do. I again disagree with this. A drug is defined by the free online dictionary as a chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction. This definition does not state that drugs must have negative effects. Furthermore, caffeine does have negative effects as stated by Wei Yang, when taken in overdose. I also would like to add that negative effects is basically and adverse and undesired secondary effect when you take something in search of the primary effect. Therefore, the negative effect or side effect is anything that you do not want and cannot be a prerequisite to determining if something is a drug or not. However, I do agree with him that everyone’s response to caffeine is unique and different and therefore it is impractical to ban caffeine from competitions as many other variables just like caffeine intake, for example extra protein, cannot be proportionately controlled. 0 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
leonheng |
29. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 16 2008, 6:44 AM EDT
I agree with Gareth that caffeine should be allowed in competitions due to its availability to the masses and not only to the rich as this would give an unfair advantage to the rich. However, I do not agree that it should be allowed because it is not harmful. As he did mention, caffeine is harmful if taken in overdose. However, he has failed to realize that if participants in these competitions were to realize the benefits of caffeine towards their chances of winning the competition, they would most likely take it in excess and this would cause harm towards them. Therefore I feel that although caffeine should still be allowed in competitions due to its availability, it should not be allowed based on its safety. I agree with Qin Xiang that it is up to the competitor or participant to make and INFORMED decision on whether or not he or she should take caffeine. Through trial and error, he or she will be able to conclude if they perform better with or without caffeine. Ultimately, it is up to every competitor to find the product that can best boost their performance levels, just like they choose their best studying methods (unique to everyone) and the assessment book they find most effective (again, unique to everyone). 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
leonheng |
30. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 16 2008, 6:45 AM EDT
I disagree with Samuel Yee’s statement “Better still, eliminate all competitions and exams. Different people have different abilities, so making any kind of comparison is meaningless, as it is all based on your genes.” Competitions originated from particular leisure activities and exams were created to give students a benchmark on where they stood academically compared to the rest of the cohort. Competitions spur individuals of a sport to excel beyond their expectations and reach their limits. This is not wrong as it not only adds an importance to a sport, it also serves as entertainment for the masses. Samuel is right to say that exams are a comparison, but is too quick to conclude that it is all based on your genes. Education is given to every student and how much they gain from it is not based on their genes but on their hard work. Therefore, competitions and exams should continue as a culture in our society. Lastly, I would like to commend arjunk1 (probably Arjun) on his analysis of the topic. I agree that in order to decide if coffee should be banned, we must first see under what conditions are substances banned from competitions. However, one flaw in his analysis is that he has focused on sports when the actual topic in question is whether caffeine should be used to enhance cognitive performance. This includes competitions involving mental ability as well. I would like to add that many of us have narrowed the topic (I included). The question is whether caffeine should be used to enhance cognitive ability (as a whole) while we are all focused on whether it should be used in competitions or not. We should also discuss more on how caffeine harms our body in overdose and whether it is safe to consume caffeine with the risk of addiction involved. Hopefully we can discuss this in preceding post. 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
van_kayak |
31. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 16 2008, 10:15 AM EDT
Many definitions of similar meanings have been raised in this thread, as this is my first post, i will have to state my stand. Defining the relevant terms of this discussion, i quote Qinxiang, "Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant, having the effect of temporarily warding off drowsiness and restoring alertness. It is definitely classified as a drug as it is a psychoactive substance, but unlike most other psychoactive substances, it is legal and unregulated in nearly all jurisdictions. In North America, 90% of adults consume caffeine daily. By Central Narcotics Bureau's standards, a drug is any substance that alters normal bodily functions and can result in an addiction. Caffeine is guilty of both as it alters normal brain functions after being metabolised in the liver and reports have shown that caffeine can indeed result in an addiction after repeated and frequent consumption (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6354232)."Altogether. Caffeine under the loosest of definitions, can be considered a drug. It boosts normal bodily functions and helps you be more alert etc.etc. The question is, should caffeine be banned in competitions? personally i don't think it should be. Firstly, all this performance enhancing drugs all have one objective in mind, which is to "ENHANCE PERFORMANCE" and allow you to achieve an unfair advantage over others. being a sportsman of sorts myself (i row), i can say that the only way to achieve sporting success is ultimately through hardwork and hardwork only. For Example, during the 2004 Summer Olympic Games, Marion Jones (the famous doping star) lost in one of her pet events, the long jump, clinching only a bronze despite using performance enhancing drugs. She was beaten by people who were "clean", who did not take any of these drugs. What does this show? That drugs don't really matter, it is only how much you want to win and how much effort you put into it that counts. 12 out of 15 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
van_kayak |
32. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 16 2008, 10:29 AM EDT
Continuing from my previous post...Caffeine should not be banned also because it is just a minor drug if you may consider it, it does not enhance your bodily functions as much as other drugs such as Tetrahydrogestrinone and other "designer drugs". As explained before, drugs don't really matter. As Samuel Yee said, everyone is only as good as their genes. Ultimately, there is only that much that a human can achieve (even with steroids). However, few people realise their own strengths and how much their body can be pushed to achieve. I would daresay that no one in this world has ever performed at his best in any competition. There is always room for further improvement. So what if someone has steroids to help him? it simply helps him to reach that 1% more into fufilling his potential. Anyone can do that with just a little bit of sacrifice and hardwork. Even someone with "inferior" genes can beat someone with "superior" genes with added effort. In this imperfect and mortal world, everyone is only going at a percentage of how much their actualy body can go. "Inferior" genes might put you at a 10% disadvantage, but you can easily beat others by working harder for that extra 10%. But by knowing this, also comes the harsh reality that some of us are superior/inferior than others. In the end, if all of us are pushed to our 100% limit, there are some who would go faster, jump higher, and ultimately reach the finish line first. This is the reality that we all have to face. Truth is, this world is unfair. But we can make it more fair by working for ourselves, for what we want. One of the Olympic values is fair play. Fair play is simply being fair. Being accountable. To ourselves. Sports are like tending to a field. You reap what you sow. It's true that some of us may encounter worse weather or bad seeds (inferior genes). But ultimately if you keep working at it, braving all difficulties, you will definitely get it right. 13 out of 15 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
van_kayak |
33. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 16 2008, 10:38 AM EDT
I'm Nicholas Ng (19) btw, this don't count as a thread!!!!
12
out of
16 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
seanng |
34. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 16 2008, 11:33 AM EDT
Post 1Caffeineis an alkaloid which stimulates the central nervous system and gives extra energy. Cognitive performance refers to the degree of mental awareness, perception and processing. Caffeine is saidto improvecognitive performance, e.g. multi-tasking, mental energy, speed andfocus.Research has shown that caffeine can enhance performance in sports, by giving the sportsman ‘extended endurance in moderately strenuous aerobic activity’. (see http://www.mamashealth.com/exercise/caf.asp). Caffeine does not actually strengthen your body, but instead activates certain hormones which ensure better cognitive performance for a few hours. One cup of coffee lasts for approximately one hour. Should one take consecutive cups of coffee, habituation (‘progressive diminution of behavioral response probability with repetition of a stimulus’': see Wikipedia) will occur. In fact, more than 3 cups of coffee per day will create physical dependence to it. (Neuroscience) Too many cups of coffee could land one in a state of hormonal emergency. Furthermore, can caffeine really help one to achieve satisfactory results? There is actually no concrete proof. Dostudents who use caffeine to burn the midnight oil typically achieve good results? I would like to refute the LMS article which implies that caffeine enhances overall cognition, since it improves task-switching. In reality, task-switching is part of multi-tasking, which in turn is only a small part of cognition as a whole. In short, enhanced task-switching need not lead to enhanced overall cognitive performance. The articles were also one-sided, they failed to highlight detrimental effects of caffeine, such as diuresis, causing excessive loss of fluid, dehydration, insomnia, palpitations etc. The same reservations can be extended to the role of caffeine as an enhancer of physical performance. Whatever short-term benefits it may accord will be overwhelmed by its long-term detrimental effect. 3 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
The.Swat |
35. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 16 2008, 2:33 PM EDT
A drug, in its broadest meaning, is "any chemical agent other than food that affects a living organism" (source: Fundamentals of General, Organic and Biological Chemistry, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall). Other than food, this refers to chemicals not naturally produced by the body like poison, antibiotics & caffeine but do alter bodily functions. Moreover, caffeine is an excitatory psychoactive drug, that stimulates the brain to produce effects which range in intensity, depending on the caffeine concentration. Caffeine is not produced naturally by our body and also produces effects that are only slightly noticeable like "improved anticipatory processes in task switching" to serious effects such as insomnia, mental illness, diuresis, gastrointestinal disturbance,tachycardia & psychomotor agitation. Logically, caffeine is also a type of posion that harms us if abused. Therefore, caffeine is definitely a drug.In my opinion, caffeine usage is not an ethical problem as long as the society is not negatively impacted, which is very, very rare. Most working people take coffee, but this does not affect anyone very seriously unlike other extreme drugs such as steroids. Since coffee does enhances thinking acording to reserach papers, it does give an unfair advantage to a person who takes coffee over a person who does not. However, it is crucial to note that these advantages are very, very minor. There are other factors, which play a bigger role in performance. I.e. a fat, less-trained runner who took caffeine is not going to perform better than a fit, well-trained runner. Here, fitness takes priority over caffeine. Neither is a stupid, less-prepared student who took caffeine but did not study consistently for exams. So, any advantage given by coffee just does not make any difference. Since coffee does not give a severe advantage, it poses negligible ethical issues except for very minor serious cases. Swathikan (4) 0 out of 8 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
arjunk1 |
36. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 17 2008, 9:31 AM EDT
Since that we seemed to have established that caffeine is indeed a drug, i think it would be more apt to look at the issues surrounding its use to improve cognitive performance. While i am for using caffeine, or rather could not really care less, i think that it should be noted that caffeine can develop into an addiction. If this starts becoming popular, people might regularly use caffeine to give themselves a temporary boost, and over time as they do it more often, an addiction will inevitably grow. As mentioned above, caffeine addiction has numerous detriments, and as such i think that this aspect should be looked into, the safety of caffeine. Although caffeine is widely available now, if it should become a staple in a competitors preparation, it's negatives are bound to be highlighted even more. 2 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
The.Swat |
37. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 17 2008, 11:52 AM EDT
Here,I would like to respond to other posts, especially regarding the definitons and ethical issues.Firstly, I agree with jie jun's point that caffeine should be taken in moderation due to its harms when abused. Moreover, Matthew's point about caffeine having different effects on different people also sounds logical. However, I disagree with Ryan's reason for allowing caffeine in competitions and exams. Firstly, i will like to reiterate my definiton of a drug "chemical other than food that alters bodily functions." As such, chicken essence is a medicinal drug but there is a large difference in their effects. While caffeine has severe, negative effects which I listed in earlier posts, chicken of essence is not so harmful to our health. Though both do enhance performance, caffeine has more cons than chicken essence. Many students are rather encouraged to take essence of chicken by teachers and parents as it nourishes us without causing long-lasting negative effects, and it rarely leads to addiction. Thus, I don't think essence of chicken is an appropriate comparison for caffeine. The same goes to IP and express streams example. The primary aim of these different streams is to maximise a student's potential according to his own needs at his own pace, not give unfair advantages. No offense, but..Express students are not in IP as they will not be able to cope with the syllabus, so they will actually be at a disadvantage by coming to IP. Also, tution helps students in a positive manner and does not hold any negative effects. However, I do agree that caffeine should not be banned but because that the unfair advantage that it provides is rather very minor, as proven by Leon's example of Marion Jones, who lost to "clean people" despite taking performance-enhancement drugs. ---Swathikan (4) 0 out of 7 found this valuable. Do you? |
timelessbeing |
38. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 17 2008, 2:27 PM EDT
Personally, I agree that caffeine is a drug. There are many drugs in our world, including our everyday medicines. These drugs are used for various purposes, such as enhancing our body systems, fighting bacteria, and enhancing cognitive performance, which is what we are discussing.As mentioned before, caffeine, like all other medicines and drugs, have a different effect on different people. Thus, each person will have a different drug that will enable him or her to perform to their maximum potential. Since the effect is different, and affects different people to different extents, drugs should be allowed in competitions. Just as one is allowed to pick a racket that you feel most comfortable with to play tennis, along with any part of the whole attire of an athlete, we should be able to choose a drug that has maximum effect on us as an individual. As everyone's bodies have different reaction, the part where they benefit will come into play where they find the drug that is best able to make them perform well, caffeine just being one of the many options. This mirrors different people having different preferences of rackets, as a racket that makes a person perform at best, may cause another to put up a mediocre performance. In short, drugs, inclusive of caffeine, should be allowed in competitions, as it is up to each athlete whether they want to take the drug, and which drug they take, just as it is up to a runner whether he wants to wear shoes to run, and which pair of shoes he wears. Thus, the 'advantage' a runner has by taking drugs will be similar to the 'advantage' he gets from picking a suitable pair of shoes. -Clement Yue (31) 2 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
haoala |
39. RE: Implications on use of caffeine and ethical issues
Mar 18 2008, 5:59 AM EDT
I believe that currently there's no issue with the usage of caffeine because only physical competitions ban drugs. That's because the user has enhanced PHYSICAL performance, so the competition isn’t a matter of health any longer. Initially, doping was allowed, or rather, wasn't banned, because it was a relatively minor matter(compared to now); few athletes did it. However in the mid-1960s, a ban came to be because it became more & more extreme.But caffeine isn’t a physical-performance-enhancing drug. It's a cognitive-enhancing drug, as far as this study shows. Therefore, there is no reason to ban it from physical competitions because it won't affect the athletes anyway. Of course, caffeine might be banned in some exams/tests, because it will enhance cognitive ability, and it won't be a true measure of your intelligence. There might be tests which are that serious, but imagine going for a blood test before an exam… I think that it is ridiculous to ban caffeine from exams. Also, if one really drinks coffee before the exam in an attempt to raise one’s marks, then he's just cheating himself, he will suffer because his real intelligence does not reflect his marks. But there is one problem. A study has suggested that caffeine DOES improve physical ability, specifically long-term physical endurance.(http://www.vanderbilt.edu/ans/psychology/health_psychology/3Caffeine.htm)This means that caffeine should be banned from physical competitions, which might spark mass-banning of many other chemicals which have slight physical enhancement. The more rules there are, the easier to break them, which athletes might unintentionally break. I feel that it is ridiculous to ban everything. Competitions will become un-fun with too many regulations. I have a solution: only ban people with very high concentrations of drug in them, indicating that they obviously intend to cheat. Then again, this raises the question of: how much is much? -Adriel 2 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
