Yerba Mate. Edge or not?

[xCrucialDudex]

It seems like this question has never been asked on this board before. So, here it is. It contains some caffeine which some argue isn't really a caffeine. At the very least, it's a slightly different form of one found in coffee. Yerba Mate allegedly does not lead to addiction. I've done casual Google search for a proof and/or disproof but haven't found anything coming from authoritative source.

[xsecx]

It seems like this question has never been asked on this board before. So, here it is. It contains some caffeine which some argue isn't really a caffeine. At the very least, it's a slightly different form of one found in coffee. Yerba Mate allegedly does not lead to addiction. I've done casual Google search for a proof and/or disproof but haven't found anything coming from authoritative source.

still a stimulant, still used recreationally.

[xCrucialDudex]

still a stimulant, still used recreationally.

What if used irregularly as medicine for prophylaxis?

[xsecx]

What if used irregularly as medicine for prophylaxis?

prophylaxis for what condition though?

[xCrucialDudex]

for general health

[xsecx]

for general health

then how is it a prophylaxis? what would you be using it to protect yourself against and what studies are you using to prove that it helps with those conditions?

[xCrucialDudex]

then how is it a prophylaxis? what would you be using it to protect yourself against and what studies are you using to prove that it helps with those conditions?

Specifically, yerba mate can be used to protect oneself against low intakes of vitamins (A, C, B1, B2), minerals (Calcium, Iron, Potassium, Magnesium, Phosphorus) and amino acids since it provides quite a lot of this stuff.

Given one's diet rarely meets all RDAs for micro nutrients, trace elements and vitamins anything containing them technically is used for prophylaxis regardless of one's attitude towards the use of a substance. A gourd or two of yerba mate the other day add up to one's better condition by providing those vitamins and minerals.

There are vitamin C dragee very popular in my country which are prescribed almost universally to almost anyone in the beginning of the spring time solely for the purpose of improving one's immune function, i.e. to better state of general health. Which is considered a prophylaxis. Just like physical exercises are considered a form of prophylaxis, which they are indeed.

[xsecx]

Specifically, yerba mate can be used to protect oneself against low intakes of vitamins (A, C, B1, B2), minerals (Calcium, Iron, Potassium, Magnesium, Phosphorus) and amino acids since it provides quite a lot of this stuff.

Given one's diet rarely meets all RDAs for micro nutrients, trace elements and vitamins anything containing them technically is used for prophylaxis regardless of one's attitude towards the use of a substance. A gourd or two of yerba mate the other day add up to one's better condition by providing those vitamins and minerals.

There are vitamin C dragee very popular in my country which are prescribed almost universally to almost anyone in the beginning of the spring time solely for the purpose of improving one's immune function, i.e. to better state of general health. Which is considered a prophylaxis. Just like physical exercises are considered a form of prophylaxis, which they are indeed.

not really the term prophylaxis implies doing something to prevent a specific condition, but that's not really the point of the discussion. Yerba Mate isn't the only source for anything you've listed and I haven't found anything that states that it's particularly good for anything you've listed as opposed to other sources. You could simply take a multi vitamin and get the same end result without the stimulant effect, so I don't really see your point. Would you drink red wine because it can help prevent heart disease? If not, then how is this any different?

[xCrucialDudex]

not really the term prophylaxis implies doing something to prevent a specific condition

Physical exercises are considered prophylactic and target a range of health problems. How is it any specific?

[xsecx]

Physical exercises are considered prophylactic and target a range of health problems. How is it any specific?

I like how you chose to ignore the actual relevant part of the post to focus on the part that doesn't matter. But if you're doing something to prevent something, by definition it's targeted, which again, isn't really the relevant part and is simple word semantics but I'm glad that you've chosen to try and put your attention on that and not the actual discussion.

[xCrucialDudex]

I like how you chose to ignore the actual relevant part of the post to focus on the part that doesn't matter. But if you're doing something to prevent something, by definition it's targeted, which again, isn't really the relevant part and is simple word semantics but I'm glad that you've chosen to try and put your attention on that and not the actual discussion.

You got me wrong. I didn't chose to ignore your question I simply didn't reply. The answer to your question is: no, if I were straight edge I wouldn't drink wine if it helped prevent heart disease.

The question I'm asking is perhaps of greater scope. Why do straight edge kids choose to ignore alcohol, drugs and tobacco? Why don't straight edge kids give a shit about Animal Rights or anything else, for instance? Ultimately what is it that makes alcohol, drugs and tobacco so exclusive?

[xsecx]

You got me wrong. I didn't chose to ignore your question I simply didn't reply. The answer to your question is: no, if I were straight edge I wouldn't drink wine if it helped prevent heart disease.


not replying to a question you're asked is ignoring it. hurray word semantics again! Then if you were straight edge, then how/why would yerba mate be any different?



The question I'm asking is perhaps of greater scope. Why do straight edge kids choose to ignore alcohol, drugs and tobacco? Why don't straight edge kids give a shit about Animal Rights or anything else, for instance? Ultimately what is it that makes alcohol, drugs and tobacco so exclusive?

because it was the focus at the beginning and through it's history there have been other things come in and go, and the only thing that ever universally stuck was being against recreational drug use. Why should it include everything else? Why would someone who agrees that recreational drug use is negative also have to think that something unrelated to that standpoint, like AR, is right or wrong?

[xCrucialDudex]

not replying to a question you're asked is ignoring it.

You don't answer all of the questions you get asked yourself. And you do it quite often.


Then if you were straight edge, then how/why would yerba mate be any different?

It wouldn't be any different except when there would be nothing else to cure/prevent a disease.


because it was the focus at the beginning and through it's history there have been other things come in and go,

What things they have been?


and the only thing that ever universally stuck was being against recreational drug use.

OK, so what ultimately is it that makes straight edge people against recreational drug use?

[xsecx]

You don't answer all of the questions you get asked yourself. And you do it quite often.

uh huh. we're back to the same conversation where you have a really hard time admitting/accepting when you're wrong, so you try and deflect it.



It wouldn't be any different except when there would be nothing else to cure/prevent a disease.

which is why I asked about specifics, and which you couldn't answer.




What things they have been?


animal rights/veganism/vegetarianism/krishna



OK, so what ultimately is it that makes straight edge people against recreational drug use?

because they are? I don't really understand you're trying to ask? How can anyone answer for anyone what themselves why they are against recreational drug use?

and oh yeah?

Why should it include everything else? Why would someone who agrees that recreational drug use is negative also have to think that something unrelated to that standpoint, like AR, is right or wrong?

[xCrucialDudex]

uh huh. we're back to the same conversation where you have a really hard time admitting/accepting when you're wrong, so you try and deflect it.

Following your logic you're just the same like me. Often times people ask you a lot of questions which you simply ignore and come up with ones of your own in response. Are you going to argue you're not doing this?


Because they are leading to bad consequences in one form or another which is a lot of people think is bad and that's why they tend to relate to straight edge?

Because recreational use of these leads to bad consequences in one form or another which is why a lot of people think is bad and tend to relate to straight edge for these reasons?


and oh yeah?

Why should it include everything else? Why would someone who agrees that recreational drug use is negative also have to think that something unrelated to that standpoint, like AR, is right or wrong?

Relax dude. I wasn't saying it should include anything beyond recreational drug use. You just thought that out.

[xsecx]

Following your logic you're just the same like me. Often times people ask you a lot of questions which you simply ignore and come up with ones of your own in response. Are you going to argue you're not doing this?

Yes I will. I most certainly do not ignore the questions that are asked, especially not like you have where you blatantly ignore point blank questions completely.. Now, if you'd like to go through all my posts and find where I did, go for it. I mean shit you just did it again in this very post.




Because recreational use of these leads to bad consequences in one form or another which is why a lot of people think is bad and tend to relate to straight edge for these reasons?


So what does that have to do with why your question about the universal acceptance of straight edge being against recreational drug use?





Relax dude. I wasn't saying it should include anything beyond recreational drug use. You just thought that out.

uh. you asked: "The question I'm asking is perhaps of greater scope. Why do straight edge kids choose to ignore alcohol, drugs and tobacco? Why don't straight edge kids give a shit about Animal Rights or anything else, for instance? Ultimately what is it that makes alcohol, drugs and tobacco so exclusive?"

if you weren't saying it, then why did you ask the question?

[xCrucialDudex]

Yes I will. I most certainly do not ignore the questions that are asked, especially not like you have where you blatantly ignore point blank questions completely.. Now, if you'd like to go through all my posts and find where I did, go for it.

Here's the typical post of yours. Instead of actually answering the question you counter it with one of your own: http://sxe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=62073&postcount=53

Sometimes you choose to completely ignore the questions people ask you:
http://sxe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=70832&postcount=146

and you see it's not just me seeing this happening:
http://sxe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=70834&postcount=147

If someone else but you does the same you resort to cliche response (in sense that I can see this pattern used by you numerous times) which is essentially stating in somewhat sarcastic tone that someone chose to ignore your questions. It seems to me that you do this mostly to compel your opponent to answer your questions while avoiding the hassle of answering the questions you were asked.

Should I go on pointing out this obvious pattern in your communication style?

The point I'm making is that sometimes you take the liberty of "choosing to completely ignore" the questions you get asked and it is alright then. But when someone else does the same thing you're pretty quick to announce - sometimes even sarcastically - that people are so ignorant because they don't answer all or even some of your questions. Either deliberately or merely by choice of words you make it look so bad - perhaps not even realizing that sometimes you do quite the same thing - and such a response, it seems to me, seeks to compel people to actually answer your questions while it puts you in position of enjoying the opportunity of not answering their questions. It's so bad when others choose to ignore your questions. But it's totally OK when you choose to ignore theirs. What kind of incredible double-think this is!


I agree there's no way yerba mate can be considered an acceptable drink for someone who's straight edge except when it's used as medicine to prevent/cure a disease.

As for the rest of the questions I raised there's no need to carry on this discussion anymore.

[xsecx]

Here's the typical post of yours. Instead of actually answering the question you counter it with one of your own: http://sxe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=62073&postcount=53

Sometimes you choose to completely ignore the questions people ask you:
http://sxe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=70832&postcount=146

and you see it's not just me seeing this happening:
http://sxe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=70834&postcount=147



A typical post that if you actually look at the context and the full discussion you'd see that they were discussed previously, but hey, what does context matter, right?



If someone else but you does the same you resort to cliche response (in sense that I can see this pattern used by you numerous times) which is essentially stating in somewhat sarcastic tone that someone chose to ignore your questions. It seems to me that you do this mostly to compel your opponent to answer your questions while avoiding the hassle of answering the questions you were asked.

Should I go on pointing out this obvious pattern in your communication style?

The point I'm making is that sometimes you take the liberty of "choosing to completely ignore" the questions you get asked and it is alright then. But when someone else does the same thing you're pretty quick to announce - sometimes even sarcastically - that people are so ignorant because they don't answer all or even some of your questions. Either deliberately or merely by choice of words you make it look so bad - perhaps not even realizing that sometimes you do quite the same thing - and such a response, it seems to me, seeks to compel people to actually answer your questions while it puts you in position of enjoying the opportunity of not answering their questions. It's so bad when others choose to ignore your questions. But it's totally OK when you choose to ignore theirs. What kind of incredible double-think this is!


Sure, if I actually did that. But of course you just went through and pull out single posts in entire threads completely out of context to try and illustrate some incorrect point.



I agree there's no way yerba mate can be considered an acceptable drink for someone who's straight edge except when it's used as medicine to prevent/cure a disease.


So what makes you think it can prevent or cure a disease?



As for the rest of the questions I raised there's no need to carry on this discussion anymore.
why not? Why do you think that straight edge should be about more than just drugs and alcohol?

[xCrucialDudex]

A typical post that if you actually look at the context and the full discussion you'd see that they were discussed previously, but hey, what does context matter, right?

Of course, it does. Point is you don't answer all of the questions you are asked. I realize one doesn't even have to do that and sometimes some questions are better left unanswered especially when some discussion took place previously and the issue in question was discussed to some extent; and I readily will do the same when appropriate but the problem at hand is that I, instead of answering your question, asked you my question - and I did that not to actually ignore your question but to address the issue from another angle; your question was simply left without expressed reply - but you wouldn't follow and was really quick to announce somewhat sarcastically what choice I had made. I just can't help but notice that you are actually accusing me of something you sometimes do yourself. If you don't agree I'm proving anything that's alright then I don't have intention to actually make you believe anything.


Sure, if I actually did that. But of course you just went through and pull out single posts in entire threads completely out of context to try and illustrate some incorrect point.

...


So what makes you think it can prevent or cure a disease?

Scientifically proved position perhaps?

"A recent (2002) U.S. patent cites yerba mate for inhibiting monoamine oxidase (MAO) activity by 40-50% in vitro, reporting that it might be useful for a variety of such disorders as "depression, disorders of attention and focus, mood and emotional disorders, Parkinson's disease, extrapyramidal disorders, hypertension, substance abuse, eating disorders, withdrawal syndromes and the cessation of smoking.

Yerba mate has significant antioxidant activity, demonstrated in numerous studies. Its high antioxidant values are linked to rapid absorption of known antioxidant plant chemicals found in mate leaves. An infusion of the leaf has been demonstrated to inhibit lipid peroxidation - particularly LDL (low-density lipoprotein) oxidation. Oxidation of LDL is considered to be the initiating factor in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Another study in vitro has shown yerba mate to inhibit the formation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs), with an effect comparable to that of two pharmaceutical AGE inhibitor drugs. The formation of AGEs play a part in the development of diabetic complications.

...


Main Uses
...
* as a general nervine (balances/calms nerves) for nerve pain, nervous fatigue, and depression
* for allergies and sinusitis

Other Properties/Actions Documented by Traditional Use:
anti-allergy, antidepressant, appetite suppressant, blood cleanser, cardiotonic (tones, balances, strengthens the heart), central nervous system stimulant, digestive stimulant, hypotensive (lowers blood pressure), nervine (balances/calms nerves), neurasthenic (reduces nerve pain), neuroprotective (protects brain cells), purgative (strong laxative)"

Source: http://www.rain-tree.com/yerbamate.htm

"The Indians of South America traditionally use yerba maté to treat gastrointestinal
disorders as eupeptic and choleretic agent. Research conducted by a team at Catedra
de Farmacologia in Buenos Aires, Argentina found that yerba maté does in fact induce
an increase in bile flow and enhance intestinal transit."

Sources:
http://www.yerba-mate.com/yerbamate.pdf, p.4
http://www.guayaki.com/images/uploads/pages/File/Yerba%20Mate%20Information.pdf

These papers actually iterate most of the points rain-tree.com provides on their web-page.

You can read the full list of what yerba mate is good for by following these URLs.



why not? Why do you think that straight edge should be about more than just drugs and alcohol?

Can you read and comprehend English?

[xsecx]

Of course, it does. Point is you don't answer all of the questions you are asked. I realize one doesn't even have to do that and sometimes some questions are better left unanswered especially when some discussion took place previously and the issue in question was discussed to some extent; and I readily will do the same when appropriate but the problem at hand is that I, instead of answering your question, asked you my question - and I did that not to actually ignore your question but to address the issue from another angle; your question was simply left without expressed reply - but you wouldn't follow and was really quick to announce somewhat sarcastically what choice I had made. I just can't help but notice that you are actually accusing me of something you sometimes do yourself. If you don't agree I'm proving anything that's alright then I don't have intention to actually make you believe anything.


Point is, I actually did answer the questions that were asked, just not in the posts you isolated, the were actually answered previously. You're also talking utter shit since the question I asked, you removed from your quote and simply focused on word semantics, and not the actual discussion. You simply ignored the questions that you knew the answers to would dissolve your argument, so you simply ignored them and tried to shift the focus with completely unrelated questions.




Scientifically proved position perhaps?

a bunch of shit cut out

These papers actually iterate most of the points rain-tree.com provides on their web-page.

You can read the full list of what yerba mate is good for by following these URLs.

So bias claims from websites selling the stuff counts as a scientifically proven position? Now if you want to bring in actual sources from respected medical journals, then this discussion might go somewhere rather than marketing propaganda.




Can you read and comprehend English?
I can, I just don't think you can, since you ask questions and then pretend that you didn't and/or that make excuses that don't make any sense, so I was giving you an opportunity to correct yourself.

[mouseman004]

http://sxe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=62073&postcount=53

Ouch..I forgot about that one!

[xCrucialDudex]

Point is, I actually did answer the questions that were asked, just not in the posts you isolated, the were actually answered previously. You're also talking utter shit since the question I asked, you removed from your quote and simply focused on word semantics, and not the actual discussion. You simply ignored the questions that you knew the answers to would dissolve your argument, so you simply ignored them and tried to shift the focus with completely unrelated questions.

Okay, I ignored your question and I was being wrong. I admit it.


So bias claims from websites selling the stuff counts as a scientifically proven position? Now if you want to bring in actual sources from respected medical journals, then this discussion might go somewhere rather than marketing propaganda.

Did you follow or at least take a look at the reference list?


I can, I just don't think you can, since you ask questions and then pretend that you didn't and/or that make excuses that don't make any sense, so I was giving you an opportunity to correct yourself.

This is funny. I don't think you can either since I told you already I wasn't even trying to state that AR or anything else except recreational drug use should be a part of straight edge. How many times will it take to repeat myself until you actually understand this? You thought that out yourself. You didn't actually understand what I was asking you and now you insist like a crazy man that I was trying to do what I didn't even think of trying to do. And you call this being able to read and comprehend English? Do you ever accept/admit you're being wrong yourself?

[xsecx]

Okay, I ignored your question and I was being wrong. I admit it.


wow, only took you a bunch of posts to admit it.




Did you follow or at least take a look at the reference list?


I did, and I didn't see any legitimate medical studies listed, only a bunch of articles.

I did however find things like:
Yerba Mate. Also known as Paraguay tea, yerba mate is a strong brain stimulant (the doses typically used mimic that of 100 to 200 mg of caffeine). The principle side effects reported are excessive stimulation and high blood pressure. It has not been proven to promote weight loss. Some case reports of poisoning (leading to hospitalization) with this agent have been reported and excessive use may be linked to cancer of the esophagus.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/guide/herbal-remedies





This is funny. I don't think you can either since I told you already I wasn't even trying to state that AR or anything else except recreational drug use should be a part of straight edge. How many times will it take to repeat myself until you actually understand this? You thought that out yourself. You didn't actually understand what I was asking you and now you insist like a crazy man that I was trying to do what I didn't even think of trying to do. And you call this being able to read and comprehend English? Do you ever accept/admit you're being wrong yourself?

Sure, but like you've already done today, you've contradicted yourself. If you weren't trying to imply that straight edge should be more than just being against drugs and alcohol, why did you ask the question? I'm somehow the crazy man, when you're the one asking questions like
""The question I'm asking is perhaps of greater scope. Why do straight edge kids choose to ignore alcohol, drugs and tobacco? Why don't straight edge kids give a shit about Animal Rights or anything else, for instance? Ultimately what is it that makes alcohol, drugs and tobacco so exclusive?""

So if you weren't saying that it should, then what were you saying?

[xCrucialDudex]

I did, and I didn't see any legitimate medical studies listed, only a bunch of articles.

I did however find things like:
Yerba Mate. Also known as Paraguay tea, yerba mate is a strong brain stimulant (the doses typically used mimic that of 100 to 200 mg of caffeine). The principle side effects reported are excessive stimulation and high blood pressure. It has not been proven to promote weight loss. Some case reports of poisoning (leading to hospitalization) with this agent have been reported and excessive use may be linked to cancer of the esophagus.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/guide/herbal-remedies

Ok, so what exactly is this text and why do you chose to cite its part?
It doesn't look like a legitimate medical study to me, just an article.

Besides it somehow doesn't happen to mention the benefits yerba mate offers, instead it focuses on a few selected issues only, which while it seems were scientifically proven, it also was proven that yerba mate has health benefits.

Mate tea has recently been highly publicized for its health benefits but there have been also concerns about its safety. The scientific literature, on one hand, reports that Mate tea is hypocholesterolemic, hepatoprotective (Filip and Ferraro 2003), central nervous system stimulant, diuretic (Gonzalez and others 1993), and antioxidant (Filip and others 2000; VanderJagt and others 2002). It also has benefits to the cardiovascular system (Schinella and others 2005), and is a protector of DNA oxidation and in vitro low-density lipoprotein (LDL) lipoperoxidation (Bracesco and others 2003). ...
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118510142/main.html,ftx_abs#h2

[The] saponin concentration is also noteworthy in that they are not found with high concentrations in other teas; the saponins contribute to the flavor and may also be attributed to anti-inflammatory and hypocholesterolemic properties characteristic to Mate as a medicinal herb.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118510142/main.html,ftx_abs#h22



Sure, but like you've already done today, you've contradicted yourself. If you weren't trying to imply that straight edge should be more than just being against drugs and alcohol, why did you ask the question? I'm somehow the crazy man, when you're the one asking questions like
""The question I'm asking is perhaps of greater scope. Why do straight edge kids choose to ignore alcohol, drugs and tobacco? Why don't straight edge kids give a shit about Animal Rights or anything else, for instance? Ultimately what is it that makes alcohol, drugs and tobacco so exclusive?""

So if you weren't saying that it should, then what were you saying?

There is a common underlying issue with alcohol, drugs and tobacco. AR reference was used to create a contrast and thus to show that it has nothing common with these three substances. It is this underlying issue that I wanted to draw your attention to.

[xsecx]

Ok, so what exactly is this text and why do you chose to cite its part?
It doesn't look like a legitimate medical study to me, just an article.


it's an article from a non biased, physician website.



Besides it somehow doesn't happen to mention the benefits yerba mate offers, instead it focuses on a few selected issues only, which while it seems were scientifically proven, it also was proven that yerba mate has health benefits.

Mate tea has recently been highly publicized for its health benefits but there have been also concerns about its safety. The scientific literature, on one hand, reports that Mate tea is hypocholesterolemic, hepatoprotective (Filip and Ferraro 2003), central nervous system stimulant, diuretic (Gonzalez and others 1993), and antioxidant (Filip and others 2000; VanderJagt and others 2002). It also has benefits to the cardiovascular system (Schinella and others 2005), and is a protector of DNA oxidation and in vitro low-density lipoprotein (LDL) lipoperoxidation (Bracesco and others 2003). ...
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118510142/main.html,ftx_abs#h2

[The] saponin concentration is also noteworthy in that they are not found with high concentrations in other teas; the saponins contribute to the flavor and may also be attributed to anti-inflammatory and hypocholesterolemic properties characteristic to Mate as a medicinal herb.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118510142/main.html,ftx_abs#h22


I like how you omit this part:
"On the other hand, some epidemiological studies have reported an association between the consumption of Mate tea and an increased risk of various types of cancer, including oral, oropharyngeal, esophageal, laryngeal, and bladder (Goldenberg and others 2003; Sewram and others 2003; Bates and others 2007). "

so it would seem to me, that besides it being a stimulant, it also has serious side effects that pretty much negate any positives you would achieve from taking it. It also doesn't appear that any of this is unique from yerba mate and could actually be gotten in other things without the side effects. So what exactly are you arguing here? That yerba mate should be consumed?




There is a common underlying issue with alcohol, drugs and tobacco. AR reference was used to create a contrast and thus to show that it has nothing common with these three substances. It is this underlying issue that I wanted to draw your attention to.

Ok. but that doesn't make sense, since I was the one that was talking about recreational drug use being against edge, and you were the one condoning it. I think you need to go back to the first page and start reading this stuff again, because you're talking out of your ass.

[xCrucialDudex]

I like how you omit this part:
"On the other hand, some epidemiological studies have reported an association between the consumption of Mate tea and an increased risk of various types of cancer, including oral, oropharyngeal, esophageal, laryngeal, and bladder (Goldenberg and others 2003; Sewram and others 2003; Bates and others 2007)."

Well, I didn't actually try to make it look as if there's no such danger. Anything can be dangerous especially if consumed without moderation.


so it would seem to me, that besides it being a stimulant, it also has serious side effects that pretty much negate any positives you would achieve from taking it.

Yes, it has its side effects. This danger of cancer is linked to consumption of hot mate in great volumes (8-9kg/1yr). That is one has to drink quite a lot of hot mate on a daily basis and more than just once a day in order to endanger oneself to a cancer.


It also doesn't appear that any of this is unique from yerba mate and could actually be gotten in other things without the side effects. So what exactly are you arguing here? That yerba mate should be consumed?

I argue that it's not that bad after all and it offers more good than bad if consumed in moderation.


Ok. but that doesn't make sense, since I was the one that was talking about recreational drug use being against edge, and you were the one condoning it. I think you need to go back to the first page and start reading this stuff again, because you're talking out of your ass.

It does make a perfect sense and I don't need to go anywhere just because you didn't understand what I was asking. It seems you got your mind fixed on idea that I was trying to assert that AR should be a part of straight edge. Well I'll say it again, it is not so. It's not what I was saying. I didn't even tried to assert anything like that.

[xsecx]

Well, I didn't actually try to make it look as if there's no such danger. Anything can be dangerous especially if consumed without moderation.
Yes, it has its side effects. This danger of cancer is linked to consumption of hot mate in great volumes (8-9kg/1yr). That is one has to drink quite a lot of hot mate on a daily basis and more than just once a day in order to endanger oneself to a cancer.
I argue that it's not that bad after all and it offers more good than bad if consumed in moderation.


Ok, so I'll go back to my original post. Is there anything unique and special that can only be gotten from yerba mate? There doesn't appear to be, and there also doesn't appear to be any real compelling reason to use a stimulant and possibly risk developing cancer when you could simply eat better, take a multivitamin and drink roobis tea. Read everything you just said, and then apply it to wine. We've already established that you won't drink wine and call yourself straight edge. Or have you decide to divorce this conversation from straight edge in general?



It does make a perfect sense and I don't need to go anywhere just because you didn't understand what I was asking. It seems you got your mind fixed on idea that I was trying to assert that AR should be a part of straight edge. Well I'll say it again, it is not so. It's not what I was saying. I didn't even tried to assert anything like that.

What you are saying you were asking, and what you actually were, are contradictory. Are you now trying to say that your question was rhetorical? How about you simpy restate your question, how you meant it to be, since how it was written implied that you asserted that straight edge should be about more than just not doing drugs and should include other issues.

[xCrucialDudex]

Ok, so I'll go back to my original post. Is there anything unique and special that can only be gotten from yerba mate? There doesn't appear to be, and there also doesn't appear to be any real compelling reason to use a stimulant and possibly risk developing cancer when you could simply eat better, take a multivitamin and drink roobis tea. Read everything you just said, and then apply it to wine. We've already established that you won't drink wine and call yourself straight edge. Or have you decide to divorce this conversation from straight edge in general?

Ok, after giving it a thorough thought I agree that yerba mate cannot be used neither for recreational purposes nor as medicine; as something acceptable in regards to straight edge and its current stance on the use of such substances as caffeine. Following strictly terminology one perhaps cannot classify yerba mate, being a beverage, as medicine. Nevertheless, to deny the fact it offers nutrient and vitamin rich content is not wise as well as to deny its known side effects.

There's something I don't fully understand and I ask you and anyone else with authentic knowledge of the issue to explain this.

As far as I can make it out initially straight edge wasn't against caffeine. Is this true?
If so, why and when did it became an issue within straight edge scene?


What you are saying you were asking, and what you actually were, are contradictory. Are you now trying to say that your question was rhetorical? How about you simpy restate your question, how you meant it to be, since how it was written implied that you asserted that straight edge should be about more than just not doing drugs and should include other issues.

"Why don't straight edge kids give a shit about Animal Rights or anything else, for instance?"

Rephrased and extended: Why don't they do it? Perhaps there's a reason for that and the reason is that there's nothing common in drugs use, tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking and AR? The common underlying issue with these three is 1) they being drugs 2) the impact they have on people and societal aspect: that how people who use these substances act, think while being influenced by drugs and how other people who do not use these substances perceive those who do when they are under influence of these drugs.

It seems to me that straight edge initially wasn't against drugs per se, and all drugs too. I mean kids didn't go to authorities and asked what was drug and what wasn't and then decided unanimously to abstain from what they figured out was scientifically defined as drug, did they? I guess, it [straight edge and its message] was and still is overwhelmingly against the impact of drugs have on a person and his/her social and personal life.

Tobacco, alcohol, drugs - they truly may and often do ruin one's life and even those around us.

But caffeine? Isn't this a little of extreme to deny it?

That's exactly what I was trying to say. All I expected and hoped for was your reply, a reply that would let me continue with formulating this question of "greater scope" but it didn't work out well.

[xsecx]

Ok, after giving it a thorough thought I agree that yerba mate cannot be used neither for recreational purposes nor as medicine; as something acceptable in regards to straight edge and its current stance on the use of such substances as caffeine. Following strictly terminology one perhaps cannot classify yerba mate, being a beverage, as medicine. Nevertheless, to deny the fact it offers nutrient and vitamin rich content is not wise as well as to deny its known side effects.

There's something I don't fully understand and I ask you and anyone else with authentic knowledge of the issue to explain this.

As far as I can make it out initially straight edge wasn't against caffeine. Is this true?
If so, why and when did it became an issue within straight edge scene?


It wasn't. Kids used to be all about coke and pepsi. But some time in the early to mid 90s people started to think about. For me and the people I've talked to about this, it comes down mostly to a stance of consistency. Caffeine is the most abused drug globally and has the most addicts. Sure it doesn't kill people, but how can someone say that they're against drug use and then carve out which drugs using some kind of arbitrary scale. Why is caffeine ok, but marijuana isn't? What other drugs are ok then? If it's just caffeine, then why is it just caffeine.




"Why don't straight edge kids give a shit about Animal Rights or anything else, for instance?"

Rephrased and extended: Why don't they do it? Perhaps there's a reason for that and the reason is that there's nothing common in drugs use, tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking and AR? The common underlying issue with these three is 1) they being drugs 2) the impact they have on people and societal aspect: that how people who use these substances act, think while being influenced by drugs and how other people who do not use these substances perceive those who do when they are under influence of these drugs.



By asking the question you did, you're implying that either I think it should, or you think it should.



It seems to me that straight edge initially wasn't against drugs per se, and all drugs too. I mean kids didn't go to authorities and asked what was drug and what wasn't and then decided unanimously to abstain from what they figured out was scientifically defined as drug, did they? I guess, it [straight edge and its message] was and still is overwhelmingly against the impact of drugs have on a person and his/her social and personal life.

Tobacco, alcohol, drugs - they truly may and often do ruin one's life and even those around us.

But caffeine? Isn't this a little of extreme to deny it?

That's exactly what I was trying to say. All I expected and hoped for was your reply, a reply that would let me continue with formulating this question of "greater scope" but it didn't work out well.

Initially kids would drink a beer and still call themselves edge. The main difference between then and now, is that people have had the time to look at their motivation and why they've made the choices they've made. I'd also challenge you take a look at what caffeine does to the body and compare it's effects to any other drug, so I'd have to ask you back, why not caffeine?

[xCrucialDudex]

It wasn't. Kids used to be all about coke and pepsi. But some time in the early to mid 90s people started to think about. For me and the people I've talked to about this, it comes down mostly to a stance of consistency. Caffeine is the most abused drug globally and has the most addicts. Sure it doesn't kill people, but how can someone say that they're against drug use and then carve out which drugs using some kind of arbitrary scale. Why is caffeine ok, but marijuana isn't? What other drugs are ok then? If it's just caffeine, then why is it just caffeine.

Initially kids would drink a beer and still call themselves edge. The main difference between then and now, is that people have had the time to look at their motivation and why they've made the choices they've made. I'd also challenge you take a look at what caffeine does to the body and compare it's effects to any other drug, so I'd have to ask you back, why not caffeine?

It makes sense.