Ten years ago, the popular belief was that caffeine didn't act on any specific neurotransmitter or receptor site. The popular belief was that caffeine acted by increasing the permeability of calcium on the intracellular level.

Fortunately science is not set in stone, so when new evidence presented itself the popular belief changed. It is now believed that caffeine acts mainly through its structural similarity to adenosine, but in another ten years that could go out the window also. This is what makes science cool.


To the mods:Here comes the part I'm going to get flamed for. I can handle it and without resorting to name-calling. PLEASE don't close this thread.


The popular belief of our time is that marijuana is not physically addictive (although some experts disagree, saying that it can be mildy physically addictive). This doesn't make it undeniable fact. To say it's completely impossible for everyone would be like saying there's no life on other planets because scientists haven't found it yet.

I made the coment that nothing can be proven. That was meant to be interpreted loosely, plus I was totally shitfaced. I was getting at what I've explained here, but I couldn't argue intelligently at the time because I was hammered.

I am not a moron, and I have not been sent here by the DEA to spread lies or piss off stoners. I have never been banned from this message board under a different name.
Oppositional P Reviewed by Oppositional P on . Scientific reasoning Ten years ago, the popular belief was that caffeine didn't act on any specific neurotransmitter or receptor site. The popular belief was that caffeine acted by increasing the permeability of calcium on the intracellular level. Fortunately science is not set in stone, so when new evidence presented itself the popular belief changed. It is now believed that caffeine acts mainly through its structural similarity to adenosine, but in another ten years that could go out the window also. This is Rating: 5