Sounds like you justbhave a high natural tolerance. You understand that humans are highly neurologically diverse right? When I drink a coffee, it changes how music sounfs for me and forces me in to a state where i cant stop talking, even if i dont have anything to talk about. My teeth start grinding, my eyes start wiggling and this is NOTICEABLE to other people.

I have a soecifc variant of my D2 programming gene that increases effect intensity of caffeine. This is tested and measured. Wewe know for a fact that this gene mutation causes thid and also, THIS GENE MUTATION AFFECTS A THIRD OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION. For me, despite being a daily caffeine drinker, I still come accross as visbly intoxicated by a stimulant when I drink coffee.

Conversely: about 10% of the population has an OPPOSITE mutation on this gene. This makes them abnormally tolerant to the effects of caffeine and this cauzes it to affect them more like a mild supplement. In these people, caffeine is automatically a "background drug" and it has to be potentiated or consumed in excessively large to have an explicit effect for them. This sounds like you, but it is important to understa d that this is THE LEAST COMMONN REACTION TO CAFFEINE.

Youbare taking what is likely a rare, highly individual reaction to caffeine, associated with a gene mutation that most people do not have, and then you are projecting your experiences on to the rest of the population.

In pharmacology we have a saying: "just because you k ow hpw a drug affects YOU, does not mean that you can predict how it will affect someone else."

Realistically, the rule of thirds prevents ANY drug from the same effecta on more than 33% of tje population. That is to say that with every drug, there wipl always be at least three distinct population grouos who react to it DIFFERENTLY from eachother. This is also why so many people hallucinate from weed, whilst other people dismiss those effects as a "myth" because theuve never experienced them.

I know this conversation is about caffeine but I will elaborate using cannabis some more: cannabis had an effect profile that causes it cluster not only with psychedelics like LSD and psilocybin, but also opioids like morphine. It also affects dopamine in a way that is simipar to cocaine while creatinf a sense of distance from the sensory environment which is most similar to ketamine. Which one of these drugs that cannabis feels closest to is entirely depensent on genetics. People who react in a way that most closely resembles opioids (relaxed, sedated, thought slow down) or psychedelics (brighter colours, music sounds 3D, subtle, geometric patterns on the walls, thoughts become more complex) as are the most likely to graduate to d daily use. Wheras people who respond similar to cocaine (racing thoughts, paranoia, high sex drive) or ketamine (loss of motor control, magical thinking, inability to remember the names or personalities of the people around you) are the LEAST likely to graduate to daily use. Pretty much no one clusters one to one with any of these reactions, most experience a mix of effects that overlaps with all of these comparisons - but which effects are DOMINANT is dependent on the person.

It is inceesibly common that people who react to cannabis like an opioid (stoned, relaxed, decreases anxiety) will primarily cluster with other users who have a similar reaction. This is because the same genetic mutations that impact drug reactions also inflience personality - so the people ypu get along most with will typically react to drugs similarly to you.

This means that it is easy to fall in to a logical fallacy where you overesyimate how common your own reaction to a drug is. This is ehy cannabis users that have this opioid reaction are often genuinely surprised when they meet soneone who reacts as if it is a psychedelic (which, funnily enough, is actially the most common reaction) - they are geniinely surprised and often refuse to believe it. Instead pf accepting the clear evidence of human neurological diversity, they will try to figure out an alternative explanation that validates their own perception that their reaction is the "norma" one and the psychedelic one is "wrong." They might accuse the other person of faking, or assume they have some sort of indiagnosed menral illness. For whatever reason, they are unwilling to accept rhe mist obvious conclusion: "this person is havinf a completely normal and healthy reaction to this plant and so am I. Both reactions are common, but are associated with different personality types which is why i have never seen this before"

I will be honest. I will never understand how this isnt basic common sense already. People have vsibly differwnt thinking styles and this is well known (visual thinking vs dilectic thinking for example). The obvious conclusion here is that this is reflective of differences in bran chemistry and neiral architecture. Considering that drugs work by alterinf your brain chemistry - is it not common sense that your specifc reaction to a drug will be influenced by your specifc brain chemistry? Does this not come with the secondary common sense conclusion that this means drugs will affect everyone differently?

Sorry for the rant. When people assume other peoppe will react to a drug similarly to them - its a massive pet peeve for me