Society Runs on Stimulants ⇥ currentaffairs.org

Alex Skopic, at Current Affairs, wrote about the functional use and abuse of stimulants by people who are overworked. I stumbled upon it by way of the latest issue of Web Curios, and I think the general thrust of the article is something I find noteworthy enough to link to it. Alas, it is sloppy in the details.

The second paragraph is a good place to start. Skopic dumps a litany of numbers about declining affordability and the difficulties of modern life; among them:

[…] And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 21.6 percent of Americans now work longer than 40 hours a week, with a beleaguered five percent working as many as 60 hours. […]

The way this is phrased — “now work longer than 40 hours a week”, emphasis mine — may give the impression this figure is a new high, either historically or at least in recent memory. But it is not. This figure has been declining for at least twenty years. In 2005, the BLS reported 27.9% of people employed in nonagricultural jobs in the U.S. worked 41 or more hours; by 2015, that was down to 24.8%, compared to 21.6% in 2025. The same drop is also present for workers committing 60 hours per week or more: 7.2% in 2005, 6.3% in 2015, and 5.4% in 2025.

I am not selectively quoting here. I picked ten and twenty years ago for comparative convenience, but you can check the intervening years and find a clear trend. The misuse of this data point is a poor choice when there is perhaps an interesting narrative in reconciling the declining percentage of overworked U.S. adults with the proliferation of highly caffeinated beverages, mysterious energy shots, and powders and supplements of questionable substance.

This is the kind of sentence that made me begin searching up all kinds of stuff in this article. It raises doubts, making me do the kind of work all of us should probably do any time we read something, but do not because we decide we have better things to do. Well, I decided this is what I was going to do today. I am going to skip past the health claims because they are not in my wheelhouse — double-checking easily verified numbers is something I am more comfortable with — and I will jump to this part:

Monster Energy, for instance, seems to think it owns the word “monster.” In 2009, the company threatened to sue a small brewery in Vermont for selling a beer called the “Vermonster,” claiming it infringed their trademark rights. That was at least a beverage, but in 2020 they did the same thing with video game company Ubisoft, forcing them to change a game’s title from “Gods and Monsters” to “Immortals Fenyx Rising.” In 2023 they once again targeted the gaming industry, this time over an independent game called “Dark Deception: Monsters and Mortals”; according to the developers, the drink company wanted them to “agree to never use a green & white logo on a black background for any game we ever make. So they own the colors green & white too apparently.” In all of these cases, Monster’s legal claim is shaky at best — but with a revenue of $7.9 billion in 2025, they have enough money to bankrupt anyone who tries to take them to court, so it doesn’t matter.

Monster Energy is an aggressive litigant when it comes to protecting its trademarks, but it does not always succeed. Glowstick Entertainment, makers of “Dark Deception: Monsters and Mortals”, fought and won its trademark case. Also, I think it would have been useful for Skopic to cite cases where Monster Energy lost — or likely would have lost — but the defendant went out of business anyhow. For example, in a 2022 case against a store with “Monster” in its name, the energy drink company would have been unlikely to prevail (PDF). Even so, a search of state records showed the company was ultimately dissolved. No matter whether this was directly connected to the litigation, it is a stronger argument for having “enough money to bankrupt anyone who tries to take them to court” than this evidence-free article.

Also, it is kind of weird that Coca-Cola — a company which owns 21% of Monster Energy after the latter acquired Coke’s energy drink portfolio, has a line of teas and coffees, and whose namesake beverage used to contain cocaine and still contains caffeine — goes entirely unmentioned in this piece. Perhaps it is too obvious, or feels like too much of a stretch. But it is strange to dedicate a paragraph to Monster’s trademark battles, which has nothing to do with the thesis of this piece, and leave the Coca-Cola stone unturned.

I wish an editor took another pass on this article as I think there are points that could be clarified, facts that desperately need checking, and interesting narratives that could be teased out. Skopic notes, for instance, the supposed incompatibility of sleep with an economy based on relentless production and consumption. It is true that we cannot make or buy things in your sleep, nor can we provide revenue-generating services, but sleep itself is an enormous business. We are encouraged to spend thousands of dollars on beds and mattresses because less expensive options are insufficiently rest-promoting, and then we should spend more money to wake up and keep ourselves alert throughout the day.

I find all of this baffling, even as — perhaps especially as — a daily coffee drinker. I get that people have different relationships with caffeine and alcohol, so do not take this as anything greater than my feelings-based vibe, but I have never really understood these as functional products. Coffee, when made well using the kinds of beans that I like, is a delicious beverage regardless of its effects. Wine is sort of similar to me. They both have effects, of course, but I think of those as a kind of warning sign: if I have consumed so much coffee or wine that it noticeably changes how I feel, I have probably had too much. This makes them, unlike energy drinks, a delicious treat for me. Your mileage may vary.