HUMANS USE DRUGS [CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES] TO ALTER CONSCIOUSNESS TO VARIOUS DEGREES. IN CRITICAL QUANTITY, SOME DRUGS CAN ALSO KILL.  

ALCOHOL IS THE DRUG OF CHOICE FOR MOST OF THE WESTERN WORLD... NICOTINE AND CAFFEINE ARE THE MOST USED DRUGS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD...

OTHER DRUGS INCLUDE COCAINE AND HEROIN. 

SOME OTHER CONSCIOUSNESS MODIFYING DRUGS ARE PRESCRIBED BY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION... THESE MOSTLY PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS ARE REGIMENTED BY STRICT USAGE.

NOW COMES A CRITICAL QUESTION.... CAN A DRUNKER SAILOR VOTE IN AN ESSENTIAL POLITICAL CHOICE? THIS WAS ANSWERED A WHILE BACK... AT WHAT LEVEL OF ALTERED CONSCIOUSNESS ARE WE STYLISTICALLY RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE A PROPER CHOICE?

WE KNOW THAT A LEVEL OF 0.05 ALCOHOL IN THE BLOOD IS THE LEGAL LIMIT TO DRIVE A CAR... WHAT ABOUT MAKING A PROPER POLITICAL CHOICE?

Drugs negate human rights

Why drug distribution is inhumane

by Professor Jeanne Hersch

cc. At the Second International Symposium Against Drugs in Zofingen in April 1997, Geneva philosopher Professor Jeanne Hersch gave a remarkable opening speech on the topic of ‘Drug legalisation – a contradiction to human rights’. Her thoughts on what a human being is and what they should be highlight the inhumanity of drug legalisation and the distribution of narcotics. Drugs undermine the basic attribute that makes a person human: the ability to make free and responsible decisions as a human being. Drugs, even when administered by doctors, are contrary to humanity and human rights. The transcript of her unscripted lecture printed here has been authorised by Professor Hersch.

I may disappoint you, because I will not be able to tell you exactly what to do and what not to do. I will tell you one thing, just one. I don’t think I have ever tried to give a lecture in my life that deals with just one thing. I want to explain only one thing to you, but this one thing is not easy.
  It is simply this: I believe that there is no purely technical, external, legal solution to the drug problem. The discussion can swing one way or the other. But what must not be allowed to swing is the idea of what a human being is and what a human being should be.
  In empirical terms, I cannot argue with a doctor who proposes a solution with which I disagree. He tells me: “I am a doctor. This young person has come to me and needs help. And I have that help. For example, I have methadone or something else that would allow him – at least for a while – to continue working and living. I cannot refuse him that. That is why I am giving it to him.” Could I, out of my ignorance, dare to say, “You must not do that!”? I believe that many of our contemporaries find themselves in this situation.
  However, in response to what I cannot reject, I must not simply remain silent or deny the doctor’s reasoning. That is why I must appeal to your conscience in my speech:
  With humans, it is never the case that something existential, something that is crucial to life, can be solved by simple technology or a medical solution. The question is different: what is at stake in human terms? What is at stake for this young person as a human being, not as a donkey or a cow or any other animal, but as a human being?
  You have to get to the point where the person says: “I won’t do it, I won’t take it, whatever the consequences. It is against my human dignity, it is against my humanity, that someone wants to save me with a purely chemical means. I am not the kind of being that can be saved with a chemical agent. If it were purely physical, then perhaps it would be possible – but even then, it is not always the case.” Where the sick young person as such is at stake, their conscience, their freedom, no solution should be offered that might later undermine their humanity.
  The lack of strength in the fight against drugs in our country and in other countries is no coincidence. I believe the reason lies not only in the fact that many people profit from it in some way, which is indeed the case, but also in the fact that our sense of what is fundamentally human has been weakened. There are snakes in our society – drugs are one of them. They are very cunning, as snakes are. There are clever snakes that draw their strength from our weakness, that have a sense of what is crucial in humanity. And what is that? What is crucial in humanity is that human beings are free, that they decide what they do. Perhaps they do not decide, but they could decide. As a result, they are also responsible for how they decide.
  The ability to make decisions is the basis for the international community’s proclamation – at least in words – that human beings have rights. Why else would humans have special rights? Other animals also have everything we have, except for this ability to decide for themselves. These human rights have become so important in the contemporary view of humanity that they are considered more important than all laws; they have become the basis of all laws. The laws are there to support human rights. We Swiss actually have a duty to understand this better than others. That is why it is a pure perversion of thought to claim that it is a human right to be allowed to consume drugs or not to consume them. That is not true! Drugs negate human rights by denying that ultimately it is not a doctor who gives the permission, but the individual’s own conscience.
  Because human beings can make responsible decisions – and since they can, they should decide – they have a duty to be decisive beings. That is something we cannot get rid of. This connection has been valid since the day human beings were created.
  Of course, we can tell young people: “Go to the doctor. He will give you what you need.” But then everyone has to decide for themselves: “Do you want to take it or not? Do you want a chemical substance to decide what becomes of you? Can you accept something like that?
  When you are 14 or 15 years old, it is very difficult to accept that your parents decide what is good for you. And would you accept that a chemical substance decides what you will become later in life? Can you bow down to this drug? Can you accept, in the most fundamental sense, to cease being a human being?” That is what is at stake. That is the point where I would allow myself, even though I do not understand anything about it, to say to any doctor: “No, you do not decide here. Here, the free human being, the free responsible human being, decides.”
  This is not the person who is actually free, but the person who knows that he can become free and who does not have the right to renounce himself. I think that this feeling, this primal feeling, should be practised on a small scale, in kindergarten, in the children’s class: “You can decide. Do you want it to be this way or that way?” And gradually, the child will develop the ability to choose, to not accept anything else, that is, to be a democrat. To be a democrat, I believe, is nothing less than that.
  Anyone who fails to see – however difficult it may be – that it is your own responsibility to make yourself a free person has never educated anyone. Anyone who understands this also understands that this conviction is stronger than any knowledge, any authority, any sophistry. This is the only thing I wanted to say to you today.
  Before I came here, I read some explanations from doctors who think to give drugs to a patient in order to help, from people who naturally believe they are right.
  I found no trace of this understanding of human nature in them. It seems that in our society, people no longer think that the first priority is to save a human being. And that means saving a human being, not just any animal; it means not simply keeping them alive as if they were any other living creature. If we succeed in reviving this connection [between the human being and his capacity for rational, responsible decision-making, for making a free human being out of oneself] then no snake will be powerful anymore, and this will gradually disappear.
  In my opinion, an alarm bell is ringing. An alarm bell to remind us to stick to the essentials, to what makes us human. •

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2025/nr-26-9-dezember-2025/drogen-negieren-die-menschenrechte

============

Jeanne Hersch was born in Geneva on 13 July 1910, the daughter of Polish-Jewish immigrants. After graduating from high school, she began studying literature, which she completed with studies in philosophy under Paul Häberlin and Karl Jaspers. From 1933 to 1956, she taught French and Latin, and later philosophy, at the Ecole Internationale in Geneva. From 1956 to 1977, she was professor of systematic philosophy at the University of Geneva. From 1966 to 1968, she was Director of the Philosophy Department at UNESCO in Paris and from 1970 to 1976 a member of the Executive Board of UNESCO and the Swiss UNESCO Commission. When Jeanne Hersch took up her post at UNESCO, the 20th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was approaching. Her department was commissioned to compile a book on human rights to mark the occasion. Her appeal to 128 countries resulted in a huge number of documents dealing with the issue of human rights in very different ways. This gave rise to a comprehensive work entitled “Le droit d’être un homme”. “Every human being feels that there is something within them that deserves respect, that is valuable, that must not be destroyed. This feeling, this sense of dignity, is crucial to humanity, and we must try to understand its origin,” she wrote. It is therefore no coincidence that Jeanne Hersch engaged with Karl Jaspers in her works and focused primarily on the question of freedom and human rights. The insights she gained from this formed the basis of her stance on the issue of drugs and her decision to end her membership (1939–1992) with the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland when it advocated for the decriminalisation of drug use. She did not think much of philosophy in an ivory tower. Rather, her philosophical standpoint informed her position on contemporary issues, especially those concerning the existential freedom of the individual and the possibilities for living a dignified life. Jeanne Hersch received numerous awards for her valuable work and was honoured with honorary doctorates from the Faculty of Philosophy in Oldenburg (1993) and the Écoles polytechniques fédérales (EPF) in Lausanne (1998). She died on 5 June 2000 in Geneva after a long and committed life.

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2025/nr-26-9-dezember-2025/drogen-negieren-die-menschenrechte

===================

Caffeine's pervasiveness is a cause for concern among some scientists and public health advocates, but that hasn't dampened its popularity. Sales of Red Bull and copycat energy drinks with names like Red Devil, Roaring Lion, RockStar, SoBe Adrenaline Rush, Go Fast, and Whoop Ass are booming. Meanwhile new coffee shops are opening so fast all over the world that even the most dedicated devotee of the triple-shot, no-foam, double-caramel, skinny macchiato can't keep track. Every working day, Starbucks opens four new outlets somewhere on the planet and hires 200 new employees. There's a joke in many cities that Starbucks is going to open a new store in the parking lot of the local Starbucks, but this is not true. Yet.

It was less than 200 years ago that people first figured out that the buzz they got from coffee and tea was the same buzz, produced by the same chemical agent. An alkaloid that occurs naturally in the leaves, seeds, and fruit of tea, coffee, cacao, kola trees, and more than 60 other plants, this ancient wonder drug had been prescribed for human use as far back as the sixth century B.C., when the great spiritual leader Lao-tzu is said to have recommended tea as an elixir for disciples of his new religion, Taoism.

But it wasn't until 1820, after coffee shops had proliferated in western Europe, that a new breed of scientist began to wonder what it was that made this drink so popular. The German chemist Friedlieb Ferdinand Runge first isolated the drug in the coffee bean. The newly discovered substance was dubbed "caffeine," meaning something found in coffee. Then, in 1838 chemists discerned that the effective ingredient in tea was the same substance as Runge's caffeine. Before the end of the century the same drug would be found in kola nuts and cacao.

It's hardly a coincidence that coffee and tea caught on in Europe just as the first factories were ushering in the industrial revolution. The widespread use of caffeinated drinks—replacing the ubiquitous beer—facilitated the great transformation of human economic endeavor from the farm to the factory. Boiling water to make coffee or tea helped decrease the incidence of disease among workers in crowded cities. And the caffeine in their systems kept them from falling asleep over the machinery. In a sense, caffeine is the drug that made the modern world possible. And the more modern our world gets, the more we seem to need it. Without that useful jolt of coffee—or Diet Coke or Red Bull—to get us out of bed and back to work, the 24-hour society of the developed world couldn't exist.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/caffeine-buzz

ONE CAN SEE THAT THE PHYSICALITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS CAN BE ALTERED BY SUBSTANCES...

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Switzerland’s misguided approach to drugs

by Dr Eliane Perret, psychologist and special needs teacher

Are drugs, or more accurately narcotics, now part of our social fabric, part of being human? Are they an expression of individual freedom in shaping our lives? Drug use as a possible way of life? Are drugs financed and distributed by the authorities considered “healthy”? A glance at the newspapers over the last few weeks might suggest so. Leading the way are headlines about newly developed cannabis products that have been available for several years on the internet or in pharmacy-like outlets as medicinal and recreational products. These are advertising campaigns for various types of hashish, edibles1 and products made from different CBD flowers (hemp flowers that contain cannabidiol)2 – the aim is to rediscover hemp as an alternative medicine for all kinds of ailments and for relaxation. “Cannabis as medicine” is the headline of the magazine Natürlich, which praises cannabis as one of the oldest medicinal plants in the world, documented for medicinal use in China as early as 5000 BC, considered a sacred herb in India and part of the range of European pharmacies until the 20th century.3 This is also in line with the draft of a new cannabis law by the Social and Health Commission of the National Council, which the City Council of Lucerne has endorsed in its consultation process: “Lucerne City Council says yes to cannabis legalisation” headlines the “Luzerner Zeitung”.4 This (political) thrust is always accompanied by an all-out attack on prevention efforts that do not trivialise cannabis, but seek to inform and protect young people on a sound scientific basis.

CBD products as part of the legalisation campaign

Could it be, then, that the propaganda for CBD products is more about a creeping but deliberate trivialisation, serving as a door opener for the legalisation of cannabis with its intoxicating and by no means harmless THC? “Hemp – a medicinal plant between ritual and ecstasy?” writes Natürlich.5 Or is it rather a ploy by resourceful cannabis producers and marketers who “selflessly” argue that they want to dry up the black market? (Or would they rather cultivate this lucrative business area themselves?) This thesis is supported by a pilot project currently being launched in the canton of Graubünden “for the regulated distribution of cannabis by mail order”.6 It aims to tap into the customer segment that cannot stock up in hemp shops in larger towns. The canton of Graubünden, as the least densely populated canton, is particularly suitable for this, writes Zurich-based company Astrasana Research AG, which submitted the application. This is obviously about introducing a new sales model. With the support of the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), the business is to be given a “serious” image. The study is euphemistically called a “non-clinical observational study”. The university of applied sciences is to examine whether legal access via mail order in peripheral regions reduces the black market and the negative effects of consumption more effectively than pure sales outlets. “Negative effects of consumption”? So that’s it? They are apparently eliminated by mail order!

Contact points and drop-in centres – a “home” for addicts

All of this is part of the political approach to the drug issue that has prevailed in our country for years. It propagates the narrative that drugs (more correctly, narcotics) are harmless and a natural part of our society. The “success” of the so-called four-pillar model7 designed for this purpose is repeatedly emphasised. For example, in the headline of the “Limmattaler Zeitung”: “New drug consumption room off to a good start”. It is well received by the target group. This refers to the so-called drop-in centre for drug addicts, which opened in the city of Zurich at the beginning of October 2025 near the Sihlcity shopping centre, which is popular with children and young people (!)8. Crack, a cocaine product9 that is new on the market, is also to be combatted in this way. Various locations in Switzerland, including Lausanne, Brugg and Zurich, are confronted with the devastating effects of this highly addictive drug. The article “Crack has never been so cheap” describes the problems faced by tenants and businesses in Lausanne due to the “Platzspitz”-like conditions at the Place de Riponne in Lausanne. Cocaine and all other drugs have never been so cheap. What can be done? A new contact and drop-in centre right on the spot!10 In Geneva, on the other hand, the first pilot project involving cocaine is set to start next year. It will be given a scientific veneer by prescribing cocaine and having it administered by medical professionals. Work is currently underway in Geneva to develop a crack-like product that can be inhaled and is therefore slightly less harmful to the body. However, it remains completely unclear what the actual short- and long-term effects of cocaine administration on crack addicts will be …11

Organised crime as a future trading partner

Unfortunately, the supply of this and other narcotics is assured. “Submarine in the Atlantic with 1.7 tonnes of cocaine” was the headline in a regional newspaper in Aargau when the Portuguese police intercepted a type of submarine in the Atlantic with a cargo of more than 1.7 tonnes of cocaine. In March, seven tonnes of cocaine were seized off the Azores archipelago in cooperation with Spanish colleagues. Organised crime as a future trading partner for our authorities?12
  The examples show that Switzerland’s drug policy, which is wrongly praised as progressive, misses its target and promotes addiction. Yet this strategy is still being pursued today, as can be seen from the newspaper reports cited above! How many young people have lost their lives as a result? How many have given up their desire for a drug-free life because they no longer have access to adequate help – in Switzerland, abstinence-oriented therapies are hardly available anymore – and have “settled” into everyday life in and around contact and drop-in centres? However, solutions to the current catastrophe are always sought in the same way, which has long since been proven to be a failure. Is it so difficult to break through mental barriers because we are trapped in the feeling that we are more compassionate than others – or because we have become so emotionally cold and unscrupulous that the many ruined lives no longer keep us awake at night? ... That is precisely why it is important to listen to other voices and be willing to admit that we are at an impasse. Yes, there have been and still are such dissenting voices!

There were also more courageous people

Before the so-called four-pillar model became the dogma of Swiss drug policy, there were important dissenting voices that continued to call for an abstinence-oriented drug policy. Both prevention and therapy should continue to pursue the goal of protecting young people from slipping into addiction and keeping the path to an addiction-free life open for those already caught up in it. The police should receive full support in their efforts to combat drug trafficking and its consequences.
  However, proponents of a so-called liberal drug policy pursued their goal (in alliance with a large part of the media) by any means necessary. Other opinions were and continue to be vehemently excluded from public debate, their arguments defamed as inhumane, technically misguided and outdated, and their proponents often socially ostracised. Among these courageous dissenting voices was that of Jeanne Hersch (1910–2000), the incorruptible Swiss philosopher from Geneva.13 She recalled the anthropological foundations of humanity and offered her comprehensive view as a decision-making aid in the disoriented debate on drug policy – in the hope of shaking up those in positions of responsibility so that they would come to their senses and reassume their human responsibility. Like many others, she found it difficult to make her well-founded opinion heard by the general public. Today, 25 years after her death, the thoughts that Jeanne Hersch summarised in a lecture could once again lead us to reflect and pause for thought. •

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2025/nr-26-9-dezember-2025/der-schweizer-irrweg-in-der-drogenfrage

======================

WHY DO HUMANS SEEK TO ALTER CONSCIOUSNESS WITH DRUGS? OR RELIGION? OR ANYTHING THAT MAKES US FORGET OUR PAINS AND INEQUITIES OR OUR INABILITY TO DEAL WITH LIFE AS STRUCTURED BY OTHERS? WHAT DO WE SEARCH FOR? ADVENTURISM AGAINST BOREDOM? ADDICTION?

INCOMPLETENESS IS WHAT MAKES US HOMO SAPIENS.... I WOULD NOT HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY...

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

1 Edibles are edible products that contain cannabinoids, alkaloids and other substances. They are promoted as natural products that do not need to be inhaled.
2 Cannabidiol (CBD) is one of 113 identified cannabinoids in the cannabis plant, alongside tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
3 According to Swissmedic of 1 May 2025, the therapeutic potential of CBD or other cannabinoids has not yet been scientifically proven or is insufficiently proven for most of the numerous areas of application circulating on the internet.
4 Kobe, Robert. “Lucerne City Council says yes to cannabis legalisation.” In: Luzerner Zeitung of 5 November 2025
5 “Cannabis in medicine.” In: Natürlich of 7 November 2025; www.natuerlich-online.ch
6 Kellenberger, Markus. “Hemp – a medicinal plant between ritual and ecstasy”. In: Natürlich of 4 November 2025; www.natuerlich-online.ch
7 Hobi, Karin. “Cannabis delivery in Graubünden: pilot project awaiting green light from federal government.” In: Südostschweiz of 28 October 2025
8 sda. “New drug consumption room off to a good start.” In: Limmattaler Zeitung of 5 November 2025
9 Crack is a narcotic drug made from cocaine salt and baking soda. It is smoked in small pipes and takes effect extremely quickly (in about 8 to 10 seconds). Crack has a massive impact on brain chemistry and is therefore considered, alongside methamphetamine, heroin and fentanyl, for example, to be the drug with the highest potential for addiction.
10 Papaux, Sven. “Le crack n’a jamais été aussi bon marché” et Lausanne trinque. In: watson of 6 November 2025; www.watson.ch/fr
11 Lahrtz, Stephanie. “Crack epidemic: Geneva addiction researchers prepare Europe’s first cocaine distribution programme for addicts”. In: NZZ am Sonntag of 30 November 2025
12 “Submarine in the Atlantic with 1.7 tonnes of cocaine”. In: Die Botschaft, 5 November 2025
13 cf. Vögeli, Erika. “Jeanne Hersch: Being human in the here and now. On her 100th birthday”. In: Zeit-Fragen-Dokumentation of July 2010, p. 1