The breaking and dehumanization of human institutions and human lives, now triggered by crack cocaine, is nothing compared to what European passion for sugar did in the 17th — 18th centuries. Some may say that the initial stages of cocaine production is characterized by something like slave, bonded labor. The only difference is that this is not slavery, which is sanctioned by deceitful priests and is openly recognized as corrupt, although legitimate, governments. Another point should be noted: modern drug trafficking, no matter how disgusting it may be, has nothing to do with abduction of children, their export and the destruction of entire populations, as was done in order to increase sugar production.

True, the roots of slavery in Europe stretch far inland. In the Golden Age of Athens since the time of Pericles, as many as two thirds of the city’s permanent residents were slaves; in Italy since the time of Julius Caesar, probably half the population was slaves. Under the rule of the Roman Empire, slavery became increasingly unbearable:

slaves had no civil rights, and in court proceedings their testimony was taken into account only if it was obtained under torture. If the slave owner died suddenly or under suspicious circumstances, then all his slaves, both those guilty and those not guilty, were immediately put to death. It is fair to say that this pillar of the empire on the institution of slavery should temper our reverence for Ancient Rome, which we may have experienced. In truth, his greatness was the greatness of a pigsty, disguised as a military brothel.

Slavery died away with the collapse of the empire, when all social institutions dissolved in the chaos of the beginning of the dark ages. Feudalism replaced slavery with serfdom. Serfdom was, to some extent, better slavery: a serf could at least have his own home, start a family, farm and take part in the life of the community. And most importantly, perhaps, in the fact that the serf could not be removed from the ground. When they sold the land, the serfs almost always went with it.

In 1432, the Portuguese prince Henry the Navigator, who was more a manager and an entrepreneur than a researcher, founded the first commercial sugarcane plantation in Madeira. Sugar cane plantations were created in the other eastern Atlantic possessions of Portugal more than 60 years before communication with the New World was established. Over a thousand people, among them insolvent debtors, convicts, unconverted Jews, were brought from Europe to sugar works. Their position was semi-Arabic – akin to a contingent of “penalty box” and employees who settled in Australia and some of the mid-Atlantic American colonies.

In his book , The Seeds of Change, Henry Hobhauz writes about the beginning of the enslavement of Africa. In 1443, one of the captains of Prince Henry, who returned to their homeland, brought news of the seizure of a crew of black Arabs and Muslims to the sea.

These people, who were of mixed Arabian-Negro origin and professed Islam, said that they were of a proud race and were not suitable slaves. They argued that in the depths of Africa there are many healthy black, children of Ham, who become excellent slaves and whom they can turn into slavery in exchange for their freedom. Thus began the modern slave trade – not yet the transatlantic, but its prior trade between Africa and southern Europe.

Next, Hobhouse describes slavery related to sugar production in the New World.

“Sugar” slavery is of a completely different kind. This was the first since the days of the Roman latifundia large-scale use of slaves for growing crops for sale (not for food). And also for the first time in history, one single race was chosen for the role of slaves. Spain and Portugal themselves abandoned the enslavement of the population in the East Indies, from the fact that the Chinese slaves, the Japanese or the Europeans worked in both Americas.

The slave trade itself was a kind of pernicious addiction. The initial importation of African slaves for servitude to labor in the New World was pursued only by one goal — the maintenance of an agricultural economy based on sugar. Sugar fashion was so tenacious that the millennial treatment of people with Christian ethics did not lead to anything. It was an explosion of human cruelty and atrocities of unbelievable proportions, which were encouraged by sophisticated society.

Let it be perfectly clear to us that sugar is absolutely not needed for human nutrition; before the advent of industrial cane and beet sugar, humanity completely did without refined sugar, which is almost pure sucrose. Sugar does not give anything that could not be obtained from some other, easily accessible source. This is just a light stimulant, and nothing more. And for his sake, the European culture of dominion was ready to change the ideals of the Enlightenment by its collusion with slave traders. In 1800, virtually every ton of sugar imported into England was produced by slave labor. The ability of an ego-dominated culture to silence such a truth is simply amazing.

If it seems to someone that too much anger is poured on sugar addiction, it is only from the fact that addiction to it in many respects seems to be a kind of mixture of all the erroneous positions that are inherent in our opinion regarding narcotic drugs.


In the opening lines of his magnificent poem “Sunday Morning,” Wallace Stevens conveys the image of radiant transcendence, as well as the familiar and usual dignity of Cezanne.

The satisfaction of the peignoir, and the late Coffee and oranges in the golden chair from the sun, And the green privilege of the cockatoo Mingle on the rug to dispel the Holy Quiet of the old victim.

Stevens strings evoke the atmosphere of secular satiety surrounding a caffeine drink. “Sunny Morning” reminds us that our stereotypical notion of what drugs are is changing when we are asked to consider such refined accessories of bourgeois taste as tea, coffee and cocoa, as belonging to the same category as heroin and cocaine. Nevertheless, all this is drugs; our unconscious desire to once again find the path to the sensory characteristics of prehistory led us to create innumerable options to pay tribute to the psychoactivity relying on a vegetable base. Light stimulants with harmless and controlled action were included in the food of primates long before the occurrence of hominids. Caffeine is an alkaloid that underlies many of the things that are associated with plant stimulants in humans.Caffeine is a powerful stimulant in a dose much lower than a toxic one. It is found in tea and coffee and in many other plants, such as Ilex paraguayensis – the source of the Paraguayan tea mate or Paullinia yoco – the appetite suppressing Amazonian vine, which has its own local, but ancient and high-standard style of consumption.

Caffeine is bitter in itself, and the discovery to make it more palatable by adding honey or sugar has created the basis for a widespread and little-noted synergistic effect that exists between sugar and various caffeine drinks. The tendency of sugar to cause addiction increases if it is used to improve the taste of a stimulating alkaloid, such as caffeine.

Sugar we attributed to the number of foods. This implies that he cannot act as a drug of great addiction, and yet there is evidence around us. Many sugar-abusing people are in a sugar-conditioned atmosphere, characterized primarily by mood swings.


For purely practical purposes, we can say that tea, coffee and cocoa were brought to England at the same time in 1650. For the first time in its history, Christian Europe has found an alternative to alcohol. All three imported products are stimulants, all are brewed with hot boiled water, which freed the then serious problems of water-borne diseases; and all three require copious amounts of sugar. Sugar fad contributed to the consumption of coffee, tea and chocolate, which in turn contributed to the consumption of sugar. And the popularity of new stimulants increased in the same colonies, which proved to be very profitable due to the production of sugar in them. Tea, coffee and cocoa offered the possibility of changing crops cultivated in the colonies, and consequently, greater economic stability for both the colonies and the metropolis.

By 1820, thousands of tons of tea were imported to Europe annually (plus about another 30 million pounds consumed by the United Kingdom alone). Tea for the European market from the middle of the 18th to the beginning of the 19th century was supplied from the Chinese seaside city of Canton. Tea purchasers were not allowed to penetrate inland, they were not devoted to any details of the cultivation and cultivation of this plant. According to Hobhouse, “all the historical humor about Europe is that for almost two centuries the goods were imported from a distance of half the world and that a huge industry has grown that includes 5% of all large-scale domestic production, but none the less knew anything about how to grow, make or mix tea. ”

Ignorance was not a barrier to the commercial exploitation of tea; but the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 was such a barrier. When the trade routes through the Eastern Mediterranean were in the hands of the Turks, the art of navigation and shipbuilding began to be subjected to considerable pressure in order to ease the way through the ocean to the East through the Cape of Good Hope. This path was opened in 1498 by Vasco da Gama.

When the Danish and Portuguese navigators finally reached the Molukki in Eastern Indonesia, then called the Spice Islands, spices became much cheaper in Europe, and the struggle for the creation of monopolies ensued among all parties. The type of organization most suitable for preserving the monopoly was a trading company – a group of traders who rallied to reduce the risk of investment and competition. Large, well-armed ships of various East India companies put an end to the era of captain merchants serving their own enterprise. The British East India Company, which was destined to become the most significant of the trading companies, was founded in 1600.

From that moment until 1834, when free trade liberals opened the tea trade to all interested parties, the company controlled the tea trade with tremendous benefits for it.

The British East Indies Company is believed to have charged at least a third of the price of tea, thus obtaining £ 100 per tonne of the 375,000 tons it imported during the eighteenth century. Behind this impressive figure is the increase in income of the East India Company from $ 17 million at the beginning of the century to an annual equivalent of $ 800 million in 1800. The East India Company was a powerful corporation, hated by both smugglers and consumers alike, a symbol of a selling and self-satisfied monopoly.


At the end of the 18th century, the tea trade experienced a crisis, and the government of Lord North made a series of ill-considered decisions that led not only to the collapse of the tea trade, but also to the loss by England of its colonies in North America. North’s strategy was to sell tea at reduced prices in the colonies, thus reducing surpluses and squeezing out the smuggling competitors from the business. He also tried to impose a small and, as he thought, insignificant tax on tea going to the colonies, just to make the recalcitrant colonists submit to the power of the empire. It is well known that this tax was the last one that broke the cup of patience with a drop in the political incitement of the American colonies. On December 16, 1773, the enraged colonial radicals in Boston turned His Majesty’s tea ships back, destroying their cargo. That night was, so to speak,brewed tea revolution. And there were other “tea” – in New York, Charleston, Savannah and Philadelphia. The case could have subsided in a few weeks, if the British closing the Boston port in response did not inevitably make the Declaration of Independence.

By the beginning of the XIX century, the tea trade showed clear signs of instability. On the European continent, the Napoleonic wars devastated the treasury. The answer was printing paper money that was not backed by gold, and this practice eventually led to serious inflation: retail prices rose, the cost of products grew much slower, which led to a decline in the economy. The panacea for this economic deadlock was opium.


The trade in opium was nothing more than British terrorism directed against the population of China, until the restrictions imposed by the Chinese government on the import of opium did not put an end to this. In these events, as if laid the scheme, repeated in our century. As tea distributors turned to opium when their tea market was depressed, Western intelligence agencies, such as the CIA and the French secret service, turned their attention to cocaine imports in the eighties after losing an almost complete monopoly on heroin selling this drug to mullahs Iranian revolution. The history of this kind of commercial synergy of drugs, when one drug is cynically promoted and used to support the introduction of others over the past 500 years, is not very pleasant to consider. May be,that is why such an activity is taken quite rarely.

These cycles began with sugar. As already mentioned, sugar, the production of which directly depended on the slave trade, was even more firmly established in the 16th century. The beginning of the use of tea, coffee and chocolate in the 18th century only raised the fashion for sugar even more. Due to the consumption of sugar in caffeine drinks and with purified alcohol, this product began to play an important indirect role, contributing to the suppression of the lower classes and women of all classes with a culture of dominion. Drug slavery is a rather forgotten metaphor, but in the case of sugar, it became terribly real.

When the tea market collapsed, the distribution system established and used by the British East India Company turned to the production and sale of opium and the exploitation of the Chinese population, which, in fact, was not related to this colonial system. The invention of morphine (1803), and then heroin brings us to the beginning of the 20th century. Alarmed social reformers who tried to legalize drug use succeeded only in driving them underground. There it remains today, but today it is not controlled by robbery master corporations operating with the silent consent of the public, but by international criminal organizations, often looking like intelligence services. This, as William Burroughs noted, is “a very unattractive picture.” Since the beginning of the era of the study of psychoactive substances,potions and herbal products were becoming increasingly important factors in the equations of international diplomacy. The distant tropics and their indigenous people in this world no longer had to languish from boredom, remaining inaccessible to the predatory eye of the white man: they became a production area with recruited labor — where they expect raw materials from — and a potential market for finished products. Like the Menadas, distraught in a whirlwind of Dionysian fury, the sugar-poisoned economy of Europe, the economy of the dominion style, longed to devour their own children.they have become a sphere of production with recruited labor – from where they are waiting for the supply of raw materials – and a potential market for finished products. Like the Menadas, distraught in a whirlwind of Dionysian fury, the sugar-poisoned economy of Europe, the economy of the dominion style, longed to devour their own children.they have become a sphere of production with recruited labor – from where they are waiting for the supply of raw materials – and a potential market for finished products. Like the Menadas, distraught in a whirlwind of Dionysian fury, the sugar-poisoned economy of Europe, the economy of the dominion style, longed to devour their own children.


The 11th-century Persian scientist Avicenna, who died from an overdose of opium in 1037 (this was the first death case noted in history), was one of the first to write about coffee, although coffee was used before in Ethiopia and Arabia — countries where coffee is found in wild form. On the Arabian Peninsula, it has long been known that coffee is a plant with remarkable properties. There is even an apocryphal story about how the Prophet visited the Archangel Gabriel (Gabriel) and offered him coffee as a healing tool. The great Danish naturalist Linnaeus, who started a modern scientific taxonomy, due to the association of coffee with the Arabs, called this plant Coffea arabica.

When coffee was first brought to Europe, it was used both as a food product and as a therapeutic agent; grains rich in butter were ground to powder and mixed with fat. Later, ground coffee was mixed into the wine and brewed to get what was supposed to be a stimulating and strong refreshing drink. Pure coffee as a drink was not brewed in Europe until about 1100, and it was only in the 13th century that the modern practice of roasting beans began in Syria.

Although coffee is a plant of the Old World – and was consumed in some circles long before tea, nevertheless, it was tea that prepared the way for the popularity of coffee. The stimulating property made caffeine and theobromine – a close relative of caffeine in tea – ideal drugs for the industrial revolution: they provided a boost of energy, allowing people to continue the tedious monotonous work that requires concentration. The tea and coffee break is the only narcotic ritual that has never been prosecuted by those who profit from the state of the modern industry. Nevertheless, it is firmly established that coffee causes addiction, gastric ulcer, can worsen heart condition, cause irritability and insomnia, and in excessive doses even tremor and convulsions.


There were also detractors of coffee, but they always remained in the minority. Many blamed him for the death of French Minister Colbert, who died of stomach cancer. Goethe sinned at his usual coffee with milk as the cause of his chronic melancholy and anxiety attacks. Coffee was also blamed for the fact that, according to Levin, it caused “a state of extreme cerebral agitation, which begins to manifest itself in noticeable talkativeness, sometimes accompanied by an accelerated association of ideas. In a cafe, you can sometimes see politicians pouring a cup of black coffee and a cup of inspiration from this abuse of “deep wisdom” about all the events on earth. ”

In the propensity to extreme riot after drinking coffee clearly lies the reason for some decrees against this product, issued in Europe in 1511. Prince Waldeck was the initiator of the first version of the drug-informing program, when he offered a reward of 10 thalers to anyone who would report to the authorities about coffee drinkers. Even the servants were rewarded if they reported about their masters praising their coffee. However, in 1777, the authorities of continental Europe recognized the suitability of coffee for use by the “pillars of the society of dominion” – by the clergy and the aristocracy. The punishment for drinking coffee by members of less privileged classes was, as a rule, public beating with a cane followed by a fine.

And of course, many people once suspected coffee that it causes impotence.

It has often been argued that drinking coffee reduces sexual excitability and causes infertility. Although it is just fables, in former times they believed in it. Olearius states in the story of his travels that the Persians drink the “hot, black water of Chawae”, the property of which is “to sterilize men and destroy the desires of the flesh”. One sultan so carried away coffee that he began to get tired of his wife. The latter once saw how the stallion was castrated and stated that it would be better to give this animal coffee, then it would be in the same condition as her husband. The princess Elizabeth of Charlotte Orleans, the mother of the dissolute regent Philip II, wrote to her sister: “Protestant priests do not need coffee as much as clergymen are not allowed to marry, and they have to remain chaste … I am surprised that so many people like coffee, although he is bitter and he has a bad taste. In my opinion, its taste is exactly like unclean breath. ”

Research doctor Rauwolf from Augsburg, who later discovered the first tranquilizer, the plant extract “rauwolfia,” found that coffee was long established and widely sold in Asia Minor and Persia when he visited this area in the mid-1570s. Messages similar to those of Rauwolf soon made coffee a kind of “fad”. Coffee was brought to Paris in 1643, and after 30 years in the city there were already over 250 coffee shops. In the years immediately preceding the French Revolution, there were already almost 2,000 coffee houses. If indefatigable chatter is the mother of revolution, then coffee and coffee houses are her midwife.


The importation of chocolate into Europe is almost the very tail of the fashion for caffeine stimulation that began during the industrial revolution. Chocolate made from ground beans of the Theobroma cacao tree growing on the Amazon contains / only small amounts of caffeine, but is rich in caffeine-related theobromine. Substances related to both are endogenously found in normal human metabolism. Like caffeine, theobromine is a stimulant, and the potential for addiction in chocolate is very significant.

Cocoa trees were brought to central Mexico from the tropics of South America many centuries before the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors. There they played an important sacramental role as a sacrament in the Mayan and Aztec religion. Maya also used cocoa beans as money equivalent. They say that the Aztec leader Montezuma was seriously committed to ground cocoa: he drank his chocolate unsweetened in an infusion of cold water. A mixture of ground chocolate and mushrooms containing psilocybin served the guests at the coronation celebrations of Montezuma II in 1502.

Cortés was informed about the existence of cocoa by his beloved, nee American dona Marina, who was referred to him as one of the nineteen young women proposed by Montezuma as a tribute. Convinced by dona Marina, that cocoa is a strong aphrodisiac, Cortes was eager to start cultivating this plant. He wrote to Emperor Charles V: “On the lands of one enterprise, 2,000 trees were traveled; their fruits are almond-like and are sold ground into powder. ”

Shortly thereafter, chocolate was introduced to Spain, where it soon became extremely popular. Nevertheless, the spread of chocolate was slow, perhaps because several stimulants competed at once in capturing the attention of European countries. In Italy and the Benelux countries, chocolate did not appear until 1606, in France and England it appeared only at the beginning of the second half of the seventeenth century. Excluding the brief period of the reign of Frederick II, when chocolate drink became a favorite tool for professional poisoners who added poison to chocolate, its popularity steadily increased along with an increase in production.

Incredibly, but for a relatively short period (two centuries) four stimulator? – sugar, tea, coffee and chocolate – were able to turn from local goods into the subject of trade of the largest trading empires protected by military forces, the most significant ever known until that time and supported by the newly introduced practice of slave bonded labor. Such is the action of “a cup that invigorates, but does not intoxicate.”


Not many plants can claim such complex and closely intertwined relationships with people, such as opium poppy and tobacco. Both plants play a major role in behavior associated with an extremely high level of addiction, which shortens life and burdens society with medical and financial concerns. Nevertheless, the general position regarding these plants can hardly be different. Opium is illegal in most of our world. Poppy pockets, a source of raw opium, are strictly controlled by photo satellite satellites, and each year the plans for opium production in the world are carefully studied by governments to calculate what share of the budget is allocated for treatment of addiction, external efforts to eradicate and internal banning products of refined opium, such as morphine and heroin.

Tobacco, on the other hand, is probably the most widely used plant drug on the globe. No people recognized tobacco smoking as illegal, and indeed, any country that tried to do this would be in conflict with one of the most powerful international drug concern that ever existed. However, the indisputable fact that tobacco smoking is the cause of the premature death of millions of people: lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease are closely linked to smoking. Tobacco also causes addiction no less than heroin, revered by the most powerful drug. When this fact was declared by the leading US surgeon Everett Coop, a whole storm of ridicule and humiliation struck him, raised by leading American tobacco companies and countless number of their consumer adherents.


What do we learn from comparing these two plants? Both have a long history of consumption, both contribute to addiction and are extremely destructive, and nevertheless, one is closely interwoven with our life style and given to us as very courageous, refined, pleasant, while the other is outlawed, severely persecuted, considered suicidal and perceived with the thoughtless horror with which the previous generations looked at the Bolsheviks, suffragist women and oral sex.

This situation is another example of the hypocrisy of the culture of dominion, how it selects and advances those truths and realities that it finds convenient. But the fact is that although heroin greatly contributes to addiction, and one of the preferred routes of administration is intravenous injection – it carries with it the possibility of spreading serious diseases, nevertheless it is no more dangerous than its legal and heavily proposed competitor tobacco. “Entire volumes of research … lead to the conclusion that the consumption of heroin does not cause any organic diseases. It is a physically harmless, albeit strongly addictive substance. ”

The difference in the public perception of these two plant-based drugs, which now cover the entire planet with a pandemic, cannot in any way contribute to a reasonable social assessment of their harmfulness. With the right approach, the attitude towards these two plants would be similar. However, we are forced to point out some points that are not related to the common property of tobacco and heroin to cause addiction, in order to understand why the society of dominion chose to “crush” one and elevate the other.