When did use of psychoactive substances become “wrong” in western culture?
I also see it associated with religion,but i can’t really find a reference for it.
In cultures that had use in religious ritual like some native americans and peyote,was casual use frowned on?
It comes and goes but has been around for a fair while, alcohol and tobacco have often been decried.
After major wars in recent times often caused a new round of it due to addicts as a result of treatment for pain, eg Civil War, WW1.
Check this out: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/histsum.htm
Otara
This is going to wind up on the great debates thread but I’ll give you some things to thing about.
Otaro, after the war between the states, or as we call it here in the south, ‘the war of northern aggression’ many soldiers did come home addicted to laudenum. But…this addiction was considered, (correctly) to be a medical problem and not a legal one. This addiction was know as the soldiers disease. Familys and communities were supportive in the main. The addicted simply continured to use laudenum and the lead useful and productive lives.
The demonization started during the Nixon administration. I won’t go into a long rant here but I will provide a few links that might help you see the shape of the thing.
I put this link in because oddly enough, this was completly unreported by the main stream press.
High times.
Look around, check the records of the Lancet(respected british medical journal). Check most any where outside the US gov. influenced sites to find out the truth about the war on drugs, which is actually nothing more or less than a war on the bill of rights.
Like I said, this will be in Great Debates soon. 
Wheel, the demonization started WAAY before “the Nixon Administration”. Think about it, “Reefer Madness” was filmed when, the 1930s? You’re thinking about the “War on Drugs” which is the organized officialization thereof.
DougC as it closer… not in specific source but in time. AND that ties in with the Temperance Movement that led to Prohibition! As western societies became more urban and industrial, having people spend their time stoned or drunk resulted in (a) lowered productivity at the factory/railyard, and increased danger where safety conditions were poor already and (b) higher likelihood of drunk/stoned people getting in each other’s faces and causing fights, domestic distrubances, broken families, etc. or at the very least being underfoot and visible to “respectable” citizens who’d rather not deal with it. Add to this a traditional moral censure of habitual or severe drunkenness which could easily be translated to being under the effects of other psychoactives, and you can see how a great moralistic movement would arise over the dangers of drugs and drink.
However, in the case of alcohol, there was a long and well-established custom of moderate consumption of wine, beer and liquors in western cultures – indeed often these were healthier for you than the water until the last century – among the majority of the population, added to how not all consumption of alcohol is for the sake of intoxication. This meant of course that society rebelled against the idea that having a beer was somehow an immoral, criminal act, and Prohibition failed. OTOH, cannabis, coke, opiates, etc. remained in the “morally objectionable” league as they were never more than a minority “vice”.
I believe both these terms are used primarily by southerners. We Americans 
call it the Civil War.
You mean “The war to allow us to keep oppressing and enslaving people on purely racist grounds.”
When the undeclared war on drugs began.
In other words, this was and is a racist and religious based policy.
What I want to know is this:
Why did it take an Ammendment to take away our right to drink alcohol, but Congress can take away our right to collect or grow plants and mushrooms?
So far as I know, there’s no such “right.” That’s why it didn’t “take” an amendment. The amendment was simply the path chosen. It could have been done by statute.
There was an explaination in another thread about why they used an amendment, I’m sure you could find it if you searched Prohibition. As far as I remember it had something to do with the autonomy of the individual states.
Welcome to the Women’s Christian Temperance Union
Notable members included the Axe-wielding Carry Nation.
ronbo:
Because an Amendment can be passed by states when Federal politicians do not wish to legislate such a thing. But when the Feds are happy to do it, there is no need for an Amendment.
Moral Outrage grew with the trend toward urbanization. Drugs became more and more accessable. And the denser the area the more it effected more people.
Around the turn of the century, women were able to increase their status by using PROHIBITION. It is not conincidental that women’s sufferage and prohibition walked hand and hand and prohibition died (somewhat)after women gained the right to vote.
Drugs like opium, heroin etc were not regulated. Thus heroin (marketed as a cure for opium addition among other things) was not tested thoroughly (if at all). It was used on the general public and when it didn’t work then came the outrage.
Might want to read that link I gave. The temperance movement is more the start of modern times but theres been various movements on drugs as a ‘moral’ issue for a very long time.
The Civil war bit surprises me iw as pretty sure it was considered to be aprt of the impetus for the mroal aspects. I’m not saying there shhould ahve bene a moal impetus jsut that I thought there was.
Im not supporting them in general in fact, just saying they’ve been around forever. The prohibtion stat was interesting to me too, but it also suggests it wasnt a long term effect - as it went underground, the benefits mostly were lost.
Otara