Medical Science, the State, and the Construction of the Juvenile Drug Addict in Early Soviet Russia

Juvenile Drug Addict in Early Soviet Russia 31

Social Justice Vol. 38, No. 4 31

Medical Science, the State, and the Construction of the Juvenile Drug Addict in Early Soviet Russia

Pavel Vasilyev*

Although juvenile drug Addiction is generAlly recognized As A globAl contemporary problem, it is often presented in largely simplified form. Insufficient attention has been paid to the historical roots of drug addiction

and its various cultural forms (Lebina 1999). This is surprising, since interdisciplin-ary research on the history of drug addiction allows us to explore the intersection of medical theory, practical policy, social context, and cultural values. However, even historians who have looked at the social developments and legal changes related to the topic have retained an essentialist understanding of drug addiction (as an unequivocal social problem to be “solved” through government intervention) and have failed to see existing links between changes in medical and legal research and the evolution of narcotics policy. A tendency to overestimate the state’s role in managing the problem is quite common and has additional relevance for the study of juvenile groups, who traditionally are viewed as requiring paternalist care and protection. Yet some scholars of contemporary drug addiction have questioned existing regimes of prohibition and the involvement of medical professionals in their elaboration, implementation, and preservation (Lynch 2001; Nadelmann 1989; Szasz 1992). Over the last 50 years, numerous studies of specific features of juvenile deviant subcultures have also appeared (starting with Cohen 1956).

In the Russian context, the emergence of juvenile drug addiction as a social problem can be traced back to the years between the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the end of the 1920s. This relatively short period witnessed a radical change in medical and legal attitudes toward drugs and addiction. Before World War I, one could easily buy cocaine or heroin at pharmacies, and there was practically no government regulation or legislation concerning recreational drugs. Even when certain psychoactive substances were indeed regulated, the rationale had to do with limiting access to poisons (Lincoln 1983, 351; Lebina 1999, 28).

* Pavel vasilyev is a PhD student at the St. Petersburg Institute of History, Russian Academy of Sciences (email: [email protected]). His main areas of interest are the history of drug addiction, the history of medicine and public health, the social and cultural history of late Imperial and early Soviet Russia, Jewish history, gender history, comparative history, and the history of St. Petersburg. He is the author of Poisons of Civilization, Remnants of Capitalism, or Jewish Disease? Drug Addiction in Russian and German Medical Texts from the 1870s to the 1930s (Munich: GRIN, 2010).

32 PAvel vAsilyev

The basic terms used to describe drug addiction were themselves being negotiated in this period, and for many practitioners the problem of hashish or opium abuse was essentially the same as the excessive consumption of tea or coffee. Moreover, physicians formulated theories by observing their own feelings and behavior after taking drugs (Danillo 1894, 18–21; Lange 2009, 487–88, 494, 506, 511).1 A concern about drugs—understood as “poisons of civilization” associated with decadence and degeneration—emerged; but drug addiction (especially juvenile drug addiction) was not perceived as a major social problem in prewar Russia. By the early 1930s, however, the market for recreational drugs was heavily regulated, the sale of drugs was criminalized, and drug addicts themselves were sometimes labeled sotsanomaliki (socially anomalous people) and forcibly sent to special camps (Lebina 1999, 32–33).

Accompanying this development, proponents of prohibition such as physicians and criminologists frequently invoked the image of the juvenile drug addict and its associated dangers. The reason this image occupied such a prominent place is that according to some statistics, drug addiction in early Soviet Russia was primarily a youth problem, with 60 percent of drug users below the age of 25 (ibid., 30). An analysis of the construction of the juvenile drug addict in early Soviet medical texts also reveals a great deal about the influence that physicians exercised over practical narcotics policy, their collaboration with the state, and the reasons behind the eventual criminalization of the drug trade.

Accordingly, this article focuses on medical (and, to a lesser degree, medical-legal) texts2 from the period to establish how drug use by adolescents was constructed as a form of delinquency and a specific social problem requiring immediate intervention. I examine legal documents and other primary sources that reflect changes in practical narcotics policy and increasing government regulation. Then I highlight the importance of transnational perspectives and establish grounds for comparison with Western European contexts (mostly through the works of German addiction researchers Ernst Joël and Fritz Fränkel), focusing on features that are specific to early Soviet medical constructions of the juvenile drug addict.

Historiography: Achievements and Lacunae

The history of drug addiction in early Soviet Russia remains a largely unexplored topic, even though several authors have briefly discussed developments that occurred throughout the period. Soviet historiography largely ignored the subject of drug addiction in twentieth-century Russia, with history after October 1917 taking simplified form and presented as a “successfully developing progressive process” that was accompanied by rapid extermination of “remnants of the past” (ibid., 19).3 As such, Soviet historical and sociological scholarship largely refused to study and conceptualize manifestations of deviant behavior.

Since the late 1980s, new authors interested in drug addiction have emerged, but their historical reconstructions remain fragmentary. Many scholars have published


articles and book chapters that at least touch upon the social history of drug addiction in Russia (Conroy 1990, 1994; Shkarovskii 1993, 1997; Lebina 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1999, 2006; Lebina and Shkarovskii 1994; Musaev 2001; Lebina and Chistikov 2003; Izmozik and Lebina 2010). Given the pioneering character of these works, their authors were largely preoccupied with introducing new primary sources and defending the validity of this new topic and the chosen methodology. Yet some important conclusions were drawn about the “democratization” of drug addiction during World War I (Lebina 1999, 29), including the connections between drug addiction and other “negative deviations” such as alcoholism or prostitution (ibid., 28), the social structure of the addict subculture in the 1920s (Lebina and Shkarovskii 1994, 89–90; Shkarovskii 1997, 467, 468, 470; Lebina 1999, 29–32; Musaev 2001, 180), and the virtual elimination of the problem by the early 1930s (Shkarovskii 1997, 472, 474, 476; Lebina 1999, 32–33; Lebina and Chistikov 2003, 117).

There is no major contribution from the perspective of intellectual history or the history of science, and the only work that specifically considers drug use by children and teenagers is a short article published more than 20 years ago (Popov 1989). Yet perhaps the most problematic lacuna in the existing scholarship is the lack of an in-depth analysis of, and a critical approach toward, such key primary sources as medical texts. This is even more surprising if we consider that medical texts serve as the major primary source for all historians of drug addiction.

Many modern historians continue to perceive these medical texts as fundamentally objective and “scientific,” forgetting that they were also written by particular individuals with their own specific research agendas. In addition, the dominant paternalist approach toward governmental narcotics policy, mentioned earlier, is problematic in this respect since it assumes that there are certain objective criteria that determine whether a certain substance should be prohibited or not. In fact, decisions to prohibit or legalize one psychoactive substance or another (be it alcohol, marijuana, or tobacco) are always arbitrary, historically conditioned, and often unrelated to the actual degree of psycho-physical harm and addictiveness.

Medical Texts and Their Authors: A Description and Critique of Primary Sources

This article makes extensive use of various medical texts related to drug addiction since such texts serve as the most important type of primary source when researching this topic. Thus, to a certain degree it follows an already established trend, since many scholars recognize the importance of sources of medical origin for historians of drug addiction and actively cite monographs and articles that were written by physicians of the early twentieth century.4 Because of the seemingly scientific nature of these texts, later historians probably perceived them as objective sources from which they could simply take figures and statements without much consideration. In contrast, this article seeks to develop a more critical approach toward these texts. Since its subject is not so much drug addiction per se, but rather addiction research

34 PAvel vAsilyev

and the construction of drug addiction as a social problem, various medical texts occupy an even more central place as the object of this study. Moreover, the political and social agendas of many addiction researchers had a significant impact on the medical texts they produced.

In the Russian context, the first major medical works dealing with drug addiction appeared in the 1890s. Although many of these built upon existing translations of Western European authors (Erlenmeier and Sol’e 1899; Rishe 1900), others also provided fresh perspectives through careful clinical observations (Danillo 1894; Reimer 1899). In the first 15 years of the twentieth century, the publication of addiction research in Russia slowed down, but important works appeared with the start of World War I and especially in the early years of the Soviet Republic (Kutanin 1916a, 1916b; Aronovich 1920). Apart from academic edited collections, there were popular pamphlets such as Sholomovich’s (1926b). Toward the end of the 1920s, more and more Soviet physicians tried to describe the causes of drug addiction on the macro scale and draw more general conclusions (Golant 1929). Contemporaries noticed “the evolution from careful clinical analysis of particular cases to the studies that try to embrace the social side as well ... and partially operate with statistical method” (Rapoport 1926). Moreover, a substantial number of articles focused specifically on juvenile drug addiction (Futer 1925; Gernet 1926; Ziman 1926; Dubrovich 1928; Zabugin 1928). In the early 1930s, however, addiction research was gradually becoming a less fashionable topic, and the few works of this period are mostly preoccupied with local or bibliographical questions (Grebliovskii 1934; Bakhtiiarov 1936).

This picture presents similarities and differences when compared with developments in other European countries. In the German context, comprehensive works dealing with drug addiction were published as early as the 1870s, in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War (Gossmann 1879). However, the most important publications did not appear until the 1920s, when addiction research carried out by doctors such as Fritz Fränkel and Ernst Joël was closely linked to the socialist welfare reforms and comprehensive programs of public health and disease prevention taking place in the Weimar Republic (Joël and Fränkel 1924, 1925, 1926; Joël 1928). Overall, German authors seem to have been less interested in the specific features of juvenile drug addiction than those writing in Russia.5 Interestingly, in the German context many of the later works of the early 1930s explicitly made the connection between Jews and drug addiction, exaggerating the proportion of Jews among addicts and drug dealers (Becker 1930, 1932; Fränkel and Benjamin 1932).

An important dimension of medical texts that historians and other scholars often neglect is their authors. Scholars of the social history of drug addiction in Russia often cite from certain Drs. Sholomovich or Golant, but the reader never learns any details about their personal lives or professional careers other than that they were “famous physicians” (Panin 2003, 131). However, knowledge of the contexts in


which these authors were writing, as well as the agendas being pursued behind the seemingly impersonal narrative of pharmacological characteristics, statistics, and medical histories, is vital for accurately understanding the significance of such texts.6 As the author has shown elsewhere (Vasilyev 2011), most Russian (and German) addiction researchers were very likely to go beyond their narrow professional boundaries, engaged in social and communal work, and had left-leaning, if not directly socialist or communist, views.

The nature of the relationship between Russian medical writers in the 1920s and the Soviet state is rather ambiguous. Naturally, in a state-dominated economy, physicians were by and large employed by government-run agencies such as hospitals, research institutes, and universities. However, some of them also set up private practices when they were allowed to do so during the period of the New Economic Policy in the 1920s. Perhaps more important, they had a substantial degree of freedom in their research and, as this article shows, eventually exercised a significant influence on state narcotics policy. Therefore, we should refrain from seeing early Soviet physicians as simply speaking on behalf of the state or under coercion. It is much more appropriate to perceive them as at least semi-independent actors with diverse personal beliefs and professional ideas, different life trajectories, and various degrees of involvement in late imperial medical science and administration. All were struggling to promote their respective research and policy agendas.7

Constructing the Social Problem: Juvenile Drug Addiction in Early Soviet Medical Texts

Between 1914 and 1922 Russia experienced radical changes—including but not limited to World War I, the fall of the empire, revolutions, and the civil war. This period was also characterized by audacious socialist experiments and radical utopian projects, as well as increasing government regulation.8 Drug addiction generally emerged as a specific social problem precisely in the 1910s (World War I is widely perceived to be an important catalyst for drug addiction worldwide) (Lisovskii and Kolesnikova 2001, 24). Historians note a trend toward the “democratization” of drug addiction, with the “contamination” of previously “clean” social groups such as workers (Shkarovskii 1997, 467; Lebina 1999, 29). Perhaps more important, after World War I Russian society was confronted with a dramatic increase in the number of drug addicts—especially juvenile drug addicts.

Early Soviet physicians were part of this society and possessed relevant scientific knowledge about addiction. Unsurprisingly, they emerged as the claims-makers who departed from their professional medical understanding to construct drug addiction as a social problem9 and created moral panics through alarming public statements.10 An example is the resolution of the First Scientific Conference on Drug Addiction held in Moscow in December 1923, which stated that cocaine abuse was spreading over Soviet Russia like an epidemic (Shkarovskii 1997, 474). Medicalization of drug addiction (presenting it as a social problem with medical

36 PAvel vAsilyev

origins, i.e., one that can only be solved by medical professionals) has distinct advantages for physicians. It gives them symbolic domination and the opportunity to receive government funds for their projects.

Medical theory itself, however, was not free from internal contradictions. The radical societal changes that the physicians had long advocated for did occur in Russia. However, the abolition of capitalism in Soviet Russia did not lead to the elimination of drug addiction. On the contrary, there were, numerically speaking, many more drug addicts in the early 1920s, and drugs became more popular among the lower social strata (Lebina and Shkarovskii 1994, 89–90; Shkarovskii 1997, 467, 468, 470; Lebina 1999, 29–32; Musaev 2001, 180). Part of the attempt to solve this contradiction was the trend toward an increasing differentiation between “drugs” proper and alcohol, tobacco, and other “minor” poisons. Another relevant strategy was the search for pathological etiological elements (whose origins were in the old regime) that persisted in the new society and hindered the elimination of drug addiction. Although the second strategy offered an ideologically accurate vision of the imperial regime as a source of “social problems,” it had to specifically address and deal with the prevalence among early Soviet drug addicts of young people who were seemingly undamaged by exposure to a capitalist system.

Origins of the Problem

The perceived causes of juvenile drug addiction are especially relevant for medical discourses, as the etiology of disease often provides physicians with important information for developing solutions and treatments. Accordingly, the way in which medical texts described the origins of juvenile drug addiction greatly influenced thinking about drug addicts and practical narcotics policy within the medical community, as well as beyond (as physicians tried to achieve symbolic domination). In particular, Soviet physicians highlighted three large groups of potential causes: sociopolitical (such as war or revolution), economic (for example, capitalism or foreign trade), and personal/psychological (which might include various macro- and micro-scale causes, ranging from “moral loneliness” to the search for romance and the use of drugs za kompaniiu—“for the sake of companionship”).

World War I is often recognized as the major factor in the spread of drug addiction (especially morphine addiction) in Russia—as in Germany and elsewhere. This explanation was found in the works of early Soviet physicians, who, to some extent, were repeating the argument made earlier about the increase in the number of drug addicts after the Civil War in the United States or after the Franco-Prussian War in Germany (Gossmann 1879; Bliumenau 1925, 8; Golant 1929, 17; Bakhtiiarov 1936, 199). Yet new elements appeared in the Soviet texts, since the war was not characterized as “great” or “patriotic,” but rather as “imperialist.” As was often the case in early Soviet Russia, the imperialism of the old regime, not war per se, was held responsible for making so many young men and women fall victim to morphine addiction after serious injuries or shell shock. This explanation was


particularly useful since it provided a nice and politically correct framework within which to explain the great number of “declassed traumatics from various classes of society”11 (that is, including workers and peasants) among morphine addicts (Golant 1929, 25). Combined with the widespread belief in the damaging and long-lasting effects of traumatic wartime experiences, this also helped to account for the high number of morphine addicts still present on the streets of Soviet cities even in the late 1920s.

The war also brought in its wake many socioeconomic problems, such as hunger, poverty, and captivity. When writing a medical history of her young patient, a certain S.D., Raisa Golant (1929, 23) specifically mentioned that it was after a lengthy stay in Austrian captivity that he understood that “without drugs life ... makes no sense.” The link between the war and morphine addiction, however, remained problematic as long as it lacked the intermediary, who supplied the innocent shell-shocked soldier with a deadly drug. Paradoxically, those guilty of performing this service were found in the medical community that constructed the paradigm of drug addiction. Early Soviet physicians were quick to label their prerevolutionary colleagues as bourgeois and irresponsible, as the latter allegedly too often prescribed morphine for minor pains or shell-shock conditions (Golant 1929, 24).12

In the Russian context, World War I was hardly the most significant disruption of the late 1910s. According to Golant (1929, 17), the revolutions of 1917 and the prolonged civil war brought additional “physical sufferings and moral anxiety that were accompanied by social perturbations almost everywhere in the world.” Fears produced by changes of regime, continuous social and political crisis, the instability and weakness of central power, and the presence of a “legal vacuum”13 were too profoundly expressed to be overlooked by physicians searching for the causes of drug addiction—in the Soviet Union and abroad (Bliumenau 1925, 47–48; Futer 1925, 59; Rapoport 1926, 46; Zabugin 1928, 59; Joël 1928, 26–27; Bakhtiiarov 1936, 199). For early Soviet physicians, the crucial task (and probably the main challenge) was to present these “social perturbations” (especially the October Revolution that was perceived as a starting point for the whole new order of the 1920s) as a positive factor. The solution found partially consisted in labeling the perceived deviations of various sorts (including drug addiction) “remnants of the past” (Aronovich 1920, 676; Visloukh 1925, 317). Thus, while Gedalii D. Aronovich, a physician, admitted that the revolution was a “large-scale social experiment” that caused “chronic psychic traumas” for many young people, he also described the causes of drug addiction, which had reached “epidemic” proportions in Petrograd after 1917, in an interesting picturesque form: “In the transitional period, when old foundations collapse, and new forms of universal existence are born, the obsolete Old gets mixed up with the viable New and creates a whole range of transitory socio-pathological phenomena” (Aronovich 1920, 676, 685, 686).

Another part of the solution was to label juvenile drug addicts as “alien” and “sick” in terms of class and social origin. In his 1920 article, Aronovich presented

38 PAvel vAsilyev

a range of types of young cocaine addict who had failed to find a place in the new socialist world: from “tall pale … Albert K. from the ... well-to-do family” to the young anti-Communist officer, to the “hot-tempered” MA student from a “psychopathic family” (Aronovich 1920, 681–83). To a certain degree, these addicts were not really presented as being personally responsible for their disease. Instead, pathological modernity and their degenerative bourgeois surroundings made them unsuitable for “real” life in revolutionary Petrograd and forced them to seek escape in cocaine snuffing. Later, drug use by homeless children and the concurrent changes in their personalities, behavior, and aims were explained by the influence of their social (or rather “antisocial”) environment (Bakhtiiarov 1936, 199).

Beyond labeling the old regime as conservative and imperialist, its economic foundation—allegedly free-market capitalism—was no less important (especially given the Marxist character of the new Soviet state). For many physicians in early Soviet Russia, social deviations constituted “remnants,” and specifically the “remnants of capitalism.” This became especially clear in the 1920s, when the New Economic Policy (NEP) succeeded war communism and introduced some capitalist elements into the Soviet economy. Soviet physicians proved to be good Marxists and emphasized that under a capitalist (or semi-capitalist) system, there would always be some pathological phenomena in the social and cultural spheres. Aleksandr Sholomovich’s 1926 article notes that “capitalism is the main cause of drug addiction, because it uses culture as the instrument of greater intoxication” (Sholomovich 1926a, 47). High-placed officials such as the narkom of Public Health, Nikolai Semashko, also supported this position. In his Izvestiia article, “On Cocaine Addiction and the Struggle against It,” Semashko (1925) stated that “the main cause of this disease is the regime of exploitation (some are too well off for their own good [s zhiru besiatsia], others are desperate and intimidated).” According to this logic, the NEP (“marking, in a way, the return of a capitalist economic base”) actually increased the number of juvenile deviants (including drug addicts) (ibid.).

A specific face of capitalism for many physicians was that permitting free trade helped to create a favorable atmosphere for misusing drugs. Specific targets differed and included private pharmacies, foreign trade (and potential smuggling), as well as irresponsible state-employed doctors and pharmacists. There was, however, a general feeling that the causes of juvenile drug addiction were closely linked to the lack of strict controls over the import, distribution, and sale of recreational drugs (Semashko 1925; Bliumenau 1925, 61–62; Gorovoi-Shaltan 1928, 51–52).14

For some physicians (and perhaps even the most realistic among them), the origins of juvenile drug addiction simply resided in the generally terrible economic situation in the country. Doctors who followed such lines of reasoning did not occupy themselves with condemning the capitalist basis of the economy, but rather pointed to the role of poverty, unemployment, the closure of factories, and the


general economic crisis that followed the perturbations of the 1910s (Aronovich 1920, 684–86).15 In some contexts, the deep socioeconomic breakdown of the first years of the Soviet Republic was openly named as one of the most important causes of the “narcotization” of the population (Sholomovich 1926a, 45, 47).

Most of the texts discussed so far referred to the major developments in the socioeconomic and political realms, but seemingly less important causes of drug addiction were also frequently mentioned. Some of these causes were physiological. Diseases, chronic fatigue, overstrain, and constant malnutrition constituted the conditions under which ordinary Russian children made everyday choices (Aronovich 1920, 684).16 Perhaps the largest category of potential causes of drug addiction detected by early Soviet physicians was “psychological.” Indeed, the children and teenagers who suffered from constant neuroses may have felt the need to resort to artificial psychic stimulators. Gedalii Aronovich (1920, 684–86) discussed how “mental conflict, deep disillusionment in universal ideals ... anxiety about the fate of the country ... [or] about the family, worries about the future and the fate of relatives ... moral loneliness” led many (especially young people) to take drugs.

Other psychological reasons included “curiosity, [the] urge for new sensations [and] suppression of nervous strain” (Gorovoi-Shaltan 1928, 47, 48). It would also be unreasonable to discard such a banal but still valuable factor as imitation, the appeal of drugs as a romantic attribute of the criminal world. Like their colleagues almost one hundred years later, physicians of the 1920s expressed their concerns about the role of peer pressure and “bad company” in familiarizing children, teenagers, and youth generally with drugs (Aronovich 1920, 680, 681; Gorovoi-Shaltan 1928, 48–49).

Paradoxically, the very systematized and ordered Soviet reality of the late 1920s itself emerges as a cause of drug addiction. In her 1929 article on morphine addiction, Raisa Golant (1929, 24) remarked: “Love, revolution, and drugs cause animation and give a sharper feeling of life.” As the chaotic romance of revolution gave way to the quiet and measured functioning of a well-adjusted political system, many young people may have felt the desire to “escape the reality, make life brighter and more interesting” (ibid., 21). Drugs, it was surmised, formed an important part of this.

Very similar explanations for the origins of juvenile drug addiction were present in major German medical texts of the 1920s and early 1930s. Weimar physicians also noted the catastrophic influence of World War I, political violence, and revolutions (Joël and Fränkel 1924, 1, 13–14; Fränkel and Benjamin 1932, 23). Overall, substantial diversity of opinion existed among post-World War I Soviet and German physicians regarding the causes of drug addiction. Also remarkable, however, is the fact that juvenile drug addiction was often constructed as a disease especially connected to bourgeois modernity and capitalism, and thus alien to the socialist system.

40 PAvel vAsilyev

Images and Practices of Juvenile Drug Addiction

Early Soviet physicians’ discussions of the causes of juvenile drug addiction should be considered in relation to the description of groups of users and drug-related practices that often accompany them in the medical texts. Of special interest for our argument is the presentation of the socioeconomic backgrounds of drug addicts. The “democratization” of drug addiction increasingly meant that drug users in the 1920s were to be found not only in demimonde and bohemian circles, but also among proletarian, mostly unemployed young people. Medical texts, however, always sought to explain this change in terms of external factors such as war, the capitalist economy, or connections with prostitutes (Panin 2003, 132).

Accordingly, while new images of lower-class drug users appeared in medical discourses of the 1920s, their involvement with narcotics was always explained in terms of “politically correct” reasons. The “democratization” of drug use made it impossible to ignore the fact that homeless boys (besprizorniki) now constituted a substantial group of addicts, but the doctors specifically presented them as being engaged in criminal activities (Futer 1925, 60; Ziman 1926, 30; Zabugin 1928, 59, 64). As Aleksandr Sholomovich (1926b, 30) explicitly states, “cocaine and crime are blood brothers.” Numerous physical and mental deficiencies (usually presented as genetically inherited) were also considered to be a “legacy of the old regime” (Ziman 1926, 29; Zabugin 1928, 64). Often the authors would stress the homosexual tendencies or “sexual cynicism” of these children (Dubrovich 1928, 71).

For early Soviet physicians, however, the “ideal types” of drug addicts continued to be prostitutes, young officers, students, artists, and intellectuals (Gorovoi-Shaltan 1928, 47; Golant 1929, 25).17 It is striking that despite all the radical changes that occurred after the war, physicians retained the language of fin-de-siècle medicine and generally continued to describe the same social groups as before the war. To a certain degree, this strategy of ignoring the “democratization” of drug use should be attributed to the ideological and political views of the authors. As devoted socialists/communists, it was difficult for them to acknowledge and adequately describe cocaine or morphine abuse among young workers or homeless children. Therefore, they missed the opportunity to present drug addiction as a disease that affects all parts of the population and is not stereotypically reserved for “degenerate” groups.

A substantial anti-Semitic element characterized the presentation of the problem. In early Soviet Russia, many Jews worked as pharmacists (Conroy 1994, 105), and as such, they were also invoked in medical and administrative texts as drug dealers. The portrayal of the pharmaceutical industry—especially NEP-era private pharmacies—often highlighted the role of profit-driven Jewish capitalists, who did not care about the health of the people.18

In the German context, the connection between Jews and drug abuse was developed much further. Weimar addiction researchers also noticed the trend toward the “democratization” of drug use, but they specifically focused on members of


middle-class professions and medical specialists (Joël and Fränkel 1924, 14, 15, 19, 87, 89–91, 94, 96, 97). In this regard, the physicians invoked numerous stereotypes of Jews, depicting them as drug addicts and drug dealers par excellence (Becker 1930, 3; 1932, 49; Fränkel and Benjamin 1932, 21–23). Some Jewish doctors, such as Fritz Fränkel and Ernst Joël, even contributed to this stereotypical perspective by taking drugs themselves (although with scientific aims) and organizing Walter Benjamin’s artistic experiments with hashish and mescaline (Exler 2005, 138–46; Benjamin 2006, vii, 9–10, 36, 46, 71, 73–80, 86–97).

Arguments for Government Interference

“There should be no child addicts in the Soviet state!” So states a scientific article in a respected medical journal (Futer 1925, 60). Its rhetoric could easily be that of a zealous law enforcer or an ideologically charged demagogue. It is not as if there were no alternatives in the 1920s to the ultimate construction of juvenile drug addiction as a social problem. Special consideration should be given to the refusal of physicians to address the problem without external assistance and their perception that the government was primarily responsible in the struggle against it. This attitude could partly be explained through the lens of Foucauldian “biopolitics” and the increasing intervention of the modern European states in the sphere of public health during the early twentieth century. Another factor that led Russian physicians to advocate government intervention in the struggle against drug addiction was the tradition of regulating the consumption of alcohol (culminating in the prohibition regime at the start of World War I).

The physicians’ arguments supporting government intervention are also instructive. Some of them appeal to generalized moral categories and describe juvenile drug addiction as a “social disaster [bedstvie],” an “anomaly of contemporary life” (Aronovich 1920, 677, 686), or a “dangerous illness” (Bliumenau 1925, 62). A more interesting trend, however, construed addiction as a costly political and economic challenge to the socialist system, if left unanswered (Semashko 1925; Sholomovich 1926a, 45; 1930, 1).19 Other physicians stressed the criminogenic potential of juvenile drug addiction and reminded readers that “child cocaine addicts represent a danger for the state in the future, because it is the group from which juvenile lawbreakers are recruited” (Ziman 1926, 30). Other works sought to appeal to the rational character of the new state and provided scientific and eugenic arguments (with references to “the health of the nation” and “degeneration”) for government intervention (Bliumenau 1925, 56–57; Antsyferov 1929, 41).20

Eliminating Juvenile Drug Addiction

Physicians in early Soviet Russia believed it was necessary to fight juvenile drug addiction, but were uncertain about how to fight it. Even in the 1920s, doctors had developed no clear treatment guidelines for drug addiction as an individual medical

42 PAvel vAsilyev

condition, let alone a social problem. Many scientific and pragmatic issues related to the struggle against drug addiction remained problematic. For example, archival sources reveal problems faced by drug-addicted patients in late 1920s Russia: the absence of relevant medications, too few hospital beds, inadequate training of medical personnel, a complicated bureaucracy, as well as personal and professional conflicts between patients and doctors and nurses.21

Given the chronic lack of funding, solutions the physicians proposed were largely confined to medical propaganda, sanitary education, and prophylaxis. Many Soviet doctors declared the necessity of propagandizing a healthy lifestyle—especially through popular books, newspapers, and films (Semashko 1925; Ziman 1926, 30).22 David Futer (1925, 62–3) complained that “there are no special films, slides, fiction books on sanitary education, and particularly about the dangers of the drugs made for children and teenagers.” Other authors advocated setting up special drug clinics, laboratories, and libraries, as well as the introduction of free consultations (Sholomovich 1926a, 49–50). The importance of preventive campaigns was stressed for high-risk groups such as homeless children or known juvenile offenders (Futer 1925, 61; Rapoport 1926, 48, 55; Kutanin 1929, 40).

Another major topic discussed in almost every work on the subject is the establishment of specialized drug clinics for addicts (Bliumenau 1925, 61; Ziman 1926, 31; Sholomovich 1926a, 48; Gorovoi-Shaltan 1928, 52–53; Dubrovich 1928, 74; Sholomovich 1930, 3–4; Bakhtiiarov 1936, 199). Most Russian works occasionally refer to American and Western European experiences. Ironically, the most detailed description is found in Semashko’s ideologically charged article. He sought to establish drug clinics in large cities, tasking them with “medical, educational, and inspectorial” functions and referring to the success of similar institutions in the struggle against tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases (Semashko 1925). In another article, David Futer (1925, 62) described the practical tasks facing such clinics: to “catch and heal children addicts.”

Many other solutions were proposed apart from medical ones. Of course, many early Soviet physicians noted the inefficiency of relying on a repressive policy toward drug addiction (Bliumenau 1925, 78; Sholomovich 1926a, 48; Gorovoi-Shaltan 1928, 52). This is understandable, since recognizing the efficiency of persecuting drug dealers and addicts, whether physically or through penal measures, meant yielding symbolic domination to law enforcement agencies. As noted, many medical texts from the 1920s proposed medical solutions, along with political, economic, social, and cultural measures.

Many physicians believed the problem of juvenile drug addiction could be solved by improving the country’s economic and social situation. Such hopes were already present in Aronovich’s article (1920, 684–86), which expressed horror at the atrocities and hardships brought about by the Russian Revolution and civil war. However, when the NEP succeeded war communism, the physicians’ economic demands became more specific. Aleksandr Sholomovich (1930, 2) stated that


“the abolition of private capital” was an important precondition of success in the struggle against juvenile drug addiction. At the macroeconomic level, his claims can be understood as a demand to end the NEP policy and reflect Semashko’s (1925) grievances about the introduction of capitalist elements into the Soviet economy.

Many physicians concentrated not on new developments, but rather on the elimination of the “remnants [perezhitki] of capitalism.” This rationale lay behind claims that the struggle against juvenile drug addiction would benefit from the measures taken to combat child homelessness (Futer 1925, 62; Ziman 1926, 30; Dubrovich 1928, 75). Anticapitalist (protectionist and anti-free-market) ideas were implicit in demands to strictly control the production, import, distribution, and sale of drugs (Semashko 1925; Bliumenau 1925, 61–62; Gorovoi-Shaltan 1928, 51–52).23

In the German context, specialized drug clinics (usually called Fürsorgestellen) were similarly envisaged as institutions of comprehensive control and prophylaxis (Joël and Fränkel 1924, 79; 1925), with the right to intervene in the personal lives and professional careers of patients to “sever all the connections that make drug supply possible” (Fränkel and Benjamin 1932, 23). There was also a general consensus on the desirability of introducing anticapitalist measures such as those being advocated by medical writers in Russia (Joël and Fränkel 1924, 81; 1925, 1713).

In general, we can see that medical texts written by physicians in early Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany contained a comprehensive list of measures that were considered necessary for the elimination of juvenile drug addiction. Most important, these measures called for direct and extensive government intervention. Moreover, some of the solutions had nothing to do with medicine proper, but pertained to social, economic, and political circumstances.

Why Children?

Beyond the traditional argument supporting paternalist care and the fact that 60 percent of drug users in early Soviet Russia were below 25 years of age, medical texts from the 1920s offer other insights into why early Soviet doctors and criminologists so often invoked the image of the juvenile drug addict and its associated dangers. As drug addiction was increasingly constructed as a “bourgeois” and “capitalist” disease, increasing numbers of doctors claimed that protecting children was a priority. The special place of delinquent children in early Soviet discourse has to do with the widely perceived importance of children for the socialist future.

Early Soviet poet Vladimir Mayakovsky once wrote: “I glorify the fatherland that is; but thrice I glorify the fatherland that is to be” (Otechestvo slavliu, kotoroe est’, / no trizhdy—kotoroe budet) (Mayakovsky 1958). Artist Aleksei Komarov produced a poster that depicted a children’s demonstration against the “remnants” of the old order (Shkliaruk 2006). Early Soviet Russia was not unique in politically charging the notion of “childhood,”24 yet the association between the development of children and the success of the socialist project remained remarkably strong.

44 PAvel vAsilyev

In the Russian context, the obsession with juvenile drug addiction was linked to two early Soviet utopian projects, the “New Man” and novyi byt.25 The campaign for the “healthification” of society and the demands for increased government regulation and scientifically justified “rational” planning were already present in prerevolutionary Russia (Hutchinson 1990, xv; Beer 2008, 1–8). In the aftermath of the Revolution, however, they were united with a program for transforming human bodies and determined the direction of scientific research (Akimenko and Shereshevkii 2000, 108). This impulse developed into such diverse projects as Podvoiskii and Mekhonoshin’s militarism, Dr. Gorinevskii’s “socialist eugenics,” and Semashko’s sanitization programs (Plaggenborg 2000). It is only logical that juvenile drug addiction would be considered a “social” disease requiring special attention.

Transnational Perspectives

Even a cursory analysis of early Soviet and Weimar medical texts reveals many unexpected similarities. In both countries, physicians perceived juvenile drug addiction in a politicized way—as a disease closely associated with modernity and capitalism. They strongly supported government interference and simultaneously constructed larger projects to improve health care and encourage social change. In Soviet medical discourse, the specific preoccupation with the health of children as the “future of modernity” can be seen more clearly. In the German context, however, the anti-Semitic association between drug addiction and Jews was made more explicit.

Also important are the seemingly paradoxical ways in which early Soviet medical constructions reflected national traditions and Marxist ideological preferences, while actively borrowing from internationally acknowledged Western scientific theories. We can sometimes trace the transfer of scientific (and other) ideas about addiction across national borders, as was the case with the speedy Russian translation and publication of Ernst Joël’s (1930) informative handbook. Thus, Soviet doctors often developed their own understanding of addiction from German medical texts, while also adopting some specifically German views and stereotypes.

Yet German medical discourse represented the only major international influence on Soviet authors during this period. For example, the bibliography at the end of Raisa Golant’s (1929, 32) major Soviet work on juvenile drug addiction contains 16 entries in German, only one in French, and one reference to the work of an American author. The tradition of collaboration in medical science between Russia and Germany is an old one, and the contacts intensified greatly in the atmosphere of isolation during the 1920s (Solomon 2006). Additionally, although Fritz Fränkel and Ernst Joël were undoubtedly European doctors, it is difficult to perceive them as bourgeois adversaries, when both of them upheld increasingly radical political ideologies and Fränkel even delivered a speech at the founding congress of the German Communist Party (Exler 2005, 60–97; Büttner and Meyer 1984, 133).


Conclusion

The construction of juvenile drug addiction in early Soviet Russia was a dynamic process that contained conflicting perspectives and alternatives. However, recommendations by authors of medical texts to increase medical and legal control eventually legitimized government intervention. Research carried out by these writers had profound implications for state drug policy. The influence of monographs, articles, and conference presentations by early Soviet physicians was not confined to the narrow professional realm. In fact, physicians actively elaborated and implemented state policy toward drug addiction. Physicians openly criticized the authorities and actively lobbied for their own health improvement programs, as well as for wider socialist reform through communal institutions and government agencies (Futer 1925, 62; Shkarovskii 1997, 474).

The government and local public health authorities implemented many of these solutions by the end of the 1920s. Homeless children and prostitutes were no longer seen on the streets of Russian cities. Large sums of money were allocated to produce medical propaganda, sanitary education, and popular medical literature. Specialized drug clinics opened in Moscow and Leningrad in the second half of the 1920s. Stricter controls were enforced over the production, import, circulation, and sale of drugs (Shkarovskii 1997, 475; Lebina 1999, 32–33; Lebina and Chistikov 2003, 117). Finally, a Stalinist planned economy—which was accompanied by totalitarian control and repression—replaced the “capitalist” NEP. As a result, the number of juvenile drug addicts radically decreased by the end of the 1920s.

Among the long-term effects were that expert scientific knowledge was used to justify the marginalization and repression of the drug market in the following years (Lebina 1994, 41). Even though the authorities succeeded in “driving juvenile drug addicts into the corner,” they did not eradicate the desire for drugs (an impossible mission from the onset, according to contemporary sociologists) (Gilinskii 2000, 54, 122). The problem persisted (though less visibly) in the Stalinist Soviet Union.26 For example, a 1938 psychiatry textbook emphasized the social aspects of drug addiction. It legitimized intervention and the isolation of juvenile drug addicts by referring to the alleged “reduction in their mental capacity” due to taking drugs.27 The politicization of drug addiction (alongside the introduction of work therapy and inefficient medical solutions owing to the nonexistence of neuroleptics) encouraged a move away from drug clinics to medical-labor centers and, by the end of the 1930s, to prison camps under the auspices of the NKVD (the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) (Izmozik and Lebina 2010, 123–34). As a result, there is a long-standing tradition of negative attitudes toward drug addicts and drug dealers in Russian society. Likewise, the government’s authority to control the drug market remains virtually unquestioned, though narcotic policies are often costly, bureaucratic, and inefficient.

46 PAvel vAsilyev

Acknowledgment: The author would like to thank the Gerda Henkel Foundation for the generous support of his PhD project, “Drug Addiction in Petrograd/Leningrad, 1917–1929: A Social Problem and the Search for Its Solution.”

NOTES

1. For Western and Central European examples that could have served as a prototype, see, for example, Freud (1884) or Richet (1900).

2. These texts include monographs and articles in professional journals and newspapers, the medical-legal, polemic, and popular medical literature, and, to a lesser degree, documents concerning medical, administrative, and research institutions.

3. For an additional critique of Soviet Marxist historiography, with its tendencies to mythologize and conceal, see, e.g., Khodiakov (2000, 11–12), Lebina (2000, 7; 2006, 244), and Musaev (2001, 5).

4. For examples of works that make frequent and rather uncritical borrowings from medical texts, consider Shkarovskii (1997), Lebina (1999), and Panin (2003). Shkarovskii (1997, 476) is especially remarkable in this respect, since the author misspells the name of the early Soviet physician (it should be Tutolmin, not Tusholmin) and uses the authority of his citation to make the point about the “strengthening of cocaine addiction—as well as other addictions—among both children and adults” in the 1920s.

5. The most obvious explanation is the scope of the problem of child homelessness, which was much more acute in Soviet Russia after the triple devastation of World War I, the Revolution, and the civil war.

6. In doing so, I contribute to a perspective formulated by scholars of addiction research in Western Europe and the United States such as Courtwright (19820, Musto (1999), Wiesemann (2000), Acker (2006), Foxcroft (2007), and Campbell (2007).

7. For a similar argument regarding Russian science in this period, see Beer (2008).8. On increasing government regulation of the economy during the last years of imperial regime,

see, e.g., Kitanina (2003).9. It should be noted that physicians were by no means the only group involved in the construction

of drug addiction as a social problem. Other relevant groups would be legal experts and criminologists.10. On claims-making and moral panics related to drugs, see Meylakhs (2003).11. By the term “traumatics,” Golant means persons suffering from traumatic neurosis, as conceived

by German neurologist Hermann Oppenheim. For a detailed exploration of the history of traumatic neurosis, the debates surrounding the notion, and its social implications, see Lerner (2003).

12. On the improper prescriptions of opiates and cocaine during World War I, see also Panin (2003, 129). See also the critique of wartime medicine’s attitude to drugs by a socialist German author (Joël 1928, 26–27).

13. On the idea of a “legal vacuum,” see Lebina (1999, 15) and Musaev (2001, 5, 169).14. Cf. also Tsentral’nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Sankt-Petersburga (hereinafter referred to as

TsGASPb) [Central State Archive of St. Petersburg], fond 2815, opis’ 1, delo 526, l. 40 rev.15. Cf. also Musaev (2001, 10, 201).16. Cf. also the discussion of cocaine use and the feeling of hunger in Lisovskii and Kolesnikova

(2001, 24).17. Cf. also TsGASPb, fond 142, opis’ 1, delo 9, ll. 323, 324.18. TsGASPb, fond 4301, opis’ 1, delo 2538, ll. 254–55.19. Lazar Minor actually calculated that the struggle against addiction would save the state 60 to 70

thousand rubles annually (TsGASPb, fond 4301, opis’ 1, delo 3414, l. 4).20. Cf. also TsGASPb, fond 4301, opis’ 1, delo 3414, l. 1.21. TsGASPb, fond 3215, opis’ 1, delo 83, ll. 3–4 rev.


22. Also important here was the idea of “mental hygiene” coming from the West in the 1920s, as mentioned in Lily Chang, “The Emergence of the ‘Problem Child’ in Early Twentieth-Century China” (presentation at the “Juvenile Delinquency in the 19th and 20th Centuries: East-West Comparisons” conference, Berlin, March 12, 2011).

23. Cf. also TsGASPb, fond 2815, opis’ 1, delo 526, l. 40 rev.24. Here I refer to images of children as “the future of the empire” and “the future of modernity”

made in Nazan Cizek, “The Delinquent Child, Children’s Courts and the Conception of Childhood in Turkey (1940–1980),” and Barak Kushner, “Empire’s Little Helpers: Juvenile Crime and the State in East Asia, 1900–2000.” (Both were presentations at the “Juvenile Delinquency in the 19th and 20th Centuries: East-West Comparisons” conference, Berlin, March 12, 2011.)

25. Novyi byt, or “new forms of everyday life,” was meant to transform the daily routine through bringing in new socialist values (see Matich 1996, 59ff.).

26. TsGASPB, fond 7384, opis’ 2-c, delo 60, l. 250; Arkhiv Sankt-Peterburgskoi gosudarstvennoi meditsinskoi akademii im. I. I. Mechnikova (hereafter referred to as Arkhiv SPbGMA) [Archive of I.I. Mechnikov St. Petersburg State Medical Academy], Nauchnaia chast’ (Scientific Section), delo 23, ll. 20, 23, 35 rev., 36, 39 rev.-40, 46, 59, 74.

27. Arkhiv SPbGMA, Nauchnaia chast’ [Scientific Section], delo 23, l. 74.

REFERENCESAcker, Caroline J.

2006 Creating the American Junkie: Addiction Research in the Classic Era of Narcotic Control. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Akimenko, Marina A. and Avgust M. Shereshevskii2000 Istoriia instituta im. V.M. Bekhtereva na dokumental’nykh materialakh

(Documented History of V.M. Bekhterev Institute), Vol. 2. St. Petersburg: SpbNIPNI.

Antsyferov, Leonid V.1929 “Gashishizm (nashizm) v Turkestane” (Marijuana Addiction in Turkestan). In

Trudy pervogo vsesoiuznogo s’’ezda nevropatologov i psikhiatrov (Proceedings of the First All-Union Congress of Neuropathologists and Psychiatrists), edited by V.A. Beliaev, 40–41. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe meditsinskoe izdatel’stvo.

Aronovich, Gedalii D.1920 “Nabliudeniia i vpechatleniia sredi kokainomanov” (Observations and

Impressions among Cocaine Addicts). Nauchnaia meditsina 6: 676–85.Bakhtiiarov, V.A.

1936 “K voprosu o narkomanii” (On Drug Addiction), in Trudy nauchno-issledovatel’skikh institutov Sverdlovskogo oblzdravotdela: Sb. No. 7 (Proceeding of the Research Institutes of Sverdlovsk Region Health Section: Collection No. 7), 199–204. Sverdlovsk: Sverdlovskoe gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo.

Becker, Rafael1932 “Die Geisteskrankungen bei den Juden in Polen.” Allgemeine Zeitschrift für

Psychiatrie und psychisch-gerichtliche Medizin 96: 47–66.1930 “Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Verbreitung des Geisteskrankheiten bei den Juden in

Polen.” OSE-Rundschau 5: 1–4.Beer, Daniel

2008 Renovating Russia: The Human Sciences and the Fate of Liberal Modernity, 1880–1930. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Benjamin, Walter2006 On Hashish. Translated by Howard Eiland. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

48 PAvel vAsilyev

Bliumenau, Evgenii B.1925 Okhmeliaiushchie durmany: Tabak, kokain, morfii, opii, efir i gashish, ikh vred

i posledstviia (Intoxicating Drugs: Tobacco, Cocaine, Morphine, Opium, Ether and Hashish, Damage Caused by Them and Consequences). Leningrad: Seiatel’.

Blumer, Herbert1971 “Social Problems as Collective Behavior.” Social Problems 18: 298–306.

Büttner, Lothar and Bernhard Meyer1984 Gesundheitspolitik der Arbeiterbewegung: Vom Bund der Kommunisten bis

zum Thällmanischen Zentralkomitee der KPD. Berlin: VEG Verlag Volk und Gesundheit.

Campbell, Nancy D.2007 Discovering Addiction: The Science and Politics of Substance Abuse Research.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Cohen, Albert K.

1956 Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Conroy, Mary Schaeffer

1994 In Health and in Sickness: Pharmacy, Pharmacists and the Pharmaceutical Industry in Late Imperial, Early Soviet Russia. Boulder and New York: Columbia University Press.

1990 “Abuse of Drugs Other Than Alcohol and Tobacco in the Soviet Union.” Soviet Studies 42: 447–80.

Courtwright, David T.1982 Dark Paradise: Opiate Addiction in America before 1940. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Danillo, Stanislav Nikodimovich

1894 O vliianii nekotorykh iadov (spirt, opii, gashish) na soznanie u cheloveka (On the Influence of Certain Poisons [Spirit, Opium, Hashish] on the Human Consciousness). St. Petersburg: K.L. Rikker.

Dubrovich, G.1928 “Klinicheskaia kartina kokainizma v detskom vozraste” (Clinical Findings

on Child Cocaine Addiction). In Voprosy narkologii: Sb. No. 2. (Problems of Narcology: Collection No. 2), edited by Aleksandr S. Sholomovich, 66–75. Moscow: Moszdravotdel.

Erlenmeier, A. and P. Sol’e1899 Morfinizm i ego lechenie (Morphine Addiction and Its Treatment). St.

Petersburg: A.V. Kokorev.Exler, Margarete

2005 Von der Jugendbewegung zu ärztlicher Drogenhilfe: Das Leben Ernst Joëls (1893–1929) im Umkreis von Benjamin, Landauer und Buber. Berlin: Trafo.

Foxcroft, Louise2007 The Making of Addiction: The ‘Use and Abuse’ of Opium in Nineteenth-Century

Britain. Aldershot: Ashgate.Fränkel, Fritz and Dora Benjamin

1932 “Die Bedeutung der Rauschgifte für die Juden und die Bekämpfung der Suchten durch die Fürsorge.” Jüdische Wohlfahrtspflege und Sozialpolitik 3: 21–24.

Freud, Sigmund1884 “Über Coca.” Zentralblatt für die gesamte Therapie 2: 289–314.

Frieden, Nancy Mandelker1981 Russian Physicians in an Era of Reform and Revolution, 1856–1905. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.Futer, David S.

1925 “O detiakh-narkomanakh” (On Child Addicts). Moskovskii meditsinskii zhurnal 10: 59–63.


Gernet, M.N.1926 “Sotnia detei-narkomanov” (A Hundred of Child Addicts). In Voprosy

narkologii: Sb. No. 1 (Problems of Narcology: Collection No. 1), edited by Aleksandr S. Sholomovich, 34–38. Moscow: Moszdravotdel.

Gilinskii, Iakov I., ed.2000 Deviantnost’ i sotsial’nyi kontrol’ v Rossii (XIX-XX vv.): Tendentsii i

sotsiologicheskoe osmyslenie (Deviance and Social Control in Russia [XIX-XX Centuries]: Trends and Sociological Reflection). St. Petersburg: Aleteiia.

Golant, Raisa I.A.1929 “Problemy morfinizma: (Klinicheskie i dispansernye nabliudeniia,

eksperimental’nye issledovaniia)” (Problems of Morphine Addiction: [Clinical and Specialized Observations, Experimental Investigations]). In Trudy gosudarstvennogo instituta meditsinskikh znanii (GIMZ) (Proceedings of the State Institute of Medical Knowledge [GIMZ]), edited by N.K. Rozenberg, issue V, 17–32. Leningrad: GIMZ.

Gorovoi-Shaltan, Vladimir A.1928 “Morfinizm, ego rasprostranenie i profilaktika” (Morphine Addiction, Its

Spread, and Preventive Measures). In Voprosy narkologii: Sb. No. 2. (Problems of Narcology: Collection No. 2), edited by Aleksandr S. Sholomovich, 46–53. Moscow: Moszdravotdel.

Gossmann, J.1879 “Über chronischen Morphiummissbrauch.” Deutsche Medicinische

Wochenschrift 34–36.Grebliovskii, M.A.

1934 “Bibliografiia po narkologii, 1920–1930: (Opii, morfii, kokain, tabak)” (Bibliography on Narcology, 1920–1930: [Opium, Morphine, Cocaine, Tobacco]). In Problemy narkologii (Problems of Narcology), edited by Aleksandr M. Rapoport, 103–16. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe meditsinskoe izdatel’stvo.

Hutchinson, John F.1990 Politics and Public Health in Revolutionary Russia, 1890–1918. Baltimore and

London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Izmozik, Vladlen S. and Nataliia B. Lebina

2010 Peterburg sovetskii: “Novyi chelovek” v starom prostranstve: 1920–1930-e gody: (Sotsial’no-arkhitekturnoe mikroistoricheskoe issledovanie) (Soviet Petersburg: “New Man” in the Old Space: 1920s–1930s: [Social-Architectural Microhistorical Study]). St. Petersburg: Kriga.

Joël, Ernst1930 Lechenie narkomanii. Alkogolizm. Morfinizm. Kokainizm (Treatment of

Addictions. Alcoholism. Morphine Addiction. Cocaine Addiction). Khar’kov: Nauchnaia mysl’.

1928 Die Behandlung der Giftsuchten. Alkoholismus, Morphinismus, Kokainismus usw. Leipzig: Georg Thieme.

Joël, Ernst and Fritz Fränkel1926 “Der Haschisch-Rausch.” Klinische Wochenschrift 5: 1707–9.1925 “Zur Verhütung und Behandlung der Giftsuchten.” Klinische Wochenschrift 4:

1703–18.1924 Der Cocainismus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Psychopathologie der

Rauschgifte. Berlin: Julius Springer.Khodiakov, Mikhail V., ed.

2000 “Goriacheshnyi i triumfal’nyi gorod”: Petrograd: ot voennogo kommunizma k NEPu: Dokumenty i materialy (“Feverish and Triumphant City”: Petrograd from War Communism to the NEP: Documents and Materials). St. Petersburg: SPbGU.

50 PAvel vAsilyev

Kitanina, Taisiia M.2003 Rossiia v pervoi mirovoi voine 1914–1917 gg: Ekonomika i ekonomicheskaia

politika (Russia in the First World War, 1914–1917: Economics and Economic Policy). St. Petersburg: SPbGU.

Kutanin, Mikhail P.1929 “Voprosy teorii i praktiki morfinizma” (Theoretical and Practical Problems of

Morphine Addiction). In Trudy pervogo vsesoiuznogo s’’ezda nevropatologov i psikhiatrov (Proceedings of the First All-Union Congress of Neuropathologists and Psychiatrists), edited by V.A. Beliaev, 40. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe meditsinskoe izdatel’stvo.

1916a “K voprosu o psikhozakh otravleniia. Sluchai khronicheskogo zloupotrebleniia khloral-gidratom i opiem” (On Poisoning Psychoses: A Case of Chronic Chloral Hydrate and Opium Abuse). In Trudy psikhiatricheskoi kliniki Imperatorskogo moskovskogo universiteta (Proceedings of the Psychiatric Clinic of Imperial Moscow University), issue 3, 101–16.

1916b “K voprosu o psikhozakh otravleniia—khronicheskii kokainizm” (On Poisoning Psychoses—Chronic Cocaine Use). In Trudy psikhiatricheskoi kliniki Imperatorskogo moskovskogo universiteta (Proceedings of the Psychiatric Clinic of Imperial Moscow University), issue 3, 49–100.

Lange, Nikolai N.2009 “Otchet o doktorskom dispute N.N. Lange” (Report on N.N. Lange‘s Doctoral

Defense). In Rossiiskaia Psikhologiia: Antologiia (Russian Psychology: Anthology), edited by Antonina N. Zhban, 474–515. Moscow: Al’ma Mater.

Lebina, Nataliia B.2006 Entsiklopediia banal’nostei: Sovetskaia povsednevnost’: Kontury, simvoly, znaki

(The Encyclopedia of Banalities: Soviet Everyday Life: Contours, Symbols, Signs). St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin.

2000 “O pol’ze igry v biser: (Mikroistoriia kak metod izucheniia norm i anomalii sovetskoi povsednevnosti 20–30-kh godov)” (On the Utility of Casting Pearls: [Microhistory as the Method to Examine Norms and Anomalies of Soviet Everyday Life in the 1920s–1930s]). In Normy i tsennosti povsednevnoi zhizni: Stanovenie sotsialisticheskogo obraza zhizni v Rossii, 1920–30e gody (Norms and Values of Everyday Life: The Establishment of the Socialist Life-Style in Russia, 1920s–1930s], edited by Timo Vihavainen, 7–26. St. Petersburg: Neva.

1999 Povsednevnaia zhizn’ sovetskogo goroda: Normy i anomalii: 1920–1930 gody (Everyday Life of a Soviet City: Norms and Anomalies: 1920–1930). St. Petersburg: Letnii Sad.

1996a “Belaia feia, ili Kak “navodili marafet” v Sovetskoi Rossii” (The White Fairy, Or How They Powdered Their Noses in Soviet Russia). Rodina 9: 64–66.

1996b “Narkoman iz narkomata i klub morfinistov revoliutsionnogo Baltflota” (Narcomaniac from the Narkomat and the Morphine Club of the Revolutionary Baltic Fleet). Vechernii Peterburg (April 12).

1994 “Tenevye storony zhizni sovetskogo goroda 20–30-kh godov” (Dark Side of the Soviet City of the 1920s and 1930s). Voprosy istorii 4: 30–42.

Lebina, Nataliia B. and Aleksandr N. Chistikov2003 Obyvatel’ i reformy: Kartiny povsednevnoi zhizni gorozhan v gody nepa i

khrushchevskogo desiatiletiia (An Average Man and Reforms: Scenes from the Everyday Life of Urban Population during the NEP and Khrushchev Years). St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin.

Lebina, Nataliia B. and Mikhail V. Shkarovskii1994 Prostitutsiia v Peterburge: (40-e gg. XIX v.–40-e gg. XX v.) (Prostitution in St.

Petersburg: [1840s–1940s]). Moscow: Progress-Akademiia.


Lerner, Paul2003 Hysterical Men: War, Psychiatry, and the Politics of Trauma in Germany, 1890–

1930. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Lincoln, William B.

1983 In War’s Dark Shadow: The Russians before the Great War. New York: The Dial Press.

Lisovskii, Vladimir T. and Elina A. Kolesnikova2001 Narkotizm kak sotsial’naia problema (Drug Addiction as a Social Problem). St.

Petersburg: SpbGU.Lynch, Timothy, ed.

2001 After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century. Washington: Cato Institute.

Matich, Olga1996 “Remaking the Bed: Utopia in Daily Life.” In Laboratory of Dreams: The

Russian Avant-Garde and Cultural Experiment, edited by John E. Bowlt and Olga Matich, 59–78. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Mayakovsky, Vladimir1958 “Khorosho! Oktiabr’skaia poema” (Good! An October Poem), in Polnoe

sobranie sochinenii v trinadtsati tomakh (Complete Works in 13 Volumes), vol. 8. Moscow: GIKhL.

Meylakhs, Peter2003 “Opasnosti moral’noi paniki po povodu narkotikov” (The Dangers of the Drug

Moral Panic). Credo New 1.Musaev, Vadim I.

2001 Prestupnost’ v Petrograde v 1917–1921 gg. i bor’ba s nei (Crime in Petrograd in 1917–1921 and the Struggle against It). St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin.

Musto, David F.1999 The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. New York: Oxford

University Press.Nadelmann, Ethan A.

1989 “Drug Prohibition in the United States: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives.” Science 245: 939–47.

Panin, Stanislav E.2003 “Potreblenie narkotikov v Sovetskoi Rossii (1917–1920-e gody)” (Drug

Addiction in Soviet Russia [from 1917 to the 1920s]). Voprosy istorii 8: 129–34.Plaggenborg, Shtefan (Stefan)

2000 Revoliutsiia i kul’tura: Kul’turnye orientiry v period mezhdu Oktiabr’skoi revoliutsiei i epokhoi stalinizma (Revolution and Culture: Cultural Guidelines between October Revolution and Stalinism). St. Petersburg: Neva.

Popov, Viktor A.1989 “Bor’ba s narkomaniei i toksikomaniei detei i podrostkov v 20–30-e gody” (The

Struggle Against Drug Addiction among Children and Teenagers in the 1920s and 1930s). Sovetskoe zdravookhranenie 5: 67–70.

Rapoport, Aleksandr M.1926 “Kokainizm i prestupnost” (Cocaine Addiction and Crime). Moskovskii

meditsinskii zhurnal 1: 46–55.Reimer, Nikolai K.

1899 Iady tsivilizatsii (Poisons of Civilization). St. Petersburg: A.N. Tsepov.Rishe, Sharl’ (Richet, Charles)

1900 Iady, deistvuiushchie na soznanie: (Alkogol’, khloroform, gashish, opium i kofe) (Poisons Influencing Consciousness: [Alcohol, Chloroform, Hashish, Opium, and Coffee]). Kremenchug: M.I. Apatov.

52 PAvel vAsilyev

Semashko, Nikolai A.1925 “O kokainizme i bor’be s nim” (On Cocaine Addiction and the Struggle Against

It). Izvestiia TsIK SSSR (January 4).Shkarovskii, Mikhail V.

1997 “Sem’ imen “koshki”: Rastsvet narkomanii v 1917–1920-e gody” (Seven Names of the “Cat”: Heyday of Drug Addiction from 1917 to the 1920s). In Nevskii arkhiv: istoriko-kraevedcheskii sb. (Neva Archive: Regional History Collection), issue 3, 467–477. St. Petersburg.

1993 “Leningradskaia prostitutsiia i bor’ba s nei v 1920-e gody” (Prostitution in Leningrad and the Struggle against It in the 1920s). In Nevskii arkhiv: istoriko-kraevedcheskii sb. (Neva Archive: Regional History Collection), 387–411. Moscow.

Shkliaruk, Aleksandr F.2006 Materinstvo i detstvo v russkom plakate (Motherhood and Childhood in Russian

Posters). Moscow: Kontakt-Kul’tura.Sholomovich, Aleksandr S.

1930 Teoriia i praktika bor’by s narkotizmom: Tezisy po narkologii dlia medikov (Theory and Practice of the Struggle against Drug Addiction: Theses on Narcology for Physicians). Moscow.

1926a “Narkotizm kak sotsial’no-patologicheskoe iavlenie i mery bor’by s nim sredi rabochikh” (Drug Addiction as a Pathological Social Phenomenon, and the Measures against Its Spread Among the Workers). In Voprosy narkologii: Sb. No. 1 (Problems of Narcology: Collection No. 1), edited by Aleksandr S. Sholomovich, 45–50. Moscow: Moszdravotdel.

1926b Kokain i ego zhertvy: (Nauch.-popul. ocherk) (Cocaine and Its Victims: Popular Science Essay). Moscow: Zhizn’ i znanie.

Solomon, Susan Gross, ed.2006 Doing Medicine Together: Germany and Russia Between the Wars. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.Szasz, Thomas S.

1992 Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market. New York: Praeger.Vasilyev, Pavel

2011 “Modernity, Jewishness and Addiction Research in Late 19th and Early 20th Century Russia and Germany.” Jewish Studies at the CEU 6: 107–18.

Visloukh, S.1925 “Prostitutsiia i narkomaniia: Po dannym ankety sredi prostitutok v Moskve,

organizovannoi Nauchno-Issledovatel’skoi Komissiei” (Prostitution and Drug Addiction: Based on the Survey of Moscow Prostitutes by Research Commission). Rabochii Sud 7–8: 317–22.

Wiesemann, Claudia2000 Die heimliche Krankheit: Eine Geschichte des Suchtbegriffs. Stuttgart:

Frommann-Holzboog.Zabugin, F.D.

1928 “Otsenka lichnosti detei-narkomanov po metodam Rossolimo, Bine i Kelle” (Personality Evaluation of Addict Kids after Rossolimo, Binet, and Kelle). In Voprosy narkologii: Sb. No. 2 (Problems of Narcology: Collection No. 2), edited by Aleksandr S. Sholomovich, 59–65. Moscow: Moszdravotdel.

Ziman, Raisa M.1926 “O kokainizme u detei” (On Child Cocaine Addicts). In Voprosy narkologii:

Sb. No. 1 (Problems of Narcology: Collection No. 1), edited by Aleksandr S. Sholomovich, 28–33. Moscow: Moszdravotdel.

Medical Science, the State, and the Construction of the Juvenile Drug Addict in Early Soviet Russia

Documents

Transcript of Medical Science, the State, and the Construction of the Juvenile Drug Addict in Early Soviet Russia