What do you consider advanced? Keeping in mind, of course, that cocaine was legal in the US until ne'er-do-well do-gooders decided they knew better for everyone. That is why we have Coca Cola, which is a formulation of Mr. John Pemberton's Cocaine-Fortified Wine. It's only very recently that we have decided to start imprisoning people for the simple fact of putting things into their bodies.
So, again, what do you consider advanced? If we go back to the foundations of Western civilization, we find the Greeks quite enjoyed getting high on many interesting substances. The Romans and Egyptians as well.
What about native populations on the US continent? The Peyote tribe literally have a mescaline-bearing cactus named after them, along with all the various substances known to the South Americans before the Spaniards decided to put the torch to their accumulated cultural practices. (c.f. The Florentine Codex)
The histories of China and India are also rife with periods of legalized substance use, some good and some bad.
But to your question: yes, there have been many advanced civilizations whom have been "gung-ho" about legalized drugs.
Other than religious proscriptions against alcohol, I can't think of any civilization in history that has outright banned any drugs. Were the Romans, Egyptians or Persians especially anti-drug? Any of the ancient Indian or Chinese kingdoms and empires?
On the other hand, cannabis has a long tradition of use in ancient India[1].
Europe, circa the middle ages, had cultural taboos against certain "witchy" herbs. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only other cultural prohibition against some class of drugs at large.
I do believe such bans to be hideous and downright stupid. It is crass authoritarianism, nothing less than the subordination of the individual's body and mind to a tyrannical society clownish enough to demand it.
> It seems like many drugs are banned in various societies today, so I don't quite follow you.
OP thinks no "advanced civilization" has ever allowed drugs. Drugs bans enforced by state power only became a thing near the end of the 19th century. That means no advanced civilization existed before then - not the Romans, nor Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Indians, or Chinese - and countless others. Sounds incorrect to me.
Most civilizations, at least in your meaning of the term, never had to deal with the problem much. For much of Europe's history, the only known drug of consequence was booze, and it wasn't easy to make. Economy's simply weren't diversified enough that some could be drunks, they'd have nothing to pay for booze with and no one was going to let them freeload and drink all the good stuff besides.
Most of the drugs that are a problem for us are late 19th century or 20th century inventions. Sure, there are some others here and there... in their most diluted, least problematic forms. But that's about it.
A better question than yours would be "when has criminalizing drugs ever done any of the things we might hope it would do?"... but it's a difficult question that most people want to avoid. That they're willing to accept dishonest, fallacious answers for.
Before the invention of antibiotics almost all medicine was nonsense and the drugs available were mostly alcohol, cocaine, opium, aspirin and caffeine. It is only since the 1950s that there is a huge amount of different drugs and mass production on top of it.
No amount of education will stop people from getting hooked on drugs. You are ridiculous if you earnestly believe otherwise. People know drugs are bad for you, and do drugs anyway because their life is fucked up for other reasons and they've become self-destructive, seeking short-term pleasure even though they know it will come with long-term pain. If you want to solve this, you need to lift people up and fix their lives before they ever sink that far in the first place.
Blow it out yours first. The words you have written come from a place of utmost ignorance. You are mistaking your own opinions and values for information. Again, "drugs are bad for you" is not information. It is not something to be known. It is an opinion, a value to have. You have addressed none of my points and instead merely relayed more of your own ramblings.
Do you know how hard it is to actually attain a meaningful education on the topic? I quite enjoy many substances, many of them federally legal. I am addicted to nicotine and currently quitting. That is the only substance I am addicted to. Your words do not hold true for me nor for many of my friends. It does hold true for some of my family, whom I do believe could have been helped much earlier had they been availed of crucial information that would have helped them make an informed decision.
But no, you do not get to act like the reasonable man here. You have taken a stance based on your own ignorance, painting over entire groups with the wide brush of your disgust and being better-than. A pigheaded craven, indeed.
There are probably strong socioevolutionary reasons why this is the case.