• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The war on drugs has entered a new era

SteveGrenard

Philosopher
S
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Messages
5,528
It was inevitable.

Pretty soon we will be able to get shots for just about everything we don't want or don't like,
The ethical issues not withstanding what is downside if say government or perhaps one's parents or teachers or jailers "don't want" something but the receipient themselves do?



Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine have developed a vaccine that is currently in clinical trials that doesn’t fight what most consider to be a real illness or disease like cancer or AIDS. Rather, this vaccine stimulates the inoculated immune system to combat the illegal drug cocaine.


The scientists took cholera proteins and bound inactive cocaine molecules to the surface of the protein. After inoculation the body’s immune system is able to build antibodies against cocaine and blocks the drug from reaching the brain when ingested, thereby preventing it from producing the addicting high.

Some argue that the vaccine would raise ethical issues surrounding who would get inoculated. Others see the vaccine as something everyone should get along with childhood vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella.

The researchers say that if the vaccine proves to be effective and passes its clinical trials leading to FDA approval for widespread use it would lead to more drugs for combating addiction such as vaccines for combating heroin and nicotine addiction. That would mean at some point in the future we could chose to be inoculated against smoking.
Click to expand...


http://www.dailytech.com/Baylor+University+Scientists+Develop+Cocaine+Vaccine/article10201.htm
 
Last edited:
Of course there are ethical issues, but this seems like a fantastic thing for a cocaine addict who is trying to get sober.

As far as parents innoculating their children, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing. Can you make an argument that it is in any way beneficial for someone to enjoy cocaine? If there was a vaccine that would make tobacco taste terrible, would it be wrong to give that to children?
 
Would the vaccine have the unintended consequence of also blocking the action of other chemically similar drugs?

Would it block the action of Wellbutrin, for example?

How discriminating are these antibodies?

It might be a great cure for cocaine addiction.

However, there are a plethora of other compounds that get you just as wired.

If it doesn't block these, someone could easily switch.

If it does block these, then someone might be deprived of the therapeutic action of some drug that might benefit them--if you believe there is any benefit to any other stimulant drug whatsoever.
 
Same ethical issues as now, Steve. When you're 18, the folks can kick you out, but can't stop you doing most other stuff. And the state will stick it's nose in as usual and be largely ignored, as usual, creating new classes of crime, as usual.Lawyers better be getting a better scientific education than they used to , though.
 
Why not be skeptical and wait for evidence? See how effective these are and what the other effects are.
 
FORCING anybody to have a vaccine against a non-disease is a reall problem.

What if, for example, I developed a vaccine that supressed Conservative thoughts, and the next Liberal government down the line mandated it for all citizens whether they want it or not? Because ultimately this vaccine is aimed at controlling behavior.
 
This actually ticks me right off.

Not because I disagree with the idea, but because I had this idea in 1991, but was not in a position to pursue it.

Bah.
 
BenBurch said:
FORCING anybody to have a vaccine against a non-disease is a reall problem.

What if, for example, I developed a vaccine that supressed Conservative thoughts, and the next Liberal government down the line mandated it for all citizens whether they want it or not? Because ultimately this vaccine is aimed at controlling behavior.
Click to expand...

No, this vaccine is aimed at controlling involuntary response to certain stimuli.

The pleasure you receive from cocaine is not a choice. It is not a decision. It is not a behavior. It is a chemical response to a foreign substance in the brain. You do not choose how you respond to cocaine. Just as you don't choose how you respond to the smallpox virus.

Alternately, if this is wrong, why aren't vaccines in GENERAL wrong? Who's to say my children don't WANT to catch smallpox when exposed to it? Why should I a certain response on them?

Now, if someone created a vaccine that made people not WANT to try cocaine (i.e. a drug that affected attitude / opinion towards illicit substances), THAT I would have problems with.
 
I kinda always liked the effects of Cocaine...

at least for the first few hours.

I felt like "God" himself.

Now, if someone could create a "Vaccine" that would stop the addiction

at this point? I vote yes!

I Haven't done coke in years, but the drug itself has good, and bad qualities........

I would hope, future generations get to try it out.

peace

p.s. time to order more spores
 
Seems to me that even before the first time somebody does a line of coke, they make a behavioral choice to seek it out... Correct me if I am wrong?

PETA ought to create a virus that makes you violently ill when you eat meat, then, if it is ethical to force use of this vaccine,*it ought to be ethical to force people to not eat meat with that virus.

And you know, colon cancer would be MUCH reduced, so there is a health justification for doin that.
 
The notion that drugs or all drugs are bad and should not be used is a highly political issue that many reasonable people can disagree on for a wide variety of reasons. For instance if the UK had done this in the 40s (which they might've if they could) would Sgt Pepper ever have been written?

This is another example of the fallacy that everything is meant to be perfect and right now too which ironically usually leads to extremely un-perfect consequences. Which reminds me of that Pink Floyd lyric "Did you ever wonder why we had to run for cover every time the promise of a brave new world unfurled before the clear blue sky?"

This provides a new extremely powerful category of ways that the government can hurt and control the people while offering no such equal empowerment to the people in return, like gunpowder did so it should be resisted because of the principle behind the 2nd amendment.

Zalbik said:
No, this vaccine is aimed at controlling involuntary response to certain stimuli.

The pleasure you receive from cocaine is not a choice. It is not a decision. It is not a behavior. It is a chemical response to a foreign substance in the brain. You do not choose how you respond to cocaine. Just as you don't choose how you respond to the smallpox virus.

Alternately, if this is wrong, why aren't vaccines in GENERAL wrong? Who's to say my children don't WANT to catch smallpox when exposed to it? Why should I a certain response on them?

Now, if someone created a vaccine that made people not WANT to try cocaine (i.e. a drug that affected attitude / opinion towards illicit substances), THAT I would have problems with.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bad idea. You don't want to innoculate yourself against certain stimulants. Some are useful.

INRM
 
Cocaine is a commonly used topical anasthetic, particularly valueable for ENT surgery, due to it's vasco-constrictive properties, which greatly reduces bleeding in tissues that contain larger amounts of blood vessels.

Would this vaccine have a negative impact on the anaesthetic and vasco-constrictive propeties of cocaine?
 
SteveGrenard said:
It was inevitable.

Pretty soon we will be able to get shots for just about everything we don't want or don't like,
The ethical issues not withstanding what is downside if say government or perhaps one's parents or teachers or jailers "don't want" something but the receipient themselves do?
Click to expand...

"Want"? Do you think that cocaine addicts are not really addicts, but can control their intake?

One such method for combatting substance abuse was invented 60 years ago - Antabus - yet, we have not seen any forced use on groups of alcoholics.

This is the exact same hysterical propaganda that leads some people to believe that vaccinations are bad. With lethal consequences.
 
I just hope this doesn't become compulsory for certain people, or everybody.

What limit will the government have on being able to inject us with stuff? I understand vaccines against viruses and stuff, but this is crazy.

INRM
 
Last edited:
I think it should be available openly for adults to take it if they feel they want to. Take me for example, I think the pleasure cocaine gives you is OK, nothing spectacular, and a load of bad side-effects to boot. So from my own experience of it.. to me the drug is stupid and expensive and luckily, I don't have an addictive personality to keep on doing it. If I was one of those people who didn't have any will power and had an addiction, I would run and get the vaccine! I know of many people who agree with me that the cocaine is overall a lame drug (the bad outweighs the good), and they still continue to do it because they just don't have any will power. So, I'm sure a lot of people can make use of the vaccine to help them stop.

BUT To administer the vaccine to kids and stuff.. that's a different issue. Just because you're stopping them from doing 1 drug, doesn't mean they're not gonna do something else. If somebody wants to get high, they're gonna find a way to do, even if they are immune or vaccinated against 1 (or even many) of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom