Slashdot Mirror
Vaccinated Against Vices?
Smoke Me A Kipper writes "The Independent is reporting that the latest UK government sponsored quango, charged with looking at the problems of drug abuse, is to recommend a national anti-addiction 'vaccination' scheme. Apparantly, trials are already in progress. No details as to whether it would be mandatory. Personally I find such an idea utterly shocking - what happens when you find yourself injured in later life and morphine based painkillers no longer work? I wouldn't be surprised to find existing phamaceutical companies excited by this, having to replace cheap drugs with something new, which they can patent and control."
While this would be a good thing to give to, say, former drug addicts and such, I don't see why children need to be involved. Besides, whose to say it won't have harmful side effects that aren't seen until later?
The Two Commandments for the Molecular Age
Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy fellow men.
Thou shalt not prevent thy fellow man from altering his or her own consciousness.
What the fuck, vaccinating against drugs? What next, mandatory chemical castration? This is ridiculous. I'm already fed up enough with the endless war on drugs and now this. When will governments get it into their heads that prohibition doesn't stop anything. If you want to go do drugs fine. If you want to tell me not to do drugs, fine. Then to alter someone elses free will accordingly so? What if suddenly I told one of these anti-drug fanatics that something they enjoy doing is now illegal, no matter how "innocent" it seems. I don't think these people really care about the effects their actions have in the long run, as long as they have the delusion that they're in a safer place or what not.
You're all going to die, and so are your kids. Get over it.
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
See, I'm not sure that drug abuse is necessarily the sign of greater problems any more. I used to, but then I realised that almost every civilization that ever existed has invented several creative forms of getting wasted. Hell, even elephants and monkys have been known to get ripped to the tits on various forms of fermented sugars and berries.
If reality is so boring that even chimps can't stand it, what chance have we got?!
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
It's the usual quick-fix mentality. Instead of asking what problems cause people to turn to drugs (mental disease, poverty, social problems, etc.), a syringe is supposed to fix it. It's the same quick fix mentality that dominates so much of politics, and it's not going to work.
Instead of some people sedating their problems and imposing health care costs on everybody else, which is bad enough, you are going to have the same people doing something else self-destructive and probably even more destructive to others.
And for that quick fix, you risk several deaths a year from medical mistakes (wrong injection, infection, etc.) during vaccination, as well as unknown long-term consequences and the possibility that important future drugs won't work.
This is rather remarkable in that there is no discussion of the risks of such a treatment. Drugs generally work by either mimicking neurotransmitters themselves, mimicking their precursors, or by mimicking other chemicals that cause a release of neurotransmitters. This is true of both recreational drugs and prescription drugs like Prozac or Zoloft.
Cocaine, for instance, is known to work by effecting a massive release of dopamine into the brain, which is then reuptaken quickly, providing the high. Alcohol similarly effects a release of GABA (among other neurotransmitters), while GHB is actually a precursor to GABA itself and is converted thus in the brain.
It would seem to me that messing with the pathways through which any given drug actually works, unless it is almost impossibly specific, would mess with the normal operation of the brain. What's to say that a "vaccine" designed to prevent cocaine's method of activity won't prevent or at least diminish all such activity in the brain? Parkinson's Disease is caused at least partially by screwy dopamine levels in the brain. Who knows if injecting people with a virus that prevents rushes of dopamine won't affect the normal rushes of dopamine that occur during life, like after a particularly good orgasm or a 10K-run?
It just sounds like fucking with neurotransmitters, especially on a genetic level, is a recipe for disaster.
There is a good article about it here. Here are a few choice quotes.
"And, sure enough, in the late 30s and early 40s, in five really flamboyant murder trials, the defendant's sole defense was that he -- or, in the most famous of them, she -- was not guilty by reason of insanity for having used marijuana prior to the commission of the crime."
"Doctor, when you used the drug, what happened?" "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat."
"You know what the women testified? In Newark they testified, and I quote, "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette my incisor teeth grew six inches long and dripped with blood."
2004, and the madness still hasn't ended. Now we might even start vaccinating people so that they don't try out these demonic drugs. Jeez, someone get me off this damn planet.
You can't vaccinate against morphine ... it modulates ion channels which you would have to somehow remove
...and then you would have serious issues.
Yes you can. You can produce antibodies that bind the active parts of the appropriate drugs, or that bind to the receptors in ways that block them without activating them. These will reduce or eliminate the effect of the drug on the receptor.
Absolutely:
For starters, if it blocks the drugs, what do you want to bet that you'll also block the effects of the natural compounds. Then those vaccinated will be something like a drug addict in withdrawal FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. Everything would HURT. Just sitting around would hurt. Exercise would hurt more. Painkillers wouldn't work.
Imagine one of these kids in highschool - the worst of "whiny wimps" just sitting there. Sports would be agony. And that's before the unimunized jocks start beating on him to watch him squirm.
Then there are the feedback mechanisms modulating the number of receptors, production of neurotransmitters, and production of antibodies. The reduced performance of the neurotransmitter-receptor system will result in the increase in the number of receptors (already known to be part of the addiction mechanism) and/or the increase in the production of the neurotransmitter.
But with antibodies to naturally produced protiens, this could produce more stimulation of the immune system: More antibodies against the receptors. Inflamation (of the BRAIN!) in the affected sites. Possible immune cascade from the inflamation causing the production of antibodies to OTHER self-antigens, and a runaway autoimmune disease akin to a cross between Graves and Lupus.
Then there's the question of what this will do to other behavior. It's making a MAJOR change to the internal reward pathways of the brain. How will these people do in school? On the job? How will they respond to advertising? Political propaganda? Religious indoctrination?
There are indications that psycopathy is the result of a failure in an emotional pathway, leading to both loss of guilt feelings and risk-taking in an attempt to achieve any feeling at all. Is THIS the pathway in question? Will an "immunization" program raise the incidence of psychopathy from about 1% of the population to the bulk of it? Will we have a generation of used car salesmen, confidence men, gangsters, death-squad members, and political dictators?
Or is it NOT the same pathway, but one that produces some OTHER pathology when it fails? Will we find ourselves with a generation of some OTHER, formerly-rare, pathological stereotype as the bulk
of our population?
Fooling around with something as basic as the reward hardware of the mind is NOT something you can do and expect no undesirable side-effects.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Oh come on this is such a joke. Im not scared for a second that this would ever happen. There are always wackos around who come up with totally fundamentalist/totalitarian/insane ideas that you never hear about again. This country isnt as big-brother as you think, we might not have a bill of rights (but we do have the data protection act and drinking at 18), but the people here have a common sense (usually) attitude, and its always ok to dislike the government (ive yet to see a patriotic flag-waving person who thinks Blair is the greatest and we should back him all the way). One thing we do have allot of is mad scientists: Professor David Nutt, speaks for itself really.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The principle reason that drugs are peddled in the manner that they are is because they are illegal. It's a very lucrative black economy the dealers have going on there. Massive amounts of untracable cash. So you try your best to get little Johnny hooked, and he keeps coming back to you like a rat to a feeder bar. By the time he gets so out of control that he is apprehended, he's too far out of his gourd to even provide applicible data about you to the authorities. All the while you're laughing all the way to the proverbial bank.
Make it legal, force clean production (like tattoo parlors, for example), and tax it. The gov't will make money, lower the SHIT out of the crime rate not by making drugs legal, but by disassociating money with drugs and I can almost guarantee the rate of addiction will go down. People like doing illegal things. Life is pretty fucking boring when you're broke, dead end job, creditors railing on your ass. People turn to relentless drug use. I blame society. I know PLENTY of people that can handle doing a few lines of coke every now and again. But they're criminals, even though they are just having a good time, on their own, and not causing problems. In this day and age, however, many people automatically assume drug use == bad person. I also know plenty of people who started drinking/smoking/other shit SIMPLY because it's illegal. So, logic says to eliminate the artificial reason. People are gonna do what they want when they want. It can't be stopped, so why not play into it and stop making people criminals?
Also, the person who mentioned "A Clockwork Orange" is dead on. Controlling behaviour is the absolute WORST way to get around problems. It's a bandaid, nothing more. Governments should strive to create a society where people won't have to turn to criminal behaviour to meet their needs. Not to make everyone a lab rat.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
I blame society.
:)
:)
Please, tell me you're joking!
(rant mode on)
The collapse of a democratic nation begins with the abdication of responsibility. All this "Society is to blame" crap is just so much bullshit.
Every single person is responsible for where they are. Yes, shit happens. Yes, bad luck happens. Yes, there's the lure of "escape" (be it drugs, booze, sex, religion, movies, role playing, slashdot, whatever). Next thing you know, it's too hard to get up in the morning. You can't face life without a bong hit. Everything's out to get you. Why vote - it makes no difference. You're calling in the cops to discipline your child. It's never your fault.
But get this straight right now. Society is NEVER to blame. People are to blame. People who take the easy way out and don't take responsibility for where they're at.
Remember - shit doesn't just "happen" - it comes from assholes
(rant mode off - sorta
Sorry mate - not meaning to dump on you specifically - I just really hate that "Society is to blame" way of avoiding responsibility.
I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...
My favorite part was talking about "spiraling addiction."
This is pretty much directly linked to Britain's rise in amphetamine interdiction raids. Amphetamines and cocaine are often used interchangeably, depending on market rate. When they start busting more cocaine, you'll see a rise in amphetamine use, with the re-emergence of mainlining amphetamines ("speed") - on par with crack cocaine.
My other favorite part:
Perhaps it would be better to say that the cost of the drug war is 12+ bn pounds a year. The only way to know the cost of drug addiction would be to know the approximate number of addicts and the approximate yearly public cost of a legal addict.
Oh, that's right: Britain does* have those numbers. There used to be a program for distributing legal heroin to addicts in Britain, and the entire program was quite cheap. Certainly not 12 billion pounds a year: heroin maintenance wasn't even a major budget issue.
What have the pharmas cured in the past 50 years?
No... For the past 50 years they've been concentrating on *treatment* not *cures*. Because they don't want a one time sale... they want an annuity.
If Salk hadn't of cured Polio when he did, we wouldn't have a cure for it.... nope, we'd have a dozen different drugs to allow people to live better with it.
--Rob
I saw a standup comic who gave several good examples of irony after a few minutes' criticism directed at Alanis Morrissette. The one I recall best is,
Irony is naming an airport after the president who fired all the air traffic controllers.
Mom says my