Slashdot Mirror


Cocaine Vaccine In the Works

martyros writes "Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine are performing clinical trials of a vaccine that teaches the immune system to attack cocaine, preventing it from giving a high. The vaccine is made by attaching inactivated cocaine molecules to the outside of inactivated cholera proteins. When the immune system attacks the cholera proteins, it also 'learns' the cocaine molecules as well. The result is that the immune system 'recognizes the potent naked drug when it's ingested. The antibodies bind to the cocaine and prevent it from reaching the brain, where it normally would generate the highs that are so addictive.'" An earlier story from The Star notes that human trials for vaccines against both cocaine and nicotine are well under way.

24 of 724 comments (clear)

  1. Analogs by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope this wundervacine will not attach to some of the body's natural painkillers.

    1. Re:Analogs by x_terminat_or_3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with your ``It`s my body and I fuck it up if I want to'' slogan, only from the point of view of the government, the reason they ban certain substances is that abuse of it leads to either a) illegal behavior because of the cost to keep you in ``business'', b) generates a significant increase in medical care due to after (side) effects of the abuse, c) a+b

      --
      Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. T. S. Eliot
    2. Re:Analogs by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "I agree with your ``It`s my body and I fuck it up if I want to'' slogan, only from the point of view of the government, the reason they ban certain substances is that abuse of it leads to either a) illegal behavior because of the cost to keep you in ``business'', b) generates a significant increase in medical care due to after (side) effects of the abuse, c) a+b"

      The thing is...if you de-criminalized drugs, you'd pretty much cut out "a", in that prices would drop as would profits currently being gained by criminal organizations. Remember prohibition on alcohol in the US? It prompted the rise of the gangs/mafia. Once it was over, well, I certainly don't see many people doing gangland violence over booze these days. Alcohol is just a drug like the others currently banned. It is a toxin that affects the brain.

      If we cut out the crime aspect of drugs, we'd save a TON of money in tax dollars each year supporting DEA, and the overcrowded prison system. We could concentrate a small portion of that money to help programs for addicts. Heck, like liquor...why not tax legal pot sales?

      Also, don't forget, it wasn't that long ago that any and ALL drugs were perfectly legal in the US. It was not the horrible effects of them that caused them to be banned either....most of them were banned in order to be able to use that to target ethnic groups in the US. Chinese - opiates, Blacks - Cocaine, Mexicans - Pot.

      Frankly, I'm still wondering where in the Constitution it gives the Feds. the right to say what drugs are illegal. At least when they tried to do it for alcohol, they did a constitutional amendment. No such thing has been done for "scheduling" of current chemicals (thanks Nixon).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Analogs by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well then why do we need lengthy prison sentences for drug use. Just make it so that drug related health problems are not covered. Then for those who commit other crimes while on drugs, well, we got laws against other crimes anyway. This would make it so that people who can handle casual drug use not be punished for other people inabilities to handle their drug use.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Analogs by colmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This argument is only valid if criminalization creates a large scale decline in usage. If the effect is only slight, then the many associated problems with criminalization are too great.

      Every law, currently enforced or not, is a right taken from the individual and given to the police. This shouldn't be done except in cases of overwhelming necessity. It would be a great day when the laws of the land were few enough to list by memory.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    5. Re:Analogs by Gospodin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't believe in vaccines personally.

      What does this mean exactly? You don't believe they exist? You don't believe they work?

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    6. Re:Analogs by jombeewoof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...There is a tiny bit of concern that it will be marginally "easier" to access at the street corner, but it is ALREADY quite easy... I would imagine that if drugs were decriminalized, it would be MUCH more difficult for children to get their hands on.
      Test it out yourself.
      Give any 14 year old in America $30, tell them to come back with either alcohol or illegal drugs whichever is easier to get.
      Guaranteed, they will bring back drugs 99% of the time.
      I've seen it in action hundreds of times over. It is much easier for children to get drugs than it is for them to get booze.

      I'm not saying it is impossible or even difficult to get booze, but it sure is easier to pick up something that is not regulated than it is to get something that is regulated.
      --
      Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
    7. Re:Analogs by jombeewoof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would place a heavy bet on the prison system being just as full if we legalized all drugs...some people are just leeches and will find some other way to earn a dishonest living. But those who are in prison for simple drug offenses, like possession of small amounts of controlled substances would not be there.
      That is a HUGE amount of people. The worst thing about that is, when they get out of prison they are in a much worse state than when they went in. Nobody will hire an ex-con. Not for anything other than shit work.

      --
      Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
    8. Re:Analogs by calyphus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Making the substances illegal inflates the costs associated with their use, increases side effects, and actually promotes experimentation if not long-term use. The argument for banning psychoactive substances has much less to do with actually protecting society (a valid reason) than a prudish restriction of individual freedom. Prohibition creates more problems while solving none.

      --


      The potato it is uninformed.
  2. Re:Possibly useful, but... by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ofcourse I won't. I wouldn't deny them the wonderful experience of highly addicting and dangerous drugs.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  3. Re:Possibly useful, but... by kieran · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would you vaccinate your child ?

    Or your employees? Or your signed artists?

  4. Gibson called it... by lwhalen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wasn't this a subplot of Neuromancer or something, where the main character was forcibly taken away from his various addictions by having his liver modified to not process the various chemicals?

    --
    gay
  5. Re:Yay! by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What makes you think "puritans" are behind this?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  6. Re:Possibly useful, but... by Total_Wimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would you vaccinate your child ?

    I doubt it would matter much. There's a lot of evidence that drug abusers will simply switch drugs when their drug of choice becomes unavailable.

    It's a real comfort to know that meth, oxy and alcohol abuse will still be available to our children after we save them from the scourge of cocaine.
  7. Not that sure about it. by teslar · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Here we have a vaccine which prevents you from getting high on cocaine. My first thought was "Interesting". My second was "Who would actually want it?" If I'm not a coke user, I won't need it. If I am a coke user, I won't want it. So TFA says it's for people who try to give up:

    "At some point, most users will give in to temptation and relapse, but those for whom the vaccine is effective won't get high and will lose interest."
    Well, fair enough, but I'm not sure it will do them any good.

    From what I understand about drug addiction and attempts to kick the habit, you won't just "lose interest", you'll be going through living hell for quite a while - your body is looking for something you're not giving it, it's going to be pretty mad at you. This is why people relapse - they remember the shiny happy times, ignore that bad bits about those times and it all looks so much better than what they're in at the moment, so they go back to their drug.

    If you use this vaccine, then that becomes impossible, you burn that bridge. But that doesn't remove the desire to be back on drugs, it just removes your favourite one from the list of possibilities. There's still plenty of others around and I think it's pretty safe to say that people who were going to relapse anyway will do so with or without the vaccine - the only thing that will change is the drug they'll use. So that'll be a statistic to look for: What percentage of people trying to give up Cocaine on this vaccine will end up on another drug? Compare this to a control group of people not on vaccine ending up going back to cocaine.
  8. I honestly can't see any positive use for this by damburger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm deadly serious.

    Used as an involuntary jab to fight the idiotic 'war on drugs' it is a clear violation of civil and cognitive liberty (I'm using that phrase more and more these days, not something I'm happy about). Used as part of a rehab programme, it kills the drug use without addressing the underlying weakness of character that created the addict. They are likely to fuck themselves up in some other way.

    There isn't always, and shouldn't always be, a quick fix.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:I honestly can't see any positive use for this by goldspider · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Used as an involuntary jab to fight the idiotic 'war on drugs' it is a clear violation of civil and cognitive liberty

      What the hell are you talking about? How is the availability of a vaccine a violation of anyone's rights?

      Used as part of a rehab programme, it kills the drug use without addressing the underlying weakness of character that created the addict.

      Or it could finally get an addicted person clean, after which he/she has no desire to put him/her self back in that state of dependency.

      I'm no fan of the "War on Drugs", but there is some really dumb hostility towards this development.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  9. Re:Possibly useful, but... by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You'll be getting the vaccination yourself as soon as your car and life insurance carrier requires you to submit to it or face double the fees. And once your employer demands it for employment. And once it's required for citizenship. And once you are placed on a "cause for suspicion" list simply for not being vaccinated.

  10. Re:Possibly useful, but... by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree that this sounds like a great thing, though I hope they don't follow this line of reasoning too far. It shouldn't be something for the parents to decide, otherwise you may get parents that decide they don't want their children to experience any kind of rush when doing dangerous sports, or decide that they block some naturally occurring highs because they don't want little eating lots of sweets, or getting knocked up. That's when the world starts to get creepy!

    --
    which is totally what she said
  11. Re:Possibly useful, but... by WaltBusterkeys · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't seem like the real market is in vaccinating children -- it's in people who are voluntarily trying to quit use of cocaine through rehab and therapy. If I had a monkey on my back, was trying to quit, and knew that I could relapse at any moment I'd be quite happy to get pharmacological help in quitting. It's the same as heroin addicts who are in rehab and want methadone or the new drugs that block the action of street drugs.

    In that case, it's great. You can argue about parents vaccinating their kids, but it's not clear that the vaccine would last long enough nor be priced right for it to be a routine part of kid therapy. But it could be a huge help for those who want to quit and fear relapse into addiction.*

    *-You can argue whether cocaine is highly physically addictive or just slightly physically addictive, but there's no denying that there are plenty of people who are (at least) psychologically addicted to powder or rock.

  12. Re:Mods on coke REALLY THIS TIME by afxgrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's because there's people who would rather see people who inject drugs die than see them receive any sort of help.

    Sometimes the simple act of injecting is a cry for help. Which can be very frustrating to those standing around watching shit unfold... because everyone feels helpless, and usually it has to do with an ex-significant other who is trying to get attention.

    If this vaccine, and vaccines like this are available, then those that are "crying help" will have no other option than to decide to take this vaccine. They asked for the help - well we'll fucking give it to them. And then they can stop threatening to off-themselves through overdose if their ex-significant other does leave themselves. At least they can make the choice to live or die completely sober.

  13. Re:I wouldn't do it. by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I realize that half of what I'm about to say doesn't have much to do with what you actually wrote in your post, but your post seems like a good place to write this response, seeing as you have a somewhat skewed view on what a drug is or is not.

    What do you think painkillers are? NOT drugs? Tell me, how is it that cannabis or shrooms (which grow ENTIRELY without human intervention) are considered drugs, and yet you wouldn't consider something manufacturered by a human in a laboratory to be a drug?

    Pain killers are drugs. DXM is a drug. Viagra is a drug. Anti-depressents are drugs. Novacaine is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. Alcohol is a drug. Hell, even caffeine is a drug. You can't honestly sit there and be ok with something made in a lab and not call it a drug, but be against something that grows naturally, has less side effects, and call it a drug. That's just insane.

    There is one thing you should realize...there is a big difference between a drug USER and a drug ABUSER. Be a user. Don't be an abuser.

  14. Or D by oncehour · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It conflicts with the business interests of a politician's donors.

  15. Re:Mods on coke REALLY THIS TIME by LrdDimwit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some vaccines -- you take it once, you're protected forever. Others wear off eventually. I'm not sure if this is due to the illness evolving, or whether the immune system 'forgets' certain antibodies over time.

    If this vaccine is permanent, expect to see it eventually being pushed into vaccination cocktails given to kids. Totally avoids the consent issue because the parents give consent, not the child. Whether this is a good idea or not, I couldn't say, but sooner or later someone at the DEA is gonna think of it.