Vaccine Could Cut Heroin Addiction

JumperCable writes "Scientists at Mexico's National Institute of Psychiatry are working on a vaccine that makes the body resistant to the effects of heroin, so users would no longer get a rush of pleasure. The researchers say they have successfully tested the vaccine on mice and are preparing to test it on humans. Mice given the vaccine showed a huge drop in heroin consumption. 'It would be a vaccine for people who are serious addicts, who have not had success with other treatments and decide to use this application to get away from drugs.'"

Comments

U.S. needs this for national security

[elrous0]

We must close the heroin vaccine gap with Mexico before the Lohans attack again!

Re:U.S. needs this for national security

[mwfischer]

I'm not sure if I should mod that as Insightful or Funny... I'll post to the thread instead.

Re:U.S. needs this for national security

[Forty Two Tenfold]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine

Re:U.S. needs this for national security

[jones_supa]

Indeed, posting to a thread works as a vaccine that will resist you from the rush of pleasure of modding if you can't control it.

Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

How about (assuming it's safe) we forcibly administer it to anyone caught committing a crime while addicted to heroin?

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Aladrin]

It'll be a long time before we can be sure it's safe.

However, it could be offered as a way to cut their sentence, or as part of their rehab. I'd fully support them having the option.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[pegr]

Since you have no problem with violating human rights, why not just kill addicts? Perhaps eugenics is your thing.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

I gave the qualifier "if it is safe", so I think I'm in pretty good shape. Under that qualifier, it is far less of a "violation of human rights" to vaccine against heroin than to lock a human being in a cage for several years, wouldn't you say? Isn't that exactly what prison is, which is the normal "treatment" for the criminal class? What would you propose doing with criminals that doesn't involve "violating their human rights"? Inviting them to tea parties and giving them crumpets?

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Hatta]

Yes, that's exactly what they plan to do.

When do we get a vaccine to money that we can forcibly administer to our politicians? This is the far more dangerous addiction.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Rogerborg]

Godwin'd!

USians enjoy a "human right" to liberty. You may have noticed that it has limits though.

Likewise, you usually enjoy the right to refuse medical treatment, but I'm fine with your right to do that ending when you steal my TV to buy your next fix.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[wvmarle]

I am quite positive - considering the fact that there are people voluntarily entering rehab - that many drug addicts have moments where they are quite sober, and actually want to quit. Those moments probably last only until their bodies start to demand more: heroin is largely notorious for the strong physical addiction. This of course in combination with the fantastic high an addict experiences, the reason they use it to begin with of course.

Physical withdrawal is a major issue. Methadone is given as replacement, I'm not sure whether it's really less physically destructive but at least it's provided free/legal so an addict has a way out of the criminal world. Methadone is typical for people so addicted that cold turkey would kill them, that's at least pretty much what I've been told. Getting them clean is the best of course. Heroin is simply nasty.

This withdrawal effect is what TFA does not address. Does it lessen the effects? Make it easier to go through it? We probably will only know following human trials.

Getting the person "immune" to the effects is of course a good start, when (not if) they try again after coming out clean they don't have the rush, so the psychological part is cut off at least.

The next question (assuming it's tested and found safe) is going to be: will we vaccinate the whole population? Make it part of children's vaccination schedule? Now that could help in winning the "war on drugs". Take away the market!

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[travdaddy]

Better yet, how about we add it to the infant vaccinations? (assuming it's safe)

OK, I'm kidding, that seems very wrong. But don't doubt that it will be a controversy for real if this thing works.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[CrzyP]

Also, as the /. blurb, wouldn't this just increase the consumption for addicts since they cannot get the high they're looking for with "normal" doses, they would just increase the dosage. Right? "..makes the body resistant to the effects of heroin, so users would no longer get a rush of pleasure when they smoked or injected it." So they are still addicted and will feel the withdrawal effects and will then start smoking/injecting more of the substance.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[DarkOx]

Right opiates work by bonding to chemical receptors in the brain. If a vaccination makes one non-responsive IV opiate drugs like heroin then it must be making significant and lasting changes to neural chemistry. Who knows what all affects that might result in, given or still limited understanding of the brain?

I don't think conviction of a non capital crime should permit the state to make permanent changes to persons body. That is slippery slope our society needs to stay the heck away from. I really think no matter how good an idea it might seem, no matter how many people it might "help" we really need to agree that there are lines we just won't cross because they run counter to the character of our society.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[BlueParrot]

How about (assuming it's safe) we forcibly administer it to anyone caught committing a crime while addicted to heroin?

Forced medical procedures is unlikely to be considered constitutional. There's also quite a few international treaties dealing with this kind of thing. You might be able to justify it as a forced treatment for addicts that are mentally ill and unable to make their own decisions, but even then it would have to be for the benefit of the patient.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[blahbooboo]

Right opiates work by bonding to chemical receptors in the brain. If a vaccination makes one non-responsive IV opiate drugs like heroin then it must be making significant and lasting changes to neural chemistry. Who knows what all affects that might result in, given or still limited understanding of the brain?

And those same receptors are used legitimately to reduce pain while sick or recovering from injury. If this is non-reversable that's a whole class of pain killers not available to these people later on in their lives.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[jbeaupre]

No. A heroin vaccine, like the cocaine vaccine, is designed to train the immune system to launch a very targeted attack against a specific molecule surface. Not by altering or interfering with pathways or receptors or neurotransmitters. Generally the target region for the antibody is not the same as the portion of the molecule that triggers receptors.

Also, we damn near force babies and small children to get vaccinations. Chances are if we don't give the injection to addicts, we'll be giving it to kids as a form of prevention.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Pennidren]

Jail sentences are usually not for life. Perhaps we should also just castrate sex offenders instead of jailing them?

I am ok with giving an offender the option (maybe vaccine instead of jail time or fore reduced jail time), but forcing a person to permanently destroy a conduit of pleasure sounds too Clockwork Orange-y for my taste.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[KermodeBear]

Wish I hadn't used all my mod points yesterday; this is a really good point.

This is a vaccine that can't be applied to people without some serious supervision. An addict under withdrawal who is desperate for a fix may very easily use deadly amounts of the drug.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[maple_shaft]

If a vaccination makes one non-responsive IV opiate drugs like heroin then it must be making significant and lasting changes to neural chemistry. Who knows what all affects that might result in, given or still limited understanding of the brain?

Something tells me that people who willfully take heroin, ecstacy or similar drugs for pleasure are not all too concerned about significant and lasting changes to their neural chemistry.

I don't think conviction of a non capital crime should permit the state to make permanent changes to persons body. That is slippery slope our society needs to stay the heck away from. I really think no matter how good an idea it might seem, no matter how many people it might "help" we really need to agree that there are lines we just won't cross because they run counter to the character of our society.

Agreed, however I think it is important that society makes the choice available. What good is our freedom and liberty if the society in which we live does not allow for or offer the opportunities and range of choices that allow for us to implement or freedoms and liberties?

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

forcing a person to permanently destroy a conduit of pleasure sounds too Clockwork Orange-y for my taste.

Treating heroin as a "conduit of pleasure" worthy of respect sounds too hippie for my taste, so we're about even. :)

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Hentes]

(and by drug I mean the medication not heroin)

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

What's the difference between someone who is mentally ill and commits crimes, versus someone whose heroin addiction causes them to commit crimes? You could regard curing a heroin addiction as morally the same thing as curing a mental illness. At least in the case of convicted criminals -- just as the state doesn't necessarily force any treatment on peaceful "naturally" psychotic people.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[SuricouRaven]

You'd just run into the Little Angel effect, same as with the HPV vaccine. Parents will refuse to have their kids vaccinated, because they are confident their little angel of a child would never be lured into drug abuse - and any attempt to say other wise will be taken as a personal attack on their parenting abilities.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[RKBA]

Although I can't cite you an example offhand, I'm pretty sure a few sex offenders have voluntarily asked to be castrated in lieu of a long jail sentence. Yes, it's too Clockwork Orange-y for my taste also, but we are entering a new dark age where things are similar to those in Kubrick's movie and Orwell's book 1984 (ie; a Fascist police state). The United States Constitution essentially no longer exists and is universally ignored. Most of the people who graduate from today's government education camps can barely read and have never read the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Have you? Has anyone?

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[maple_shaft]

Methadone is typical for people so addicted that cold turkey would kill them, that's at least pretty much what I've been told.

That may have been the intent originally, but you have unfortunately been told wrong.

As someone who is related to a few heroin addy's, one ex-addy, they typically tell me that methadone feels in many ways like a more powerful drug and it is indeed more addictive than heroin itself. The point of the methadone clinic is that they would rather have you on a controlled substance that is more powerful and addictive, but is dosed and quality controlled correctly than having people buy heroin off the street. Remember, heroin was invented to be the cure for morphine addiction!

This is all well and good but when you are addicted to heroin, then it is possible to be physically and mentally freed of that addiction through hard work, dedication, committment, and a LOT of time. One friend of mine was able to do this despite the fact that he was repeatedly told that it can't be done and that his only option was methadone.

They purposely try to convince you that you are not strong willed enough without methadone simply because it is cheaper and easier to treat hundreds of addicts by dispensing methadone than it is through extended rehab, therapy and a strong social support group.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[TheCarp]

Well for starters, stop calling them "criminals". This "crime" exists only in the law. It has no victim. In fact, the law has victims, the users.

The law has driven up the price. Where there were once a few addicts who popped pills, or smoked some opium, we now have IV drug users. Where the worst people used to be was a bit lazy and checked out, we now have desperate people commiting petty crimes to get by. This is the result of the prohibition not the drug.

The evidence keeps mounting that prohibition is the cause of the real issues. Yet, the drug users are still the criminals, and not the politicians and cops who created this situation. Some areas report 50% of burn victims are the result of meth labs. Meth labs that exist only because of prohibition. 50% of burn victims are victims of prohibition. How many of those thousands of people would still have ended up there? 1 or 2? If that!

The majority of the problem is the situation. Blaming people for playing the game as it is set up for them is ridiculous. The law created the situation, the blame resides in only one place...bad policy making.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[alexborges]

Yeah, why not?

Although I could ask: for what purpose?

Most crimes are not commited by people addicted to heroin. Most heroin addicts do not commit crimes to feed their addiction and then, most that do both, almost are never caught.

You need to cut down on the Nixon's War on Drugs kool-aid.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Pennidren]

Instead of attacking the heroine aspect, examine this from a more objective stance. What is your (society-perceived) vice and who has the right to take it away from you?

Imagine a day where insurance companies can deny you coverage because you haven't had the "cigarette/alcohol/fatty-foods vaccine".

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Anonymous Coward]

well then it is a good thing?

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[umghhh]

I think tea party is already full of criminals or criminal bigots so inviting more criminals would not change much or.....

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[alexborges]

This is stupid. Doing heroin shouldnt even be illegal.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[bsquizzato]

At first I was thinking that as well. But notice it says that mice given the vaccine consumed less heroin. I would believe the mice were addicted too. If they consumed less, perhaps they weren't experiencing severe withdrawal either.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Pennidren]

It is the OP's "forcibly administered" that I take issue with. Voluntary options for reduction of sentence is more tolerable.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[umghhh]

you exaggerate a bit and if a real s. offender wants a 'treatment' then why not? If it helps of course. Not sure if that only would help.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

Well for starters, stop calling them "criminals".

How about for starters, you stop making assumptions. I didn't say anything about the "crime" of possessing heroin, which would end up as sort of a circular legal argument, as you point out. I was actually talking about serious crimes that affect other people.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[wvmarle]

methadone feels in many ways like a more powerful drug and it is indeed more addictive than heroin itself.

That I have heard more. At least as addictive, if not more addictive, but then I've also been told that methadone doesn't give anything near as good a high as heroin does, and as a result many junks that are on methadone treatment still also use heroin.

In a way I think it's a pity that they had to make heroin illegal, and not morphine and methadone, so heroin can not be used medically. As I understand it's a better pain killer than morphine - and about as addictive - so for severe cases it may have good medical uses. It remaining a controlled substance is not bad as such (after all tobacco and alcohol are also controlled substance - and so are methadone and morphine).

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Curunir_wolf]

Since you have no problem with violating human rights, why not just kill addicts?

That might be considered cruel and unusual. But note the OP was talking about people convicted of a crime. When that happens, your rights are forfeit by having violated the rights of others, being provided due process to prove that, and you are subject to sanctions. Human rights are afforded only to people that respect others' rights.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

I was careful to qualify my controversial suggestion by restricting it to (a) if the vaccine were known to be safe, and (b) application to criminals under the influence of heroin. By "criminals" I mean people who commit serious offenses, and I'm not just talking about heroin possession, which would be sort of a circular legal argument.

My vices have nothing to do with commission of serious crimes against others, therefore your examination is based on a false equivalence. Conversely, people who commit serious crimes against others forfeit many of their natural human rights -- we lock them in cages and take away their freedom. Safely taking away their heroin addiction could in many cases be a lesser violation of their natural rights than a prison sentence, and in the opinion of probably most of society, would in fact be doing them a favor.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[demonlapin]

If it works against heroin (which is just fat-soluble morphine; it's deacetylated as soon as it enters the brain and the active ingredient is morphine that results), it also works against morphine and codeine. Which means that it may work against any semisynthetic opioid.

If so, all you'll have left is fentanyl, which is a very, very dangerous recreational drug. Also, it would be a disaster for acute pain control.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Pennidren]

I wouldn't say you were all that careful with your qualifications initially. You said "caught committing a crime while addicted to heroin". Not "criminals" or serious crime.

But qualify further, by all means - you definitely sound more reasonable now. I still disagree with your main point, which is that it is a lesser violation of their "natural" rights. It may be a more convenient solution for our society, though.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[eisonlyme]

I'm up for all science solutions like this to help addicts. I grew up in a neighbourhood surrounded by heroin, meth and you name it addictions. It was ruining most peoples lives and most wanted to get rid of it. This reminds me a little of Gattaca, building in 'options' that make you less likely to be addicted to anything. If they continue with addiction vaccines I would be happy for my children to be vaccinated as my family has many addictions that I would hope my kids never fell in to. I would hate to see them end up like this just because they experimented at some stage in their life and this could greatly reduce that. Will be interested to see how much it helped human subjects. I also think something like this may one day end up mandatory for those who have been convicted and sent to rehab...step one on the rehab path, get your vaccine...

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[demonlapin]

heroin, ecstacy or similar drugs

Those drugs are so wildly different that I can only take your statement to mean that you think anyone who gets drunk expects "significant and lasting changes to their neural chemistry", since they have as much in common with alcohol as they do with each other.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[demonlapin]

Opioid withdrawal is highly unpleasant but not physically dangerous in itself. As for addictiveness, it's easier to quit heroin than nicotine.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Dunbal]

Methadone is typical for people so addicted that cold turkey would kill them

This is not true. No one dies from opiod withdrawal. Oh sure you FEEL like you're going to die, and I'm sure some have comitted suicide because of this. But the withdrawal itself is relatively harmless unless you already have severe circulatory problems (some patients can develop hypertension in the first few days).

Benzodiazepine (like valium, ativan, etc) (seizures), alcohol (seizures, hypoglycemia, arrhythmias) and cocaine (long QT syndrome leading to fatal arrhythmia) withdrawal can all kill you. But not opioids. Your whole body will ache, you will have the shits, you will feel like you are on fire, your head will feel like it is exploding and you will feel like you have a cold and be coughing like crazy. But you won't die.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[wbr1]

Really.. some places in the US sentence people to chemical castration, that causes permanent effects too. We have already crossed that line.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[pegr]

Read the Wiki link. I'm sure the forced sterilizations of the early to mid 20th century were "safe". Didn't make them right.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Air-conditioned cowh]

To see such significant and lasting changes to neural chemistry, just type "alcohol brain scan" without the quotes into a picture search engine.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[nospam007]

"If they consumed less, perhaps they weren't experiencing severe withdrawal either."

Jumping to conclusions.
Perhaps they were just as high as before, just with less heroin.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea? ... and who's fault is it that they started using heroin to begin with? Are you saying they shouldn't be subject to the consequences for their choices?

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[The Askylist]

Hell, why not?

It's not as though "chemical castration" was used as a "cure" for homosexuality only a few decades ago, and contributed to the suicide of Alan Turing, is it?

A far better solution to heroin addiction is providing clean, known strength heroin by prescription to those who choose to indulge, while giving them help coming off the stuff.

This vaccine is a pretty neat trick, but until it's been studied and tested then prescription heroin is the best solution, followed a long way behind by methadone, and with the "war on drugs" being the absolute worst.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

addiction is the problem, not prohibition

addiction creates an interrupt switch in your mind that prevents you from maintaining productive work and relationships

i understand the problems with prohibition. what i don't understand is why some people, such as yourself, seem completely oblivious as to what addiction is, what it means, and what it does to people's lives, completely independently of any other causes and effects on this issue

if you can't speak meaningfully on the subject of addiction, you really should stop commenting on the subject of drug use

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[The Askylist]

+1 - and I'm speaking from experience.

Hell, I'm nearly 50 and still can't quit cigarettes, but quit a smack habit 30 years ago with only a couple of weeks of sweating, random limb movements and generally feeling like death warmed up.

Now if we could find a vaccine against stupidity, maybe we would be able to kick the "war on drugs" habit.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[ColdWetDog]

It might be specific enough to recognize heroin as opposed to the other opiates. Remember, this is a proof-of-concept experiment, not a commercial product.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

I still disagree with your main point, which is that it is a lesser violation of their "natural" rights.

I'm interested in the thought process that leads you to that conclusion. If you had to choose between a decade or two in the Big House versus getting a shot that will keep you from enjoying heroin for the rest of your life (with no other side effects), which would you choose? Why do you see the shot as a bigger violation of your natural rights?

I know people who have spent time in prison, and it really messes people up. I'm not saying it isn't necessary, because violence, murder and theft are rightly intolerable to our society -- but it's still sad that it is necessary.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[DrSkwid]

Why not just give them heroin ?
Then they wouldn't need to commit crimes to get it.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Ricwot]

Paedophiles probably should be castrated, given that their drive is biologically driven. If you kill their sex drive then they're less likely to be a threat.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Ricwot]

Which leads to the magical moment in your child's life when they develop cervical cancer. I know, beautiful, isn't it.

HPV isn't even a drug abuse thing. It's not even a 'depraved' sexuality thing. It's just something that's highly likely to happen to someone who wants to make sure they're compatible with the person they have children with.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[demonlapin]

Have you tried another nicotine delivery device? They're all safer than tobacco cigarettes. Emphysema, chronic back pain, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease... all much more common in smokers. People always act like lung cancer is the reason to quit. Chronic pain and air hunger are far, far better reasons.

BTW, good luck whenever you decide to try to kick it.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[gknoy]

To be fair, the odds of someone voluntarily taking heroin is a lot lower than the odds of someone accidentally being exposed to polio, rubella, etc. Heroin use is something that can partially be avoided by education (e.g., I've never taken such things, have never been tempted, and recoil in horror at the thought of it), whereas you have little control over whether the things you touch have been coughed on or touched by sick people. (Unless you're Adrian Monk, I suppose.)

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Ricwot]

My philosophy has alway been that I will never take heroin, not because it's bad, but because it will be better than anything I've ever experienced, and I'll no longer be able to live the life I do.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[maple_shaft]

Yes, very different drugs, but ecstasy has a similarity with heroin to where it overloads and fries the pleasure centers of the brain to put in lay terms. But thank you for that astute observation Etymology Man. http://xkcd.com/1010/

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Pennidren]

It is the forcible administration of the shot that is the greater violation. A shot to avoid 10-20 years? Yes, I would take the shot in such a case. Others may not choose the same and I would like to preserve their ability to choose.
I am also worried about future implications. I think most people would take the heroine shot, but that's just what is (possibly) possible today. Will we soon have different drug usage (or other behavior patterns) we will be able to curb?

My main point is just this: An individual's mind/nervous system is possibly the most personal thing they possess, and from my perspective forcible permanent alternation of its state is something akin to rape. I am not of the mind that serious criminals have the same full set of rights as non-criminals, but there are limits to what should be inflicted on even the worst people.

Incarceration is a terrible thing and I am sure it often changes people in a negative way, permanently. Maybe it is worse than changing someone through chemical means. We've never had the ability to study which is "worse" until now.
Despite its horrors, the fact is that prison has been the most accepted means of punishment by society for a long time. Perhaps that is only because the technology required to build a "cage" is so low. We definitely should be exploring new options, so this kind of research is in the right general direction. Still, I am not sure I will ever be comfortable with a punishment system based upon forcible permanent mind alteration, and it certainly isn't something I think we should be leaping to embrace.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[couchslug]

Their choice, and the spectacularly expensive alternative of the War on Some Drugs is far more damaging.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[SuricouRaven]

HPV runs into the little angel effect because it's transmitted sexually. Not through any unusual practice, just plain old-fashioned heterosexual sex. Or oral, that works too. The problem is that a lot of parents are quite insistant that their daughter* is going to be a perfect Christian and would never have sex with anyone except for her lifelong husband, who will also practice a similar abstinance until the wedding night. Many parents have this expectation, but very few of those children will meet it.

*The vaccine isn't approved for males. Not yet, anyway.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Anonymous Coward]

This can't be safe. It's literally impossible.

Rather, this is cruel and unusual punishment, and is prohibited by the US constitution and international law. It in fact is much more of a violation of human rights than locking someone in a prison cell. That's assuming you can even find a victim to make this worthy of punishment.

You (yes, every one of you) synthesize and use opiates every day, in the form of opioid peptides (dynorphin, enkephalin, endomorphin). You may even eat things that block enkephalinase, making these opioid substances last longer. They are critical to proper somatic function, and have been described thoroughly as such in the literature.

Heroin (diacetylmorphine) and other strong opiates (synthetic and naturally derived) are used every day in palliative care to alleviate intolerable, intractable, suicide-provoking pain for the terminally ill.

Do you actually support forcing someone to take this substance, thus ensuring they'll meet their end years later screaming in agony and begging for death? Do you support forcibly and permanently defeating a person's own pain modulation system? Are you against human dignity in general, or just not thinking things through?

This isn't a vaccine, because vaccines (i) actually have a health benefit; (ii) don't cause permanent and substantial psychological changes; and (iii) are generally recognized as safe.

Freedom from forced psychotropic modification is a fundamental human right. Humans have a god-given right to possess and use the opiate receptors in their brain.

You have no right to force *anyone* to do this, ever. Doing so would put you on the same level as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, or the WWII atrocities.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Hatta]

Imprisonment for asserting ones right to biochemical self determination is itself a violation of human rights.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

Maybe we're talking about different things, which is really to be expected in this case since we're all wildly extrapolating based on early results from one study. I think you are thinking about some kind of powerful, general mind alteration that's forced on an unwilling criminal. I on the other hand am envisioning a vaccine with a very narrow focus that just affects the criminal's future ability to enjoy heroin, and nothing else. He would be exactly the same person in the future, just without any heroin enjoyment.

As far as being comfortable with historical punishment systems, I'm a little torn on that. On the one hand, I definitely have a conservative "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude toward social mores. On the other hand, our remote ancestors have done a terrifically lousy job of implementing criminal justice systems (e.g. capital punishment for thieves).

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[tgibbs]

No, if this works like other vaccines being developed against addictive drugs, the antibodies would bind to the heroin molecule itself, leaving the receptors untouched. And since endogenous opiates are structurally very different, and since antibodies have limited access to the brain, it would not affect the action of endogenous opiates.

The one real drawback that I can think of is that if the vaccine immunized against all opiates, then it would be hard to get effective pain relief with opiates in somebody who has been vaccinated. Of course, it is hard to get effective pain relief in opiate addicts anyway, due to resistance, so this may not be as big a drawback as it seems. On the other hand, if it did not immunize against the entire family, then addicts probably would just switch to a different opiate.

It is unlikely that this kind of treatment would be compulsory, although if effective it might be offered as an alternative to incarceration to addicts found guilty of opiate-related crimes. And I think that there are many people who would choose it voluntarily to help them stay off of opiates.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Pennidren]

"...just affects the criminal's future ability to enjoy heroin, and nothing else. He would be exactly the same person in the future, just without any heroin enjoyment"
For a true heroine addict, removing the enjoyment of heroine is not leaving them "exactly the same" and affecting "nothing else", because heroine has become pervasive to who they are. One could argue that it just returns them to their pre-heroine, "good/clean" state, though I am not sure that would be true. But one could also argue that it changes them for the better vs. being an addict, and that's probably true overall (in the heroine case).

But yes, we are talking in different directions. You are saying this one case is okay, I am worried about implications. Like a "gateway" drug, this could be a "gateway" punishment, which is the only reason I am being devil's advocate.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[chilvence]

Imagine a day where insurance companies can deny you coverage because you haven't had the "cigarette/alcohol/fatty-foods vaccine".

Hah, if those things existed, then anyone with problems related to them wouldn't think twice about getting the vaccine, they wouldn't need encouragement. Some things are hard to stop because they involve fighting with yourself, its not like anyone actually wants to be a fat wheezy alcoholic. Addiction is a corruption of the impulses that under normal circumstances would actually be harmless, if there weren't artificial products out there that hijack them.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Golddess]

Though I disagree with doing such a thing, that seems to me to be the only thing that would make sense. Give it to people before they are an addict, then when they try the stuff and find that "eh, this isn't so great", they stop. Give it to someone who is already an addict, and suddenly you've got someone who is even more desperate to get their fix.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think they throw drug addicts in jail? That's funny.

My sister-in-law was convicted of identity theft to support her heroin addiction; she got 2 years home arrest. She never went for the bracelet, they caught up wither her 18 monthes later, they made her wear the bracelet for four monthes.

The caught her after 18 monthes, because the police officer say her driving and new she was not eligible for a driver's license due to a number of driving without a license convictions. They didn't charge her with that nor the four heroin balloons in her purse. When she bailed out (being held for not getting the home confinment bracelet), they gave her back the purse with herion in it.

Since then, they have caught her at least 10 times in a vehicle with heroin and the most they have done is make her call some one else to drive the vehicle home. They've never confiscated the drugs, nothing. One time, she was parked at a gas station, shooting up, with her kid in the back seat, all he did was tell her to have some one come drive the vehicle at least a block so he wouldn't be liable. No written report, no call to children services (my sister-in-law is trying to get custody of the kid, so some paper work or a children-service referral would have been helpful).

Two years ago, the DEA caught her; they threatened to put her away in hard prison is she didn't roll on the dealers. She absolutely refused to, they gave her 48 hours to think it over, it came and went and they did nothing. Its now been over 2 years (which we were told is the statue of limitations for them to act) and they've done nothing. So every day we worry about my nephews safety, except for a bunch of driving without a license and three of four identity theft convictions, there's no record of her drug addiction.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Pennidren]

"its not like anyone actually wants to be a fat wheezy alcoholic"

Sure, but people love to eat tasty things and get a buzz. Point is, I think there are plenty of people that society might label "addicts" that are just fine with their addiction level. I am concerned with society imposing its will on individuals even more than is already the case.
I am all for the existence addiction-curbing products to help those that want to quit; I know it is hard.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[ajlisows]

Well, there are multiple types of Opioid receptors. Typically you can expect the "Delta" receptors to be the ones that are bound to to provide analgesic effects on a person. The "Mu" receptors are the ones that cause Euphoria and such. Technically, if you are able to "vaccinate" against the Mu and not the Delta you shouldn't have this problem. I think drugs like Bupenorphine (for lower end drug users) basically bind to the Mu receptors without actually stimulating them. Can't remember for sure though.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

The temptation to engage in speculative ad hominem in this discussion is really strong. I will, however, not succumb to it. (Pats self on back.)

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[TheCarp]

I am not oblivious, I am saying its not up to you, or anyone else to engineer the society that you want. You want to use state power to go after violent acts, more power to you, but just to make the society you want? No way. I do not consent. Keep your laws off my, and everybody elses bodies, they don't belong there....and they are getting quite bloodied that way.

Drug use and addiction is a personal medical matter. A matter for families, a matter for doctors and counselling. It is not a matter for police and courts.

There is plenty of evidence that addiction, while it is a problem, is not as big a problem as you are making it out to be. Addicts hold down jobs, addicts do all sorts of normal every day things. Addiction is a bigger problem for some than others and all of the problems of addiction are made worst by prohibition.

So are you saying not a single alcoholic out there is in a loving relationship? Not a single tobacco smoker? Not a single heroin addict? Really? I call bulshit. Extreme cases, sure. However those cases are made worst by prohibition too.

You think opiate addiction was as bad before IV use? Before opium was squeezed out of the market for stronger and cheaper to transport drugs? You really think opium addiction is anywhere near as debilitating as IV heroin use? Maybe next you will tell us how oral amphetamine use is exactly the same as oral use too.

I am all for helping people who need and want it.... but when you just come up with excuses to decide someone doesn't deserve to make decisions for themselves because you applied some blanket label to them, I have an issue with that.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[demonlapin]

to put in lay terms.

Oh, don't do that on account of me. By all means, describe "overloads and fries the pleasure centers of the brain" professionally. I'll just go make some popcorn.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[TheCarp]

I think you are asking entirely the wrong questions. No, legality doesn't directly matter to the addict. However, it matters to the supply chain that brings him his drugs. Legality is why heroin and OCs are available, and opium and codine are not. Many addicts would choose safer drugs and other routes of administration if they had the option.

Even the swiss heroin study shows addicts can hold down jobs if the heroin is provided to them at a price similar to what we would expect it to be on an open market. They didn't even explore the real situation that would develop if not for prohibition.

Wouldn't it be better if he never picked up a needle? What about the 50% of burn victims who are there because of incompetent meth production? Wouldn't their lives be better if they could have bought a bottle of pills at a reasonable price?

Addiction is a problem, but its a problem magnified by prohibition. How much faster could addiction be dealt with without stigma? If a person could say to his doctor or family "yah Ive been taking alot of this lately". Alcoholism is bad enough but at least people can admit to it and talk about it.

Would his life have been improved by jail time? Maybe getting HIV sharing needles in jail? Sharing needles, another great tradition caused by prohibition. First driving up the prices until people turn to IV use because high strength product is all their dealers will supply and they can afford... then making needles unavailable or dangerous by labeling them as paraphenelia...leading to more time in jail.

Yes.... addiction is bad, its terrible.... but prohibition makes in unmanageable and life destroying.

I want to save lives. None of those meth cooks needed to burn. Nobody needed to be murdered in turf wars. Nobody needed to be denied finanacial aid for college over a few joints. This is atrocity that makes a bad situation worst.

Ask yourself this...if your son didn't have a supportive family, where would he be now? Would his life be made better by going to jail? Lot of people in those situations. Not everyone is middle class and has the support network to recover. They are the ones who really get ground up in this system. Not the middle class kids with strong families who get spared from the real horrors.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[TheCarp]

Actually HPV is spread by contact, not just sex. I think the HPV vaccine would benefit greatly by disassociation from sex. HPV is the same virus that causes warts on feet, hands, and many other places. Sure specific strains tend to go after specific areas but.... it hardly takes actual sex to spread it.

In fact, HPV is highly transmissible. I would actually be shocked if we didn't find that some (possibly small percentage of) people get active HPV infections of the normally sexually transmitted strains in other areas, like hands and feet. HSV 1 & 2 can each infect the other's prefered location (yes folks, up to 30% of genital herpes infections are the "oral" strain)... with rare infections on hands, eyes, and other places.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Hatta]

Thanks. Do you happen to have an argument that justifies the government's intrusion into one's sovereignty over one's own body? Or do you agree with me?

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[mcgrew]

The most serious crimes heroin addicts commit are prostitution and theft, and the theft is usually petty theft. They just want enough money for another hit; addicts don't seem to be able to plan ahead any further than the next fix.

Murder? That's usually alcohol's fault.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Fned]

addiction is the problem, not prohibition

And treatment for addiction to non-prohibited drugs works way better than treatment for addiction to prohibited drugs, due to increased access to treatment, fewer social stigmas, a dramatically reduced chance of getting thrown in fucking prison simply for seeking treatment, and better medical and scientific access to the treatment subjects.

if you can't speak meaningfully on the subject of prohibition, you really should stop commenting on the subject of drug use

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Fned]

Had heroin been cheap and easily available he would be dead by now.

Why? Do you believe regulated heroin would somehow be deadlier than un-regulated heroin?

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[compro01]

The vaccine isn't approved for males. Not yet, anyway.

Where are you? The US FDA approved gardasil for men back in 2009 and Heath Canada approved in in 2010.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Fned]

Your anecdote instantly freed all the drug users in prison! It's a miracle!

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

Thanks. Do you happen to have an argument that justifies the government's intrusion into one's sovereignty over one's own body? Or do you agree with me?

Sure. My example of imprisonment constitutes a violation of a person's sovereignty over their own body in many ways. In prison, you can't move around freely where you want to go. You have to eat and drink what they give you to eat and drink. You are (officially) restricted from normal intimate human activities others are free to engage in, except with permission of your captors if you've been a good boy and they feel like it. All your medical treatment is decided on by your captors, etc.

And the argument that justifies the above? People who commit serious crimes of violence, murder, and theft have to lose their freedoms for the protection of wider human society.

And when felons finally are let out, it is typically on a parole basis with very tight restrictions -- no drugs, no alcohol, etc. The restrictions are calculated to push them way over into the safe side of the spectrum and give them no excuse for a relapse into crime, other than plain old bad judgment. They've lost a measure of sovereignty over their own bodies by their commission of serious crimes (bear with me here, assuming fair justice system for the sake of argument). And it's OK that they no longer have sovereignty over their bodies, because society believes that it knows best for them in regards to substance abuse during the parole period.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Hatta]

And the argument that justifies the above? People who commit serious crimes of violence, murder, and theft have to lose their freedoms for the protection of wider human society.

That's great. Do you have an argument that applies to someone who hasn't committed a crime? Other than the crime of drug possession, which would obviously be a circular argument.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

That case would be difficult to make. I agree that the default starting position should be that people have freedom over their own bodies, and there has to be a really good reason for the government to take that freedom away from them -- not that governments usually care.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[SuricouRaven]

I should have worded that better. Gardasil is approved for males (here in the UK, too) but public vaccination programs do not target them as far as I am aware. It's a rather expensive vaccine, and the usual government policy is to focus on girls.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Hatta]

Hey, great. We're on the same page then. That's always nice.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[I(rispee_I(reme]

If it's anything like the cocaine vaccine, then your concern is unwarranted.

The cocaine vaccine causes your immune system to regard cocaine as invasive and makes it impossible for you to get high, no matter how much cocaine you consume.

I read an article in Discover about it; it mentioned cases of people attempting to do just what you described. They tested with levels of cocaine thousands of times higher than normal users and did not experience any high.

I would like to be a fly on the wall in a room where cokeheads are frantically trying to snort enough to feel a buzz, and failing.

My concern is that such vaccines will eventually be administered to children at birth, for their own good, leading to a world where demand for ganja decreases to such an extent that I have to grow my own.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Mr. Slippery]

addiction creates an interrupt switch in your mind that prevents you from maintaining productive work and relationships

Except for all those artists, writers, and musicians who were drug addicts. And medical pioneers like Sigmund Freud and William Stewart Halsted.

Not to say it's a healthy lifestyle choice, but many -- perhaps most -- addicts can do plenty of productive work so long as their get their fix. It's prohibition that prevents them from doing so, that makes them direct their energies into obtaining the drug they need on the black market, rather than simply picking up their fix at the drugstore.

if you can't speak meaningfully on the subject of addiction, you really should stop commenting on the subject of drug use

Exactly. Your sweeping statements about addiction show that you can't speak meaningfully on the subject; please go educate yourself, and come back to the discussion of drug use after that.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[operagost]

After "Wow! This great news for addicts," my second though was the same. I'm afraid our ever-meddling governments will make this a compulsory vaccine... because if you're not an addict, you have nothing to worry about!

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[operagost]

I think you should form your opinions based on something other than the comments on Fox News or Huffington Post articles.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[operagost]

Some are like that, but I oppose involuntary vaccinations on principle. And if we're all good little progressives here, shouldn't we oppose the compulsory Gardisil because it's patented? Corporations being evil, and all.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

creative people have a unique position in life and often live in a lot of pain for having a lonely point of view. as such, they often turn to drugs. drugs do not make creativity, it hampers it. most artists on drugs have bemoaned the monkey on their back that gets in the way of their work. even william s. burroughs. correlation, causation, etc., etc

and finally, what happens to people who are addicts and can't afford their fix, regardless of legality. what does a person do when they have a compulsion that overrides the need for all relationships, all food, all sex... what will they do to get that fix? anything. right now. fix must be filled. you wish this sort of life on anyone but your worst enemies?

you seem to have an ignorant fanboy's view of drugs, that glamorizes it as some sort chic habit. good luck to you, you're going to need it

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[rohan972]

I wouldn't wish addiction on anyone, but addiction is not solved by prohibition. Prohibition also creates problems of it's own and makes real solutions harder to implement and less effective. In the case of heroin, if the cost was a small amount over production a fairly bad habit could be maintained without resort to crime.

and finally, what happens to people who are addicts and can't afford their fix, regardless of legality.

The same thing that happens to tobacco addicts and alcoholics when they can't afford their drugs.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

prohibition makes supply harder and more expensive to get. this doesn't prevent addicts, who will do absolutely anything to get their fix, but it prevents the creation of more addicts. oh certainly not all. addiction will never go away. it's simply a maintenance function of civilization: MINIMIZE the creation of addicts, and the horrible lives they lead, in the name of society AND the individual. prohibition doesn't work for all drugs, but for SOME drugs, it does work, simply because any exposure is ruinous to people's lives, so you make exposure more difficult. not impossible. just more difficult

addiction to drugs is the most ruinous influence in all of human history. stack up the crimes of every government that has ever existed in all of human history, and it is but a tiny fraction of the lives ruined by addictive substances. right now, in various parts of the world poor people are taking meager resources and spending it on booze, rather than their education, or to food on their family's plate. to fill their lives with emptiness rather than pain

drugs are an evil far greater than any government could ever be (unless, of course, the government forced you to take drugs, that would be the ultimate fascist government)

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[rohan972]

As the parent of a recovering heroin addict, I can say that you are wrong, sir.

A friend's brother was a heroin addict. He died of an overdose. It seems his dealer had decided he was a liability and increased the concentration of what they sold him without telling him. If he had a reliable supply with labeled, predictable concentration he would be alive.

I wonder, if you could think about it clearly, how much of your son's problem was strictly the affects of heroin, and how much was driven by the need for excessive amounts of money to maintain the habit and therefore constant criminal behavior.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

speaking meaningfully on the subject of prohibition:

consider every single evil that can traced to prohibition, and addiction itself is still far, far worse

this is what i am trying to say: why do some people fight prohibition with such gusto, and yet speak nothing to what addiction does to people's lives. it speaks of someone who is either completely ignorant of actual drug use or is an addict themselves rationalizing their problem

addiction is the greatest destroyer of freedom ever know to mankind, far worse than the crimes of every government that has ever existed put together

if you don't understand that about the nature of addiction, you don't understand drugs

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

in a world where drugs are easily accessible, drugs will be turned to more often by more people to deaden the simple pain of existence. thus, creating more addicts. prohibition does not stop an addict from getting a drug, but by making supply scarcer and more expensive, it minimizes the creation of more addicts

prohibition creates many evils. by minimizing the creation of more addicts, it also stops many evils too

if make access easy to substances that powerfully addict, you create more addicts. duh

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

you are speaking of freedom

i hope you understand that addiction is the most potent destroyer of freedom that mankind has ever known

you don't call policies that limit people's access to substances that destroy personal freedom, destroyers of freedom

but it a philosophical question: if someone wishes to commit suicide, and you forcibly stop them, are you denying them their freedom?

if we assume death=no freedom, then stopping them from removing their own freedom is an act that extends freedom

in the same way, i view drug policy

addiction=death of freedom, more than any government policy could ever achieve (unless of course, some hypothetical government forcibly addicted people to drugs. that would be the greatest fascist government ever possible)

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[KagakuNinja]

Right on, exactly what I was thinking, wish I had some mod points.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Fjandr]

My concern is a bit more practical. Depending on the method by which it blocks the "high," it might conceivably render all opiates ineffective at pain control. Someone who gets this vaccine and then later needs major invasive medical treatment might be completely screwed. Sure, you can turn the pain off with anesthetics, but once the person wakes up from surgery the real fun begins.

Then there's cancer-related pain. Mine is (relatively) minor and I could probably do without pain killers without wanting to off myself most days, but I know people who would be perfectly justified in choosing suicide to "living" without the ability to use pain killers for something like aggressive pancreatic or bone cancer.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Fjandr]

I am worried about implications

Keep at it. It's like pissing into the wind a lot of the time, but we need more people to be concerned with implications. :)

Note to sideslash: this isn't by any means an indictment of your position, I simply wanted to point out a small particular which I believe needs commendation. I just know something like this can be taken as an attempt to cast aspersions indirectly, which is not my intent.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Fjandr]

stack up the crimes of every government that has ever existed in all of human history, and it is but a tiny fraction of the lives ruined by addictive substances.

That's an interesting statement, but entirely unsupportable as a statement of fact. You might believe it to be true, but proving it is another matter entirely.

Wars and genocides, on the other hand, are much easier to document.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[demonlapin]

Because he thought it would be a great high. Duh?

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Procrasti]

The one thing that is orders of magnitude worse than being addicted to a substance is being addicted to a prohibited substance.

Secondly, despite your 'common sense' feeling that prohibition minimises the creation of new addicts, it is entirely possible that the tougher the prohibition the greater number of addicts. Netherlands has a lower usage of cannabis per capita despite its open availability. The Swiss heroin experiments has shown a decrease in the number of new heroin users after making it freely available to addicts. Portugal has a lower incidence of all drug use since decriminalising all drugs, etc...

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[rohan972]

prohibition makes supply harder and more expensive to get. this doesn't prevent addicts, who will do absolutely anything to get their fix, but it prevents the creation of more addicts.

Yet you can get heroin everywhere and the amounts a new user would need to develop a habit only costs a couple of hundred dollars. By your post, it seems you would even like alcohol prohibition back. Just as everybody could get alcohol during prohibition, so now everyone who wants heroin could get it. Heroin has been prohibited for a long time, if it was going to prevent creation of more addicts, there would be no heroin addicts by now. The reality is that for many addicts, their method of funding their habit is to sell it to more people, creating more addicts. Someone obtaining it legally and cheaply has no pressure to introduce more people to the drug.

Nevertheless I would not have heroin as an unrestricted substance but have it available through pharmacists, who could monitor use rates and target people for medical help.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[stefancaunter]

Isn't fentanyl used for short term acute pain control? I understand it is only active for about 10 minutes. Why wouldn't it work? Does fentanyl not bind to the same receptors?

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[The Askylist]

Because it was available and was one hell of a good high. Silly, I know, but that's what life's like as a teenager.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

look at oxycodone

perfectly legal. controlled. just like you want

and you have fake prescriptions and you have resale and you have people storming pharmacies and killing people, etc.: the DRUG itself is the problem, not the policy, because of what the substance all by itself does to human lives

you seem to have this naive belief that legalizing these substances solves the problem. no, it just lowers the barrier of entry for creating addicts, and creates more addicts. not that i am not for legalizing cannabis: it's barely addictive. even lsd should be legal: it doesn't addict. but heroin? cocaine? meth? no, never legal

because i understand what addiction does to people's lives

if you look at drug use, and you think removing prohibition (even in the countries you mentioned there is still government CONTROL MECHANISMS, aka "prohibition") solves the drug problem, you are utterly clueless on the subject. even in those countries the policies oyu mention have the primary goal OF COMBATTING DRUG USE. counterintuitive policies, but the goal is the sam eas mine, not yours: get people OFF drugs

but addiction, all by itself, the combination of the individual and the substance, completely outside of any government policy you could ever dream up, is the point of freedom destruction. and lowering the barrier of entry is all that is needed to destroy more human lives. everyone has psychological pain in their life. how do you cope with it? if it is the normal psychological pain of youth, yo grow up. but if you have drugs in ready reach, you destroy your life, this drug becomes your primary coping mechanism. congratulations, you've just permanently hobbled someone's freedom for their entire life, for a vampire, a useless EXPENSIVE (prohibition or not) parasitical habit. that's what is going on here

i suppose you proponent of individual freedom. so am i. unlike you, i recognize the real destroyer of freedom in this conversation, and it isn't government policy

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

right now, there are some guys, with cash in their pocket, taking it to the local bar, rather than put food on their children's plate or education in their minds

and for what? to deaden a few hours of existence

multiply this by billions

multiply this by every year homo sapiens has existed

civilization understands its enemies. a useless expensive (prohibition or not) parasitical habit that has people deaden the simple psychological pain of life we all experience with substances is civilization's enemy #1. and forget society: on individual level, there has been no greater destruction of personal freedom: the bars in the mind of addiction are stronger and more binding than the most sadistic prison the most fascist authoritarian could ever dream up

know the costs of addiction in terms of individual lives and in terms of societies, or know nothing, whatever the government policy

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

"Someone obtaining it legally and cheaply has no pressure to introduce more people to the drug"

ah the desperate stink of fanciful rationalization

the drug, all by itself, is all that is needed to create an addict

so you make it cheaper and easier to get, and you create more addicts

that's it, that's it, the whole story: lower barrier of entry = more addicts

that's what addiction is, that's what it means. we all have psychological pain in our lives. how do we deal with it. we all have that moment of despondency daily, or weekly. if the drug is in reach, the drug gets reached for, and eventually, it gets reached for every waking moment. because that's what addiction to substances like meth, heroin, cocaine means. all you can do is put the drug out of reach as best you can, on a personal or societal level

if you don't understand that, you don't understand addiction

economics 101: artificial scarcity, aka prohibition, is the only tool we have against the most addictive substances (cocaine, heroin, meth). just look at oxydone and the criminality of the aftermarket: a perfectly legal controlled substance, and yet, again, addiction finds a way. it always finds a way. all you can do is make the way as hard as possible. the addicts are a lost cause, it is all they think about, they will find a way. it is the lives you save that you prvented from ever reaching for the drug that you save

it is simply a maintenance function of civilization, of maintaining individual liberty away from the greatest destroyer of individual liberty the world has ever known: drugs, not government policy, to maintain that artificial scarcity

the war on drugs will never end. on a society level. on an individual level. because when you relax the controls, as a society or as an individual, the drug simply takes over society or your life. deadening the pain of existence with a false vampire, an exensive parasite that gives nothing to your life or your society

you don't understand addiction, and what it does to willpower, what the cost is in human life. the money spent on preventing people from falling into this shadow existence is money well spent. i have seen what addiction does to lives. i do not need silly ignorant fanboys lecturing me about government policy. the drugs themselves are the enemy

know what real adidction does to human life, regardless of government policy, or know nothing

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Procrasti]

No, your oxycodone is a bad example. Its not freely available to addicts like heroin is in the swiss example, it is overly controlled, or otherwise you would have exactly the same problem with swiss heroin as you are describing with US oxycodone, but they don't.

Oxycodone is NOT as addictive as heroin, so therefore it is the difference in the SYSTEM that creates the problem, not the DRUG itself.

Re-evaluate your assumptions.

Also, I agree, the more liberal systems have the benefit of REDUCING drug use, but PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

the swiss are interested in the quality of life of current addicts. i am interested in the prevention of the creation of addicts. and economics is the whole point: cheaper easier supply = more addicts. i am certain that addicts in switzerland have a better quality of life than anywhere else. i am glad switzerland has the resources and the compassion to be so concerned about the lives of their addicts. but the whole point is to prevent the creation of addicts, and easier and cheaper supply just creates more addicts. and once an addict, the damage is done: your personal freedom your entire life is now hobbled by an expensive (prohibition or not) pointless habit that interferes with work and relationships

where drugs are easier to use, drugs get used. its all about willpower, and if the drug is in easy reach, on a national or a personal level, the drugs get used. we all have moments of weakness. so prohibition, on a personal or national level, putting the drugs out of more difficult reach with artificial scarcity, is the best policy. not for the sake of existing addicts, but for the CREATION of future addicts

how do you destroy the native americans? give them fire water

how do you destroy the chinese empire? give them opium

availability = more addicts. every dealer knows this. that's why the first hit is free

we all have psychological pain in our lives and moments of weakness. at that point, we will reach for drugs if they are available. so don't make them available, on a personal or national level

for existing addicts, this policy is hell. to prevent creating addicts, this policy is the best we can do. of course addicts will always be created. it's simply a maintenance function of civilization to minimize their creation. the war on drugs will never end, and began before homo sapiens even existed: filling our lives with empty deadening of pain versus the simple pain of existence, on a personal and national level, is a basic struggle of existence itself

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Procrasti]

No, the swiss are interested in the overall costs to society caused by addiction. They are also interested in REDUCING the rate of addiction. The more liberal approach REDUCES the rate of NEW ADDICTS.

Because, there aren't dealers (i.e, addicts funding their habit) ENCOURAGING people to become NEW USERS.

Your assumptions are flawed.

AVAILABILTY != MORE ADDICTS. In fact it is prohibition that creates more addicts, you just don't understand the underlying mechanisms that make that true.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

yes, i don't understand how making something more expensive and difficult to get makes people use it more

and i don't understand how making something cheaper and easier to get makes people use it less

sorry, i'm weird that way

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[demonlapin]

AFAICT, the vaccine is intended to work against the drug, not the receptor. Fentanyl is a totally synthetic compound - it doesn't have the opiate nucleus at all, though it does bind opioid receptors.

By "acute pain control", I mean over the course of days to weeks, e.g. after a broken bone. Fentanyl has a very short duration of action and has a low therapeutic index - the deadly dose isn't much more than the effective dose.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Procrasti]

You're not weird, unfortunately, just ignorant, but that can be corrected. As I said above, your 'common sense' does not match real world studies.

Consider what you would do as an addict to an expensive and illegal drug. How do you fund that habit? You have access to drugs easily through an underground criminal network - you can steal, and that will work for a while, or you can SELL the drug to new users. You won't get caught for a few years if ever, in that time, how many NEW ADDICTS will you CREATE? Prohibition causes addicts to create new addicts, spreading like a virus.

Now consider the alternative, you are still an addict, but you have cheap and legal access to the same drug, but you go to a clinic to get it. There is no drive to create new addicts. People see you have a medical problem and don't want to be a part of that. FEWER NEW ADDICTS are created.

Human nature (and economics) is more complicated than cheap and available therefore I will risk becoming an addict, 'expensive' and illicit is so much sexier.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

we've already been over this: yes, prohibition makes the lives of existing addicts a living hell. but they are already a lost cause

i am interested in preventing the creation of new addicts. and my weapon is artificial scarcity by government policy

which many view as some sort of horrible affront to personal liberty. which i find hilarious, considering what drug addiction itself does to personal liberty

drug addiction is slow motion suicide. blotting out a day here and there, because of the simple pain of existence. which we all have, the simple pain of existence, and is the only real gateway to drug use, should drugs be readily available and easy and cheap to reach

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Procrasti]

No, your argument is flawed.

Prohibition means addicts create MORE addicts.

Harm reduction removes the incentive for dealers to create more addicts. Therefore LESS ADDICTION.

Not only are you making existing addicts suffer more than necessary, YOU ARE CREATING MORE ADDICTS.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

ok. so we don't prohibit drugs

so prices and availability naturally come down

right?

then what happens. here comes wishful thinking

"Harm reduction removes the incentive for dealers to create more addicts"

that's a mouthful. harm reduction is about alleviating the effects of addiction on the addict. nice subject, completely out of context in that sentence

but again, your sentence gets us to the central point of conflict between you and i: you are interested in bettering the lives of existing addicts. a noble cause. but i am interested in preventing the creation of new addicts. the nobler cause

so you must find a way to alleviate the addict's hell without increasing the supply and cheapness of the drug, leading to more addicts

and please stop spouting this hilarious nonsense that easier supply and cheaper supply means less addicts. this is a very funny joke you are telling

fire water: subjugating native americans by creating dependency by making alcohol cheap and easy. weakening the society to be easily defeated

opium wars: flooding the chinese empire with cheap easy heroin, turning chinese lives into zombified states of being with only one pointless goal, weakening the society to be easily defeated

in both cases, addict population booms when supply is cheap and easy. what is it about the simple economics of supply and demand that you do not understand? what is it about the biochemistry of addiction that you don't understand?

denying a nonaddict an addictive substance does nothing but save them. you do this with artificial scarcity. if it is too hard and expensive to get heroin or cocaine or meth in the first place, it is never reached for in the first place. of course, once an addict, mountains will be moved to get the precious substance, even if it means the destruction of your entire life

denying an addict their addictive substances causes them great pain. but this is not the pain of a free man denied his natural liberty. this is the pain of a zombie denied an artificially maintained biochemical feedback loop

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Procrasti]

Harm reduction programs such as the swiss heroin program, and portugal decriminalisation experiment HAS RESULTED IN FEWER NEW ADDICTS. FACT. NO POSSIBLE ARGUMENT on the theory of PRICE/AVAILABILITY vs NEW ADDICTION RATES.

I don't know if you can read, but it doesn't get simpler than that.

Prohibition DOES NOT WORK for YOUR STATED GOAL of REDUCING the number of NEW DRUG ADDICTS.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[sideslash]

Totally agree with that concern. Good luck, Fjandr.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

you can sell crazy all you want, but no one's buying

increased availability and lower price means more use. more use means more addicts

page 18

http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf

this is where you tell me its ok that people who would otherwise not use and not become addicts is ok, because the life of an addict is now easier. easier in terms of getting the product they need. as if more people with the need for the product in the first place is some sort of proof of better quality of life! incredible

we have different goals. and your goal, better quality of life for addicts, is the lesser goal

we need less drug use and addict creation in the first place

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[rohan972]

that's it, that's it, the whole story: lower barrier of entry = more addicts

The whole story? My my, you are feeling grandiose today aren't you.

you don't understand addiction, and what it does to willpower, what the cost is in human life.

That's a stupid thing to say and you're a stupid person for saying it. You have no idea what my experience is. I am more acquainted than I'd like to be with the effects of addiction, both of legal and illegal drugs.

I know people that, once addicted, got their previous friends on heroin to sell to them to provide for their habit. I'm not making up fanciful rationalizations, I'm giving you the benefit of experience. Moron.

Just to be perfectly clear, I don't think you're a moron because you disagree with me. You're a moron because you decided, solely on the basis that I disagree with you, that I couldn't possibly know anything about addiction. You're a moron because you think a complex societal problem like drugs comes down to the equation "lower barrier of entry = more addicts" and refuse to give further consideration to the issue.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Procrasti]

You can bury your head in the sand, but the truth exists whether you want to believe it or not. The truth is simply that the portugal experiment is working to decrease the number of new addicts and prohibition is not.

From page 5 of the very document you linked:

Between 2000 and 2005, the estimate number of problematic drug users in Portugal has
shown a clear decline, with special relevance for injecting drug users.

It is true, that page 18 shows that in 2007 heroin and cocaine use were up very slightly compared to 2001. However, people are more willing to report their drug habit now that it is no longer criminal, and also, the top of the very next page explains that there was NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE in drug usage:

There are no significant differences between 2001 and 2007 results; there was a slight
increase of cocaine and heroin use at least once in lifetime by females and a decrease in all
the other substances.

Finally, this report is quite old now, I challenge you to find a document from 2011/2012 that DOESN'T show a DRAMATIC DECREASE in drug use and addiction rates compared to 1999 when the program started.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

The number of addicts considered "problematic" -- those who repeatedly use "hard" drugs and intravenous users -- had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

yes, again, the simple bifurcation between quality of the lives of drug addicts, and the increase of use of drugs and therefore addicts. we have been over this a number of times. your points about the increase in the quality of life of the addict is wonderful, and i applaud it. and we have forgotten the more important issue

is it that you wish me to believe that easier access and cheaper prices leads to less users?

is it that you wish me to believe that more users means less addicts?

at what point do i laugh?

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Procrasti]

Can you read?

DRUG USE HAS DECREASED.

The report you linked to said, NO SIGNIFICANT INCREASE... and as of today, DRUG USE HAS HALVED.

What part of halved implies increased to you?

There has been NO INCREASE in DRUG USE and NO INCREASE in DRUG ADDICTS.

It appears that YES: easier access and cheaper prices leads to less users... Also, I want you to believe that light travels at the same speed and time dilates depending on how fast you are moving relative to an observer... COUNTER INTUITIVE, but COMPLETELY TRUE.

Finally, show me a 2011/2012 study showing an INCREASE in drug users in portugal, or STFU and stop being ignorant.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

page 18

zzz

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Procrasti]

Which was followed by page 19... maybe you should read it - I even quoted it for you. There was NO INCREASE.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

ok i'm sorry, you're right. 65% is larger than 70%. 4% is larger than 8%. etc.

construct whatever rationalizations you need to convince yourself of your position, however harmful to yourself or your society: cheaper and easier availability = less use. more use = less addicts. and the moon is made of cheese

rationalizing harmful beliefs: drug addicts are good at the same mental skillset, they need it to maintain the denial of their addiction. perhaps this is the source of your passion here. as for myself, have seen a loved one in the grip of addiction, the full arc of what that addiction meant to their life. and you search for a way out, for some solution to the problem, and every thought eventually goes back to the beginning: prevent the creation of the addict in the first place. this is more important than trying to improve the lives of existing addicts, they are already in hell no matter what you do

i am sorry, but this conversation is over. i don't think either of us are changing their opinion. i just would like you to understand the reality of addiction someday, what it actually does to human lives, the full weight of the cruelty of addiction. and i want you to think about policies with that in mind, and not from some idealized world or train of thought that exists in full suspension of disbelief about what human nature is really like when mixed with easily available highly addictive substances. good luck to your maturation of thought on the subject

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Procrasti]

Statistically 70% may not be larger than 65%, it can be difficult to understand, and depends entirely on things called error bars. Which is probably why they stated in the text that there was NO SIGNIFICANT INCREASE, despite some numbers being larger. (Also, please to be comparing relevant years, ie pre 1999 and post 2010).

Also, please don't talk to me about 'seeing a loved one in the grip of addiction'... You know where you know me from, please to check my last diary there b4 giving me lectures on what addiction really means. In a way you got your wish that I documented in my sig there, so congrats.

I got my 200 oxycodone, sitting right here too... According to you, with what I've been through, I'd be munching into them right now in some addicted haze dealing with what I've been through, and yet I'm here instead and they sit in their packets.

I honestly think that the approach you support does not lower addiction rates, it means more addicts pushing and therefore more addicts and only makes addiction more cruel and death more likely. I believe that as more studies come out, people like you will realise the huge mistake you are making and the damage you are causing to both addicts and society as a whole. At least I live in hope.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Fjandr]

That's about what I expected, but doesn't stop me from hoping I'll get something other than a faith-based argument.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[almechist]

Yea? ... and who's fault is it that they started using heroin to begin with? Are you saying they shouldn't be subject to the consequences for their choices?

So let's see, if Heroin use is a terrible thing with awful consequences, and all users of heroin deserve whatever happens to them, then... Why bother to make it illegal at all? If it's so bad, then anybody who decides to use it will automatically get their just rewards in the end. Problem solved!

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[circletimessquare]

wait... are you that asshole from k5 like 8 years ago? LOL

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[doccus]

Seconded..that was *my* first thought also .. it must surely disable, or block the body's natural endorphins, which help in a wide variety of situations from stubbing one's to to scalds, etc.. and then you'd have folks with possibly severe chronic pain issues, which are often the very factors that lead to dependance on opiates in the first place.. The mechanism that controls pain is directly related to the "euphoria" effect, and not separate, inasmuch as opiates do not directly block pain receptors, but rather lessen the "unpleasantness" instead.. THis is why aspirin or other pain relievers , that *do* work directly on the source, are so effective in tandem with opiates...

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[Procrasti]

That would be you.

Re:Serious addicts who "decide to use" it?

[rohan972]

Look, I'm sorry I was so rude to you. I hope that you can see past that and realize that people who disagree with you aren't necessarily ignorant.

This could be a bad thing

[Saintwolf]

If you get really bad withdrawal symptoms (which in the case of heroin could potentially kill you), taking the vaccine means that you can't even have a little bit to alleviate the symptoms and cut down. I would also assume that it affects methadone too which, again, means suffering from withdrawal.

Re:This could be a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Heroin withdrawal itself can't kill you. What can kill you is appeasing your cravings during the withdrawal and ODing due to a lowered tolerance.

Re:This could be a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you got the idea that it's possible to die from opioid withdrawal, because it just doesn't happen.

Re:This could be a bad thing

[justin12345]

It's alcohol/barbiturate withdrawal that can kill you, not opiate, but that aside you raise a good point.

My question is, what happens when the vaccinated person needs surgery at some point in the future? Heroin's just another painkiller, vaccinating against it should probably render all painkillers ineffective.

Re:This could be a bad thing

[demonlapin]

I speculated earlier that this might take out the semisynthetics (hydromorphone, hydrocodone, oxycodone). That would leave only the pure synthetics, like the fentanyls. Those are much riskier drugs.

Re:This could be a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you got the idea that it's possible to die from opioid withdrawal, because it just doesn't happen.

As someone who has been physically addicted to a opioid just recently. I assure you that you can die from withdrawal. It can get so bad that you will want to kill yourself instead of bare another single second. Time runs slow when you're in withdrawal, Seconds turn into minutes and so forth.

You are burning up and freezing at the same time, shitting black sludge every 15 minutes for days, puking for days, and there is no way to sit still. You just want it to stop. It took four days, most of which I was awake, before I started to feel even slightly better.

AC for obvious.

Re:This could be a bad thing

[sjames]

Benzo and alcohol withdrawal can kill you, but heroine withdrawal can't, even if it's unsupervised.

It could be a really horrible experience but not fatal.

Re:This could be a bad thing

[ae1294]

Sorry to sound heartless here, but it didn't kill you, did it?

You went through hell and may surely felt like you were going to, but the withdrawal did not and would not kill you. Opiate withdrawal is not like alcohol. Alcohol withdrawal can definitely kill an addict; without it you slip into a coma. As someone else noted in this thread, most die during withdrawal because they OD trying to relieve their symptoms.

I had a loaded gun on my bed with me. It was 50/50... could have went ether way... Find out for yourself. Get some Oxycodone 30's or some Heroin and snort the shit for a month then come back and report how your withdrawal went. I wasn't even shooting the stuff. If I had been I would be dead from suicide.

Re:This could be a bad thing

[ae1294]

shit no more ac.... o well.

I worry about vaccines for pleasure

[pedantic bore]

What if, in addition to the pleasure due to heroin, it also diminishes other sorts of pleasure?

This sounds like it could be a small slice of hell.

Re:I worry about vaccines for pleasure

[Gotung]

Heroin use does exactly that, diminishes other sorts of pleasure.

Re:I worry about vaccines for pleasure

[Inda]

A few Fluoxetines on top and you no longer care about diminished sorts of pleasure.

Smack, as it's called here, is a nasty drug. Everyone I've known to take it has had big fall. Luckily no one has fucked themselves up perminately. Most started taking it after smoking rocks. Neither have had any appeal to me, and I've never bothered with them.

Theiving fuckers, the lot of them. Once you know someone taking the brown, never let them in your house. They'll eye up everything. They hardly care when you beat them for thieving.

Re:I worry about vaccines for pleasure

[Dunbal]

The lab mice failed to mention this minor detail. I guess we'll have to wait for the human trials. Well blacks in the Southern US and Guatemalans are out. Where can we do this?

Re:I worry about vaccines for pleasure

[couchslug]

"Heroin use does exactly that, diminishes other sorts of pleasure."

Yeah, but think of the great music the rest of us get out of it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiHKi2GKDiA&feature=related

Re:I worry about vaccines for pleasure

[jafac]

We could just administer such a drug to the religious whackos, and they'd experience enough earthly suffering, that they'd be guaranteed a spot in heaven. Right?

Re:I worry about vaccines for pleasure

[tgibbs]

Unlikely. Endogenous opiates are chemically very different, and antibodies don't cross into the brain very readily, anyway.

Re:I worry about vaccines for pleasure

[subreality]

The puritan culture in the US would get it for all their children if you'd just invent it. I wish I was joking.

other opiates?

[liamevo]

Does this also stop the effects of other opiates?

Re:other opiates?

[Thugthrasher]

FTA:
"It could be reasonably effective, but maybe too general and affect too many different types of opioids as well as heroin," Janda said.

So, basically, they don't know yet. Which, if any, other opioids/opiates it affects is a big key because you don't want A)heroin users just moving to oxycontin or b)a former heroin user 20 years in the future unable to get effective treatment for their pain because it blocks all opioids/opiates (particularly if it is "end of life" style pain where they are just being made comfortable)

Re:other opiates?

[demonlapin]

Since the active compound in Heroin, codeine, and morphine is morphine (the first two are converted into it in the brain), those are right out. Semisynthetics may or may not be affected.

Re:other opiates?

[demonlapin]

Ah, crap, you're right. Thanks.

Vaccine

[edraven]

You keep using that word...

Re:Vaccine

[wvmarle]

FTA:

The vaccine, which has been patented in the US, makes the body resistant to the effects of heroin, so users would no longer get a rush of pleasure when they smoked or injected it.

So yes it seems to be a vaccine, to be administered once (or at long intervals maybe). Not a medication that has to be taken all the time and that loses effectiveness in hours or days.

Re:Vaccine

[geogob]

OP is correct. Although it may seem like act like a vaccine, it is not.

The term "vaccine" refers to something very specific, and that is a product based on viruses or bacterias (or part of) that are injected in other to boost (or train) the immune system to these particular micro organism. By definition, you cannot make a vaccine against a chemical agent like Opioids.

But I do understand why the term vaccine was used here... I honestly have no clue what the correct terminology would be. I thought about "serum", but that doesn't cut it either. Maybe something like desensitization agent... anyway, if there is a correct medical word for it, I doubt it would be proper for a vulgarization article like this one. OP is correct... but in the context for the article, I guess "vaccine" is an acceptable compromise.

Re:Vaccine

[ColdWetDog]

TFA doesn't help - it could be a 'vaccine' - directed and specific protection by manipulating the immune system, or it could be something else like a long acting receptor blocker. Anyone actually found a direct link? I'm too lazy this AM.

Re:Vaccine

[edraven]

The correct term would be "antagonist".

Re:Vaccine

[sjames]

An injection that causes the immune system to form antibodies against a foreign substance. That sure SOUNDS like a vaccine.

Unintended consequences

[iteyoidar]

What happens when someone who got vaccinated with this needs anesthetics or painkillers for surgery? They don't say if it only works on heroin and not a ton of other opioids as well.

Re:Unintended consequences

[wvmarle]

TFA mentions that it is currently not known whether it works on heroin only, and not on other opiates. So this is indeed an issue that needs further research.

Re:Unintended consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that most Heroin users started off abusing other opiates, I would think this would be nearly useless if it didn't. They would just revert back to more expensive pills.

Re:Unintended consequences

[QQ2]

Doesn't matter the pleassure and pain numbing effects are not 100% intertwined. A number of modern Anesthetics are allready treated in a fasion that reduces pleassure and thus makes them less addictive. They are however still usefull in medicine.

Tbh the only problem with this vaccine I see is that if it deadens the pleassure of Heroin addicts what pleassure remains. Heroin reduces the sensetivity of any other pleasure and with that taken away wouldn't users remain 'unpleasurable'

Maybe the stimuli repressed by heroin will come back after a while but otherwise I fear that this will result in a lot more suicides. (then again long term Heroin usage is essentially that)

Re:Unintended consequences

[geogob]

The article contains very little details on the actual effect of the treatment. It may only desensitize the body to the psychotropic effects, but leave analgesic effects unaffected. But that also is just speculative.

Even if it did reduce the overall effect of opioid drugs, there are alternative analgesics and anesthetics.

Re:Unintended consequences

[Dunbal]

The euphoric effect is controlled by entirely different receptors than the analgesic and anesthetic effects. My worry is that people will not be able to experience pleasure from non-heroin means either. This could create a problem worse than addiction when you start making people who just don't give a damn anymore and also have a grudge...

Re:Unintended consequences

[Dunbal]

[citation needed]

Re:Unintended consequences

[roman_mir]

You can definitely put people under with different types of anaesthetic, I mean seriously, they still produce chloroform and it's an old old method, there are various new gases, including N2O, halothane, then there are intravenous injections with propofol, pentothal, etc. They are unrelated to opiates, there are barbiturates that can be used as well.

For pain - novalgin (metamizole sodium) and such. They can manage.

Heroin addicted mice

[Anonymous Coward]

Heroin is a pretty serious problem if even mice are addicted to it.

Hmmm...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While heroin has never struck me as a terribly wise drug of choice, the notion of deliberately provoking an immune response to an opiate seems crazy risky...

We have a fairly extensive endogenous opioid system, with a variety of opioids and opioid receptors, in place and the results of immune system intereference with that would be... likely very unpleasant. If I were of the Mengele school of experimental medicine, I'd be fascinated to learn exactly what flavor of 'very unpleasant'; but I'm guessing that the ethics of that would be pretty shaky.

Re:Hmmm...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Too permanent, I suspect. We appear to prefer our torture procedures to be easily repeatable as many times as deemed necessary.

Now, cycling the patient through an administration of heroin followed by an administration of Naloxone(superb for treating opiate overdoses; but kicks you into full-on withdrawl fast)...

Re:Hmmm...

[Dunbal]

While heroin has never struck me as a terribly wise drug of choice

Why? I'd like to know what you base your criteria on. Apart from the fact that heroin is the most villified, demonized of the drugs (when actually cocaine and methadone deserve that slot) and that because heroin is an iv drug, contaminants and dosage variations can have a serious effect on its users. But apart from these points what is it about heroin that makes it worse than say, LSD? I'm curious.

Re:Hmmm...

[tgibbs]

Endogenous opiates are peptides, not alkaloids, so it is extremely unlikely that antibodies directed against alkaloid opiates would bind to endogenous opiates. Also, antibodies do not readily enter the brain.

Re:Hmmm...

[Onymous Coward]

Here's one way to reckon abuse potential for a drug:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg

Heroin: far and away a leader!

Let me ask you: Why are you asking what makes heroin worse than LSD? Are you just being pedagogical? Do you really not know? Do you just not know what this particular person thinks are the criteria?

Do you realize your presentation here strongly hints at the implication that you feel, aside from the specifically excepted points, heroin is no worse than LSD? I personally feel it's much, much more dangerous, again aside from the excepted points. If you'd like details on why I think so, please feel free to ask.

NB: I have not done heroin.

Re:Hmmm...

[rohan972]

1) I agree
2) Is a subset of 1
3) and 4) would be largely offset by a reliable supply of predictable quality, ie: those negative affects are largely due to prohibition rather than the drug itself.

The problem of heroin, taken apart from the "war on drugs" is that it is highly addictive. That's it.

Re:Hmmm...

[rohan972]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin
Like most opioids, unadulterated heroin does not cause many long-term complications other than dependence and constipation. Adulterated "street" heroin however is considered to be one of the most harmful drugs especially if consumed intravenously.

Sorry, but most of the damage done by heroin can be attributed to policy decisions rather than pharmacology. Unlike meth, for example, heroin users will generally not become violent while they have enough of it. A high, consistent quality and cheap supply would eliminate heroin related violent crime. Compare to something like meth where people will become violent because of the direct effects of the drug itself and I definitely put heroin in a different class than other "hard" drugs. Still not a habit I'd recommend, to put it mildly.

Re:Hmmm...

[Onymous Coward]

You're saying so long as the users can legally acquire high quality heroin there's no serious harm? But what about being addicted in the first place? I count that as harm.

Meth didn't make me violent. And, thankfully, I never got addicted, but that's not to say it didn't feel intensely pleasurable. But that's anecdote. Further in contradiction to the idea that methamphetamine inherently increases violence:

Methamphetamine was associated with reports of violence, but the link was very weak. Derlet and colleagues examined methamphetamine-related emergency room admissions and concluded that about one in five admissions was agitated and the symptoms of this agitation included screaming loudly, belligerence, aggression, and hyperactivity. Viewed differently, about 80 percent of the admissions exhibited no agitation or aggression. Thus, while methamphetamine may lead to aggression, there is no "one-size-fits-all" model of the link between methamphetamine and violence. Perhaps, as Ellinwood suggested, rather than causing violence in the peaceful user, methamphetamine merely amplifies preexisting violent tendencies.

That guy wrote a book. Here on Slashdot we're all talking out our butts, but that's okay, that's how conversations usually go. I don't know a lot about heroin, but the thing that I'm pretty certain of is that it feels damned good. And that alone is a serious problem.

Re:Hmmm...

[Dunbal]

IS point 4 really caused by point 1 and 2? I mean would you consider cigarette smokers to have the same violent tendencies? After all cigarettes are quite addictive. There are a lot more cigarette smokers for a lot longer period of time than there are heroin addicts. In fact you are much more likely to continue smoking for 10 or even 20 years if you use tobacco as a teen, than to use heroin for 20 years if you use it as a teen.

As for point 3, that is because it's an IV drug you buy on the street. The dose is dependent in no small part on the purity of your batch, which varies highly. It is VERY hard to accidentally overdose on opioids if you have used them regularly due to tolerance. The problems arise when you've been off heroin for a while (even as little as a couple weeks) and the tolerance diminishes again and you resume at your previous dose (which your body can no longer tolerate), or when your dealer gives you a less cut batch without telling you and you unwittingly prepare a dose far too strong for what you can tolerate. Heroin addicts can easily tolerate doses that would kill you or me, however, and they show absolutely no signs of depressed vital signs. In fact pharmacology and anesthesiology books state that there is no maximum dose of opiods. The dose can be titrated upwards forever over time, and the body can adapt. The curve just shifts to the right. This is often done in terminal patients.

The human trafficking, etc, is actually caused by the drug dealers, not by the drug. You see human trafficking in prostitution, in factories - hell you even see it on fishing boats. Human trafficking is caused by evil men, not by drug addicts.

You seem to present the "standard" argument. I was curious because I am a physician with a lot of experience in opioids and opiates. I am surprised and somewhat shocked by the fact that the mere mention of them will cause whispers even among supposedly educated colleagues. Opioids are highly useful in many situations, they are the best pain killer, the best cough suppresant, the best anti-diarrheal medication AND one of the least dangerous/toxic anesthetics, all rolled into one. But I see that instead of learning about these compounds the propaganda has made people afraid of them, and I have seen people suffer with un-necessary pain because their physician was AFRAID to use them.

Just think that as little as 100 years ago grandmothers all over the world were REGULARLY dosing their children with Paregoric. Paregoric is opium dissolved in alchohol. Paregoric would cure everything, from tummy aches to headaches to whatever was wrong with the child. Of course it did, the kids would stop feeling pain. It wasn't a real "cure", but it was enough to shut the kid up until his body healed itself. Still the point is that even though pretty much every kid in the world was an opium user 100 years ago, somehow the world failed to descend into the chaos and anarchy the anti-drug people would have you think is associated with these drugs. And there certainly was no revolution when opium was removed from the market. So how addicted were they? Remove tobacco from the market overnight and see what happens.

Anyway my $0.02 worth. It's amazing how much you can learn about something when you actually study it instead of repeating what someone else told you to say.

Re:Hmmm...

[Dunbal]

No this is not about what I "feel". It's about my work in palliative care with opioids, my own experience as a chronic and severely ill cardiac patient with hospital-administered opioids months in intensive care, open heart surgery, and opioid withdrawal, and what I have studied about opioids. Feeling has nothing to do with it. I don't think there would be much point asking you what you "feel" because I expect it to be the standard answer everyone is trained to repeat. Opioids are from the devil. Baa baa baa.

Re:Hmmm...

[Dunbal]

But what about being addicted in the first place?

You mean there are no heroin addicts in the world today? Tell me something, do you think that handing out needles to heroin addicts - a policy that was begun by several governments to help stop the spread of HIV - do you think this policy increased heroin use because now they could get free/clean needles?

You fail to accept that if you put a group of people in a field, people will eventually wander off to different parts of the field. That's human nature. And if you put a fence in the middle of the field and tell people "you're not allowed on the other side of the fence", there will always be people who will ignore you and find a way over the fence. That is also human nature. Now you can get mad about this and start shooting everyone who tries to jump over the fence - but who is the real criminal here? The guy following his instincts or the manipulative sadist who is willing to kill people to have his lack of understanding of human nature respected?

There are drug addicts in the world. There will ALWAYS be drug addicts in the world. It doesn't matter what you do, they will find a way. Calling them evil, pointing fingers at them, stigmatizing them and trying to put roadblocks in their way is not going to stop them. Funny though how many very creative people were/are drug addicts. Poets, writers, scientists, painters, composers... These are all evil people?

Re:Hmmm...

[Dunbal]

I suggest you lay off the brown before it takes you down

Quite insightful - you are assuming I use this drug. Insightful, but completely wrong. The only drugs I do are cholesterol pills, blood pressure pills, blood thinners and when I really want to party, nitro glycerine.

Re:Hmmm...

[Onymous Coward]

The attitudes you're ascribing to me are a matter of your expectations of my thinking, not anything I've said and certainly not my actual feelings.

I believe needle programs are a great idea. There are many, many sad addicted people out there who could use help. There are many, many people who have been grievously harmed by heroin and other drugs (narcotics and all sorts).

I don't believe drug addicts are evil. They're mostly unfortunate. Telling people that heroin is dangerous is one way of helping future generations to avoid falling into the trap.

If you're seeing me as vilifying addicts, you are not seeing me as much as you are seeing what you're sensitive to.

Re:Hmmm...

[rohan972]

You're saying so long as the users can legally acquire high quality heroin there's no serious harm? But what about being addicted in the first place? I count that as harm.

Dependence is included in my quote of what harm it causes. It doesn't do stuff like destroy your liver, like alcohol can, for example. A heroin addict given a steady supply will not have their physical health destroyed by it.

What I would say is the primary damage of heroin is the destruction of the conscience. Heroin will make you feel good when you should be feeling guilty. It is this, combined with the drive to get more, that is so destructive to the individual. However the destruction of the conscience is a process that is accelerated and exacerbated by prohibition because of black market prices and habitual association with criminals. A heroin addict with a steady supply has a conscience that is compromised by that addiction but not destroyed by habitual violation.

As for meth not making you violent, obviously taking a hit doesn't instantly turn everyone into violent psychopaths or it wouldn't be a popular party drug. I don't care if some guy wrote a book, some people very definitely become violent on meth. The fact that it might be merely amplifies preexisting violent tendencies doesn't say much for it.

Re:Now that heroin is taken care of......

[SargentDU]

Or Tobacco, Marijuana, cocaine, etc. :)

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Saintwolf]

I used to be a heroin addict, then I took a methadone-tipped arrow to the knee.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Wansu]

"I used to be a heroin addict, Now I'm a methadone addict."

Yep. Methadone has all the addictive qualities without all the pleasing euphoria. A recent post on /. says it's killing people, both the use of methadone and withdrawal from it.

There's no telling what side effects this vaccine will have, assuming it works as intended.

Re:Now that heroin is taken care of......

[Saintwolf]

They'd have to kill me to vaccinate me against Marijuana (Which would be redundant anyway :P), it's too good + safe.

Re:This is stupid

[Saintwolf]

But that would be the smart thing to do, and when have US leaders ever done that?

How did the research even get this far?

[clm1970]

I guess these scientists have never heard the phrase, "Don't shit where you eat". I wonder how they kept the research under wraps so the cartels didn't ventilate them. If I were them I'd get the hell out of dodge.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Yep. Methadone has all the addictive qualities without all the pleasing euphoria."

You've clearly never tried Methadone.

Won't someone think of the children!

[Rogerborg]

First, is this really a "vaccine" i.e. a one-off long term treatment? I very much doubt it, there's little money in that. More likely it's just another form of dope that needs regular, lucrative doses that nobody who's already addicted would ever choose to take. Seriously, who's going to volunteer to go no-choice cold-turkey?

But on the slim chance that it is what it claims to be, the real question is: why focus on already addicted junkies? By the time they seek treatment they've generally already ruined their lives.

So, start earlier. Much earlier. Would you have your kids (safely) vaccinated so that they can't get hooked on common drugs?

Of course, the most harmful drugs are alcohol and nicotine, so how about we focus on finding a "vaccine" for them?

Heck, caffeine is a vile, toxic, horrible addicting substance - let's dump the antidote in the town's water supply, right?

Re:Won't someone think of the children!

[Abreu]

First, is this really a "vaccine" i.e. a one-off long term treatment? I very much doubt it, there's little money in that.

Which is why this was developed in the Mexican Polytechnic, which is a public school in a developing country, and not in an Ivy league school with private money.

Re:Won't someone think of the children!

[sjames]

The safety is highly questionable. There are likely to be real problems if the patient ever has a legitimate medical need for pain control. Perhaps that's worth it if the alternative is a downward spiral to an early death, but it's not something you would want to subject someone to without a really strong need.

Of course, we have solid proof that in the absence of prohibition, a heroine addict can be a productive and mostly healthy member of society without this, but here in the U.S. we far prefer the death of people rather than sacred cows.

By the time a person gets addicted to heroine, they already have a lot wrong with their life. That's why they can't hide their addiction better.

Why not for everyone?

[Gothmolly]

Why not anyone who's using heroin, why just "serious addicts"? When you have the nuclear, sure-fire fix, why does Medicine persist in trying nickel-and-dime schemes?

Re:Why not for everyone?

[berashith]

probably because this is a really horrible idea, and anyone who hasnt failed at every other option of quitting should not be exposed to it.

Re:Why not for everyone?

[demonlapin]

Because in the case of a non-addict, it's swatting a fly with a hydrogen bomb?

Poppycock

[Rik Sweeney]

I don't need a vaccine, I can quit any time I want. It just stops me shaking, that's all.

related research predates this

[bityz]

Published in June 2011: A Vaccine Strategy that Induces Protective Immunity against Heroin.

And a subsequent press release entitled Successful lab tests on a potential vaccine for heroin addiction

I for one welcome this...

[Anonymous Coward]

My cousin (former Marine) just died from heroin addiction and overdose. I welcome this and any possibly solution 100%. Yes, heroin is not a smart choice of drug but when your senses are completely battered and you have nowhere else to turn after trying therapy, alcohol, pills and whatever else you can get your hands on, heroin is the next step. It's almost unavoidable and believe it or not... if you want it, you can find it and you'll do anything to pay for it. It is so horrible... and watching someone in so much pain who WANTS to change their addictive behavior is so hurtful and emotionally draining. Something like this that can hult halt or prevent such a terrible lifestyle is welcomed no matter what. We, as a family, tried everything, and nothing seemed to work. It took a large toll on our family and left a young, smart, funny and loving person at the hands of the fates. RIP, cousin.

Re:I for one welcome this...

[Opportunist]

I understand your pain and as much as I can relate, I would be wary what I wish for. Your cousin certainly didn't reach for heroin because he thought it's cool or fun. Heroin is the drug that you turn to if life becomes unbearable. It's not a party drug like E, or a booster like coke. It's a drug that lets you blend out reality and detach yourself from it. It is a pain killer, allright, but most of all, it's an escape drug.

What do you think would have happened if you cousin could not have found that escape there? I don't say it was "good" that heroin "worked" for him, but what would have been the result if it had not?

But what about...

[pellik]

I wonder if this vaccine would also negate pain-killers like morphine? I'd hate to see people use this vaccine and then develop some really terrible disease later in life and the best they can do to cope with the pain is take tylenol.

This is bad bad bad news

[Lieutenant Buddha]

I can very easily envision them making vaccines like this for other drugs. The next generation of the drug war: don't stop the supply of drugs, just "vaccinate" the population (at an early age, what parent would say no?) from the pleasurable effects of non-state-approved psychoactives. This could be the endgame for the DEA and this scares the bejeezus out of me.

Re:This is bad bad bad news

[Opportunist]

I'm pretty sure the prospect of what this means scares the bejeezus out of the DEA as well.

Think: What will happen to your funding if the reason for said funding goes away?

Ok... what about the rest of the stuff?

[Decoy82]

Ok - cut off the dope - that makes sense. However I am pretty sure there are quite a few other drugs out there as well as Alcohol (the worst). There is more going on than physical addiction. Try giving the mouse a little cocaine - maybe he'll run back to the dope. Even better - now we can all drink ourselves to death like normal people!

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[fizzer06]

And you have?

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Actually (from the NIH - emphasis mine):

Methadone can be habit-forming. Call your doctor if you find that you want to take extra medication or notice any other unusual changes in your behavior or mood.

Do not stop taking methadone without talking to your doctor. Your doctor will probably want to decrease your dose gradually. If you suddenly stop taking methadone, you may experience withdrawal symptoms such as restlessness, teary eyes, runny nose, yawning, sweating, chills, muscle pain, and widened pupils (black circles in the middle of the eyes).

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Sczi]

I have, and if you haven't, then I dare you to take one. Bring snacks and a helmet.

The idea behind methadone is that you're not supposed to keep using it. You use it when detoxing to gradually step down, but surprise surprise, heroin addicts don't use it as intended.

Everything in moderation, including our excesses.

Not a vaccine

[Curunir_wolf]

Heroin addiction is not spread by a pathogen, heroin is neither a virus nor a bacteria, and whatever it is they are giving those mice, it's not a vaccine.

Now if only...

[dyingtolive]

...I could cure my damn jet addiction. I'm just not smart enough to convince Myron that it's possible!

It'll help but probably won't completely stop it.

[Chas]

Take a look at smokers. You can give them nicotene patches nicotene gum, etc etc. But there's still the oral fixation. They want to put a cigarette in their mouth.

And let's not kid ourselves here. Some of these people are going to be dumb enough to keep using in the hopes that they'll once again get their high back.

Unintended consequence

[RogueWarrior65]

Here's a question: Does this cure and/or prevent just the addiction? Or does it kill off the high you get? If it's the former, I'd say that heroine use would skyrocket because there would be no repercussions. If it's the latter and the effects are permanent, should this be required by law just like MMR vaccines?

Re:Now that heroin is taken care of......

[SuricouRaven]

Smoking it will ruin your lungs faster than tobacco though. Hence why many users prefer other means.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[reub2000]

Yep. Methadone has all the addictive qualities without all the pleasing euphoria.

So people are getting addicted to something with no pleasant qualities? Please explain your logic.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Opportunist]

How about being addicted to NOT having withdrawal symptoms?

Why not just give addicts free heroin?

[swb]

I'm always reading about some old, rural residential campus (asylum, VA hospital, etc) that's being closed down because they don't need it.

Why not make that a "residential heroin treatment center" -- give addicts a choice of inpatient, locked-door detox and treatment or to maintain their habit but live at the treatment center where they would get heroin but live under restrictive circumstances?

Or even better, just give them heroin (perhaps doled out in quantities small enough to inhibit dealing) and let them be addicts?

Or better yet, just stop the war on freedom and let addicts buy heroin at realistic market prices? Some will just maintain a habit and perhaps work a job and be something other than criminals, some will just eventually OD, but the rest of us won't have to live in a police state.

Re:Why not just give addicts free heroin?

[psydeshow]

Why not make that a "residential heroin treatment center" -- give addicts a choice of inpatient, locked-door detox and treatment or to maintain their habit but live at the treatment center where they would get heroin but live under restrictive circumstances?

Some people seem to be able to manage their addiction, and given access to quality product will continue to use at the same level or even slowly reduce over time if everything else if their life is going well.

But the big problem with opiates generally is that you build up resistance. The amount that you need to take in order to get high increases over time. Also, you stop doing important things like eating and bathing, which makes it that much harder to support your habit. At a certain level your body just can't take the dosage and organs shut down.

So, you know, yes there is plenty of real estate in which to dump addicts and let them live out their addictions. But good luck finding anybody willing to pay to keep the lights on, the toilets clean, and the smack flowing in that scenario. Maybe one of these religious groups with lots of real estate but nobody left in the congregation could do it as an act of actual compassion, but that's the kind of vision that bishops never seem to have for some reason.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Zero__Kelvin]

You completely missed the point. Methadone does induce a pleasing euphoric effect. The OP said it did not.

What could possibly go wrong ...

[PvtVoid]

... with disabling the brain's response to endorphins?

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Hoi Polloi]

Now I'm addicted to vaccines.

Use of painkillers eliminated?

[DigiTechGuy]

I would assume one would no longer be able to effectively use narcotin painkillers, the first that comes to mind is morphine. I've been in a couple bleeding out and praying for death so the pain would stop situations where morphine sure was nice to have. Also oxycodone is very useful to manage pain while recovering.

The flip side I suppose is if you have an addiction you can't drop on your own and it consumjes your life, you're probably already in a world of hurt and not worried about pain management during future mishaps.

And that serves what purpose, exactly?

[Opportunist]

As with any drugs, the first step isn't "not using it anymore". The first step is WANTING to quit. Without that, there is no use trying. And I'm not talking about wanting it like wanting to never drink again after you wake up with a head the size of the grand canyon after a night on the town. Or when it's new year's eve and you need some kind of new year's pledge. I mean really making the decision after some consideration that it's time to get off the stuff and realizing that it will be not something you'll do on the side while having fun.

As far as I know, there are already things that work if you made that step, or am I wrong? Sorry, I'm not really an expert on heroin, not quite my kinda drug.

Those Crazy Mice

[jjp9999]

"Mice given the vaccine showed a huge drop in heroin consumption." - It's about time someone did something to help those mice. I kept telling them "don't do it. You're only harming yourselves." But they wouldn't listen (being mice and all).

Ibogane and other medical treatments exist

[davidwr]

Wikipedia article on Opioid dependence.

This is just one more item in the arsenal.

Re:It'll help but probably won't completely stop i

[Opportunist]

Quitting smoking is quite easy. I do it. Daily when I go to bed.

Snide comments aside, what you have to do first is to WANT to quit. I don't wanna quit smoking, so I could use all the nic patches and e-cigarettes and whatnot I'd wanna and it wouldn't have the slightest chance to accomplish anything. Because there is not really any drive to just do it.

Maybe soon, maybe later, maybe never there will be me wanting to quit and THEN those patches, gums and whatnot will probably work. 'til then, I could slap a patch on my tongue and it wouldn't do a thing. Well, maybe it would cause some blistering.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Zero__Kelvin]

I'll never tell*, but here is your fatal flaw:

Two Legged Man to One Legged Man: You are obviously missing a leg!
One Legged Man to Two Legged Man: You are lying! You are not missing a leg!

* List of things I have done you would never have the balls to do far too large to even begin

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[YttriumOxide]

Yep. Methadone has all the addictive qualities without all the pleasing euphoria.

So people are getting addicted to something with no pleasant qualities? Please explain your logic.

While the GP may possibly be wrong about the lack of "pleasing euphoria", it's very easy to be addicted to something with no pleasant qualities. People who have never been addicted to anything are usually unaware of the difference between a psychological addiction and a physical addiction.

I'm a smoker, and I don't really enjoy it at all anymore. My lungs hurt if I smoke too much (which I definitely do on occasion); I cough up goo most mornings; I could really do with the extra cash from quitting; and I'm a father and hate the idea of my little girl growing up seeing me with a cigarette in my mouth. BUT, I still haven't quit despite several attempts. The reason for this is that the withdrawals are so extremely unpleasant that in a moment of weakness, I end up smoking again.

On the other side of the coin, I really enjoy taking LSD on occasion. It's fun, it's stress relieving, it's cheaper (and less harmful) than a night out with alcohol; and I would even say that I'm better at my job because of it (I'm a software developer and have definitely had moments of "insight" while tripping). All of that said, I could never take it again and it'd be no problem at all. LSD is not physically addictive (it could in theory be psychologically addictive, as with anything enjoyable (think "chocoholics"); however due to the fact that it's a pretty intense experience, taking it too often would remove the fun for me at least).

It's basically very easy to be addicted to something with no pleasant qualities; and also (as should be obvious) to not be addicted to something that brings a lot of pleasure.

Re:The good, the bad, and the ugly.

[Opportunist]

Again, at the risk of being modded redundant: It won't help as long as the "victim" of said vaccine doesn't want to quit.

Heroin isn't something you do because it's funny. Be honest, do you go out there, find the local crack house and think "Hmm... it's Friday, why not go and try shooting some crap into my veins, might be fun"? You'll find that the well adjusted person from a good home with a well paying job, a career and some outlook in life is rarely hanging out in some dank pit whining to his dealer for another shot of H.

As long as the underlying problem, i.e. WHY these people use it, isn't resolved, just forcing them into withdrawal won't get you anywhere.

great headline, stupid idea

[um... Lucas]

So you've got a bunch of people who are immune to the effects of heroin. And presumably every other opiod as well. What happens when one of them gets in a car accident? Needs surgery? Has cancer? Or any other occurence when a narcotic painkiller is administered, regardless of the persons history of drug use? I mean, a heroin addict who has cancer won't be denied painkillers, but where is the relief for them if their body can't accept the prescribed pain killer?

Re:great headline, stupid idea

[tgibbs]

This is probably the biggest problem with this approach. If the vaccine does not apply to the entire family of alkaloid opiates, then addicts would just switch to a different opiates. But if it does, then standard opiates would likely be ineffective unless injected directly into the central nervous system (e.g. by spinal injection).

On the other hand, it is hard to get good pain relief with opiates in addicts, anyway, because they are resistant. And abstinent addicts want to avoid opiate pain relievers because they can stimulate craving.

So if you're an addict, you already have a serious problem if you need major pain relief.

Re:great headline, stupid idea

[um... Lucas]

Addicts can be treated with opiods, they just require much higher doses. Which, again, isn't an issue if it's really warranted. A cancer patient is rarely worried about drug dependency, their cancer is of the type that can't be treated. They just need pain killers to not suffer as much. More minor things, like surgeries, can be done with an opiod for a short time (during the inpatient phase) and moved over to another med before discharge.

I wonder if ramifications like this will be explained in detail (rather than in passing) before administration?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wrong problem

[blind biker]

The problems caused by heroin addiction are minute compared to those caused by alcohol consumption and addiction. But of course, nobody would dare to try to fix that - there is too much interest in intoxicating people with expensive alcohol in water solution.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Opinions from an old user

[Nyder]

I've been a herion addict and was on methadone and the Buprenorphine trials we had here for a bit. I was an herion addict for about 10 years, let it control my life, homeless and all that crap. Got on methadone on and off for some years, did the Bupernorphine trials, got back on methadone again.

Even though I wanted to quit using dope, i would always end up back because want wasn't enough. While I was on methadone last, I got to talk to a shrink, and after a bit, found out I was dyslexic and ADHD and other fun stuff that I should of found out before my mid 30's. It was getting help for my ADHD and dyslexia that made it so I was finally able to say Fuck you to herion, and even methadone. I volunteerly lowed my dose till it was down to nothing, and stopped going to the stupid ass methadone clinic. By that time, I hated it and the people that went there and mostly the policies they have there.

Making it so people can't feel the high of doing Herion is going to make them do other drugs so they can feel something. Plane and simple. I knew a girl who'd OD because she had one of those thingies they put in your stomache so you can't get high. She kept trying and you want to know whats up with her now? She talks to herself. Mentally, she's gone. Kept trying to get high. She didn't die from it, but she's no longer the person she was.

You want to get herion addicts to stop? You need to find the reason why they are a heroin addict and fix those. Me? I was confused, I didn't understand people and people didn't seem to understand me. Stress and frustration were my enemies, and they didn't matter if I was high. Unfortunetly, being a herion addict means you don't get high as much as you get well.

Anyways, I think this is the wrong approach big time. But it doesn't surprise me, people don't understand addiction, and that is why a lot of people get addicted to stuff.

 

Re:Opinions from an old user

[NeoMorphy]

I agree, if you make it impossible to do Heroin, it will be replaced with something else. A lot of addicts are self-medicating and if you take away their medication of choice, they will go nuts trying to find a replacement medication. They really need to treat the root problem, otherwise the cycle of self-medication will continue with other dangerous drugs.

Re:Opinions from an old user

[tgibbs]

You don't need a reason to do heroin. A mouse will do heroin. You need a reason not to do heroin.

Re:Opinions from an old user

[Anonymous Coward]

^--- This post is on the money.

I'm also a recovering addict and have been clean for 18 months. I have been on Buprenorphrine maintenance for the course and currently take a 8mg dose twice a day. Unfortunately I don't see a time for the forseeable future that I _won't_ require the medication. The way I see it, I have a problem as likened to a diabetic patient, and require the medication in order to function within society. This isn't to say there won't be a day that I don't require the medication, however the alternative -- jumping back on the needle just isn't an option.

When I first saw the article OP, I thought to myself it was a great idea... However there are additional problems not discussed. As with my Bupe maintenance, if I'm ever in hospital and require an analgesic for pain management, there are specific medications they would have to administer in order for my pain level to be brought down. My concern would be the same with a magic "heroin cure" as well. What are the short term problems...? Is there an anti-magic heroin cure?

If I'm laid up in hospital without any way to relieve the pain, there are going to be problems.

There are applications for this medication just like any other. However it will be an exception rather than a rule, as you need to treat the underlaying problem and not the choice of product from which someone self-medicates.

Alternate findings

[SuperKendall]

Mice given the vaccine showed a huge drop in heroin consumption.

In the end it turned out the vaccine didn't work at all, the local dealers had simply stopped accepting cheese for payment.

Re:Alternate findings

[LeadSongDog]

So that's who stole my cheese!

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Cstryon]

Death is not a side effect of opiate withdrawals. Usually related deaths seem to be tired to a combination of the withdrawal, and a predisposition. Methadone is an opiate just like heroin, hydrocodone, etc. You'll get high with it.

There is suboxone, which is a commonly used drug thagt combines an opiate with something else that blocks the reward systems so you don't get high. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?

Just so we are clear, I'm an EMT, and I work at a medical detox/ crisis center. I deal with drug use and everything that comes with it.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[smi.james.th]

I may be wrong here, but isn't Methodone withdrawl actually harder to deal with than Heroin withdrawl? I always thought that Methodone was just less illegal, which is why it's used.

I for one welcome our new drug vaccine overlords, by the way. I've seen a lot of guys absolutely ruined by heroin addiction.

Re:hmmm

[Dunbal]

would that turn them into THE definition of a psychopath

Better yet do it without their consent so they have an axe to grind against "society".

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[ColdWetDog]

The idea behind methadone is that you're not supposed to keep using it. You use it when detoxing to gradually step down, but surprise surprise, heroin addicts don't use it as intended.

The term generally used is 'methadone maintenance therapy' - the key being the 'maintain' part of it. While some people do wean themselves off it the drug entirely, that's considered an added benefit. That's why they are set up as 'clinics'. The theory behind MMT, is that methadone doesn't give the INTENSELY EUPHORIC rush of heroin because you can't (safely) inject or snort it. Thus, the intense craving for another hit of heroin is diminished as well as the societal issues surrounding getting that hit. You do become physically addicted to the methadone and will go through withdrawal without it. But it's long enough acting that once a day dosing is sufficient for most people. Thus, the addicted person can maintain a much more normal life that the typical free range heroin addict.

With the rise of methadone on the street (it's really impressive on how many people have methadone in their urine toxicology screens in the ER), it's become apparent that this part of society has come up with new uses for an old drug (this is America! Innovate!). Aside from it's value in chronic pain - and a subset of people who get addicted to narcotics started out with chronic pain - it does blunt withdrawal symptoms. So if you have a bad, say, oxycodone habit but can't get the pills, you can take a methadone and chill out for a day or two or twenty. Then switch to the short acting drug that give you the real high when you can get it. You just can get a good dealer anymore.....

Then there are those folk that find that they can get a buzz with methadone. Usually you have to mix it with something else, but hey, that's not a problem. Actually it is - most of the methadone deaths are usually where you have a combination of psychoactive drugs on board. While you might be able to guess at the lethal dose of a particular drug, when you combine them it gets much more complicated.

You can have some interesting conversations with ER patients once you take out the endotracheal tube.

Sort of

[Anonymous Coward]

It does, but perhaps in a different way from the way people think.

In my experience, heroin diminishes other pleasures by making them pale in comparison.

Re: oh no!

[X0563511]

Die in a fire.

Here we go again

[kstahmer]

History isn’t encouraging, given heroin’s original use was as a safe cure for morphine addiction.

I suspect that the ssame folks....

[forkfail]

... who are against abortion will want to make this mandatory for users.

Could it produce an autoimmune syndrome?

[Harvey Manfrenjenson]

What if, in addition to the pleasure due to heroin, it also diminishes other sorts of pleasure?

This sounds like it could be a small slice of hell.

Exactly. If it interferes with endogenous opioids, the risk is that it will make the user less capable of experiencing pleasure. Some docs suspect that naltrexone (an opiate antagonist which is used to treat various addictions) already does this. No one has done the necessary studies to confirm this suspicion, but there is some strong circumstantial evidence-- e.g. if you look at the dropout rates for naltrexone trials, it's much higher than it is for comparable meds like acamprosate. A lot of people just "don't feel right" on naltrexone. But at least with naltrexone, you can just stop taking it! Not so easy to go back once you've permanently altered your immune response.

Also, I wonder if this vaccine could produce an autoimmune disorder, since you are encouraging the immune system to react to something which resembles a number of endogenous neurotransmitters.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Mister Whirly]

Yes, methadone is more addictive and harder to kick than heroin. it is basically synthetic heroin so why not "improve" on those qualities? Methadone is just the substance used by clinics to keep their patients from having to go out and score real dope, and all the crime that goes with feeding that habit. Someone who was doing $80 of heroin a day can now take about $10 worth of methadone and not be sick.

And to anyone who hasn't tried heroin - don't bother. Yes it makes you feel incredible, but that is a short honeymoon. Messing with heroin only ends in three ways - death, jail, or kicking the habit. Two of them are no fun at all, and the only option left gets you back to where you started. It isn't cool or glamorous at all.

Re:Now that heroin is taken care of......

[Politburo]

Long term studies have shown no decrease in lung function. It's not yet known why this is, if there is something in tobacco that is very bad, or something in MJ that somehow has a protective factor, or if it's just the habits or what.

I hear "Beethovens's 9th" when I read this

[peter303]

I am referring to the Clockwork Orange movie where the "cure" to violence addiction had the side effect of turning off the pleasure music. will taming one part of the mind disable other parts in some subtle fashion. Maybe its not coincidence that many artists are bipolar: extreme creatively may be a mental outlier.

Re:Masking the effects?

[Ricwot]

I was with you until you said satire.

Re:Herd Immunity

[forkfail]

Thank you for actually generating a measurable drop in average IQ of the species.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[atisss]

Smoking is in no way physical addiction (unless your body pressure, breathing or anything else changes).

I've withdrawn from smoking for couple of years, and it's psychological, as you generally don't need to smoke, but you just want as you're used to it and have nothing better to do. So, generally it's just a habit.

The same could happen to LSD, but you don't take it every hour, so most unlikely.

As for heroin - the addiction is really physical, as you feel Your bones breaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_danger_and_dependence.svg

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[atisss]

It's a vaccine that you have to renew every day. The dosage also increases with time ;)

Freedom from forced psychotropic change is a right

[Anonymous Coward]

To Slashdot:

You (yes, every one of you) synthesize and use opiates every day, in the form of opioid peptides (dynorphin, enkephalin, endomorphin). You may even eat things that block enkephalinase, making these opioid substances last longer.

Heroin (yes, diacetylmorphine) and other strong opiates (synthetic and naturally derived) are used every day in palliative care to alleviate intolerable, intractable, suicide-provoking pain for the terminally ill.

Do you actually support forcibly vaccinating children with this ridiculous substance, thus ensuring they'll meet their end years later screaming in agony and begging for death? Do you actually support defeating the body's own pain modulation system? Are you against human dignity in general, or just not thinking things through?

This isn't a vaccine, because vaccines (i) actually have a benefit; (ii) don't cause substantial psychological changes; and (iii) are generally recognized as safe.

Freedom from forced psychotropic modification is a fundamental human right. Humans have a god-given right to possess and use the opiate receptors in their brain.

You have no right to force *anyone* to do this, ever. And fuck you for even thinking about it.

Heroin isn't the problem.

[couchslug]

The consequences of what must be done to obtain illegal, unsafe heroin is the problem.

Smack is illegal because it is considered Sinful, and Sin must be punished without respect to actual social damage. The War on Some Drugs is a moral obligation to Jesus (or your Middle Eastern Sky Fairie of choice).

Booze escaped Prohibition after years of spectacularly destructive blowback, but the US is delighted to tolerate the War on Some Drugs, build police empires to continue it, fund the destabilisation of Mexico, and drive Mexicans to immigrate from the country our policies are wrecking. Since the only objective of life is Salvation, terrestrial suffering and consequences are not relevant.

USians talk shit about Muslims enforcing Sharia, but Xtian superstition is barely tamed here and drives extremely expensive and destructive national policy.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[gorzek]

OK, that's one of the funniest twists on that meme I've seen in quite a while. Wish I had mod points for you. :)

Re:This is stupid

[couchslug]

Religion opposes Pleasure it does not ration.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[gorzek]

Spend that money on nicotine gum/patches so you'll live to see your daughter grow up.

Older generations didn't really have good options for quitting smokes (besides cold turkey). We do. Use them.

Sorry, but that is the romantic view

[SmallFurryCreature]

Real drug addicts have long since passed the high, the dream state hippies talk about, those fun animation bits from the movies.

Real drug addict take drugs not to feel high but to feel normal or at least not as bad. If you want a comparison, think pain relievers. If you ever have been in serious pain you take the drugs just to feel normal again. And granted, that can feel like a high but more because the horror that came before has been lifted.

Just as a first cigarette may calm your nerves but you need the 1000th one just to function, heroine and similar drugs quickly wear down. Add to this that most drug addicts don't exactly have happy lives and you have many shooting up just to make the world hurt a bit less. Of course after wards it will hurt even more.

Making the person immune does nothing. The reason for the drug taking hasn't gone away only now they will be in withdrawal with no way out. Methadon as described is often used to "help" heroine addicts but it is far from harmless, all it does is make the addiction cheaper. Drug addicts need drugs to function, take it away without anything else and they will just seek something else. After all, that is how they got addicted in the first place.

Non addicts can't really understand this. When you see a drug like crocodile, you know that people who haven't yet used it, saw people using it with parts of their bodies rotting away, not "this is your brain on drugs" style rotting, real "bones exposed" rotting and STILL started using it. That isn't done to get a nice 60's hippy high, that is a person cutting themselves to stop chronic pain.

It is therefor pointless to vaccinate the general population to combat this. The reason people start using drugs is often not to get high but to escape their reality. If it can't be done with heroine, then something else. How do you stop people taking drugs? If I knew that, I would be a very rich man. War on drugs or condoning it, drug use rates are remarkably similar around the world with the only increases in areas where live is miserable.

Re:Sorry, but that is the romantic view

[tgibbs]

Addicts do get off opiates and stay off for extended periods of time, although it is difficult and there is a constant risk of relapse. Withdrawal symptoms go away after a fairly short time, but the craving generally comes back from time to time, and can be triggered by "reminders" of drug use. So a vaccine that made it harder to "fall off the wagon" in response to an attack of craving would likely be helpful to abstinent addicts.

Smoking is fun, sticking needles under your nails

[SmallFurryCreature]

Smoking is fun, sticking needles under your nails is not.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Muad'Dave]

Oxygen.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Mister Whirly]

It may not have overt "pleasant qualities" but not getting dope sick would be reason enough for most junkies. Another would be the ability to hold a steady job. It isn't about getting high with methadone, it is about not needing to score heroin in order to not get sick. Heroin withdrawal is excruciatingly painful and feels like the worst flu/cold you have ever had before times 100. Avoiding that very unpleasant feeling is the motivation. Financial reasons is another motivation - the heroin junkie shooting $80 worth of heroin a day can get on a $10 a day dose of methadone.

I doubt the mice had any choice in the matter...

[Delgul]

Which is exactly what is missing in this research. Because given a choice, the mice might have started using a different drug to compensate for the loss of the effects of heroine. And this, I think, is exactly what addicted people will do. Possibly worse drugs. Instead of solving the problem you will have made it worse. Heroine is not such a bad drug, if you can pay for it. So make it dirt-cheap and your problems will at least be manageable. But then again, I am a Dutch boy and we are all addicts anyway. Or so most of you believe ;-)

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't everything end in death, jail, or kicking the habit?

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[mcgrew]

You're confusing addiction with habituation. Reasonable, since they've convieniently changed the word "addiction." Addiction used to be a physical dependancy -- if you quit, you had bad physical symptoms. Caffiene withdrawal gives you headaches. Alcohol withdrawal gives you the shakes, and if you're badly addicted it can give you hallucinations and even result in death. Same with heroin, sudden withdrawal can be fatal.

Habituation is being used to doing something, generally something pleasant, that becomes a habit. If you have a glass of orange juice every morning for five years and one day you can't have it, you're going to crave that orange juice badly. That's habituation.

That's how nicotine patches work -- they let you get over the habituation before you have to start fighting the physical withdrawal. With some substances like caffiene or nicotine, the habituation can be worse than the actual addiction.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[datavirtue]

Methadone is a drug used by the medical establishment to calm down addicts so that the practitioners life is easier. It is not a treatment. When you have a ward full of addicts, it will get crazy real quick. Methadone brings everything down to a mild roar so the doctors and nurses can handle the situation. Now it has morphed into some type of acceptable "treatment" to addict addicts to another drug. So they use methadone until they can get more heroine. What a joke.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[datavirtue]

Heroine addicts are not capable of making rational decisions. Period. If you are fooled into thinking they are, by your inexperience, they will wise you up sooner or later. Imagine a person who's every word is a lie and you will start to understand a heroine addict. Not trusting them is a first step. They will pwn a good trusting person who doesn't understand their condition.

Re:This is stupid

[EXrider]

Yeah, except for the part where you have strung out drug addicts that refuse to get a job or do anything remotely productive for society. Instead, they expect to sit on their asses and collect government assistance, maybe have some more children to increase their earnings. Or worse, they steal everything they can get their hands on to fund their addictions.

I realize that this isn't the case for functioning addicts, or all recreational drug users, but society definitely doesn't need any more of the former kind of addicts I mentioned above, and there will be more of them if these substances are easy for everyone to obtain. Explain how we deal with those problems once we open the floodgates of drugs to everyone? Don't tell me that they'll suddenly change their ways because their drugs suddenly become more affordable (doubtful when you look at how the prescription drug industry operates), because we all know how rational these types of people are with budgets and how they'd allocate additional income.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[datavirtue]

Yes, heroine addiction can be a fitting metaphor for life in general. It is a vision quest of epic proportions. Not suggested. I've witnessed the affects of heroine on a family member. Sad.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Mister Whirly]

Nicotine does have a very short physical withdrawal, but you are correct that it is the psychological habit that is the harder one to break. After the first couple days of quitting smoking, all the nicotine is out of your system so the rest is all in your head. Just becasue it doesn't produce the same intense withdrawal effects as opiates does not mean there is zero physical addiction, just a physical addiction on a much smaller scale.

It makes sense when you think about it

[davidbrit2]

They'll all be too autistic to bother with the heroin.

Unintended consequence?

[oDDmON oUT]

Like it affects uptake of all opiate/opiate-analog painkillers, then the vaccinated has an operation/accident/dental procedure and literally has to bite the bullet?

Re:Unintended consequence?

[Erikderzweite]

As some doctors say: you don't need painkillers with patient properly fixed.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[mcgrew]

Since you're an EMT and should know what you're talking about, is this site bogus?

What are the symptoms of heroin withdrawal?
Regardless of dosage, these reactions may appear:

Convulsions
Increased heart rate
Abnormal heartbeat
Heart attack
Sudden, sharp blood pressure increase
Stroke
Extreme depression
Suicidal behaviour

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Cstryon]

Since you're an EMT and should know what you're talking about, is this site bogus?

What are the symptoms of heroin withdrawal?
Regardless of dosage, these reactions may appear:

Convulsions
Increased heart rate
Abnormal heartbeat
Heart attack
Sudden, sharp blood pressure increase
Stroke
Extreme depression
Suicidal behaviour

Yeah pretty much. Sounds a lot like advertising too. If I'm given that kind of scare, I might just pay those guys a bunch of money to give me detox.
More accurately, here is a good reference of what you can expect with opiate withdrawal http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000949.ht

m

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Sczi]

Yes, even cyanide.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a long time heroin user. I have used for the past 16 years on and of and have always managed to earn enough to pay for my habit even if I have had to work 3 jobs.

Due to being short of work currently (hours in a shop and 3 or 4 local pc repairs a week) I am currently on a suboxone prescription instead of using as I refuse to steal, beg or borrow for my habit. I have used methadone in the past and it is awful evil stuff. You get a buzz but it's not as good as a heroin buzz yet the withdrawals from methadone are the worst thing ever. I can easily take the pain of heroin withdrawal but methadone is far worse and withdrawals can last a month.

Until recently I was surviving on opium tea made from poppy heads that I ordered from an online dried flower/craft shop. The withdrawals from poppy tea are also far worse than heroin withdrawal.

Re:Neuromancer

[uncool]

Just one Neuromancer comment in the whole story? Damn, /.is getting stranger with each passing day.

Re:This is stupid

[LanMan04]

Instead, they expect to sit on their asses and collect government assistance, maybe have some more children to increase their earnings. Or worse, they steal everything they can get their hands on to fund their addictions.

Do you know how expensive it is to keep millions of drug-offenders in prison? It would probably be cheaper to just keep them doped up with free drugs.

Painkillers?

[travbrad]

What happens if the person who gets the vaccine develops a very painful condition (like cancer)? All effective painkillers work in exactly the same way heroin does, so I assume if it stops the effects of heroin it'll stop the effects of other opiods/opiates as well.

Sounds like trading one kind of suffering for another.

It's also well-known that the most successful quitters of drugs are people who truly WANT to be clean/sober, and deal with the issues that made them drug users in the first place. I have a feeling this would be effective in the short-term, but it doesn't really address the root causes of most people's addictions.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[reub2000]

Okay, but when you started smoking, none of this happened I'm guessing. If you smoked your first cigarette and it just hurt your lungs and provided no euphoria then you would have never picked up another cigarette I'm guessing.

Re:This is stupid

[EXrider]

Hmm, I could be wrong, but I would think per person, prison is much cheaper than gov't funded housing, food cards (to buy whatever they want) and medicaid. Or, it sure as hell SHOULD be. Institutionalized living should be way more efficient and cost effective if it's done properly, I realize that's not necessarily the case in many prisions in the US.

Realistically, a lot of drug abusers are self-medicating and should probably be in mental institutions, not prison.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Scientists at Mexico's National Institute of Psych

[dmbasso]

Mice given the vaccine showed a huge drop in heroin consumption.

So there is hope for Speedy Gonzales?

Re:Freedom from forced psychotropic change is a ri

[turgid]

Someone with a clue.

Methadone Maintenance

[DragonWriter]

The idea behind methadone is that you're not supposed to keep using it.

No, it's not.

You use it when detoxing to gradually step down, but surprise surprise, heroin addicts don't use it as intended.

There are two main uses of methadone. One is, as you describe, for detoxification. The other is for long-term maintenance (see, e.g., this CDC fact sheet.)

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[__aasdno7518]

What worries me is what do they do if down the road the person develops cancer and needs powerful pain killers? Will this prevent the pain killing aspects of narcotics from working?

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Arterion]

I'd rather have people getting methadone from a clinic rather than dealing with the drug market -- even if they NEVER got over their addiction.

Ideally, an addict could very gradually get off methadone. At least at the clinic, there is an entry point for getting some real, professional help. A dealer has a great disincentive to help a customer get clean.

Sometimes, we have to pick the lesser of two evils, and make the best of it until we come up with a better solution. Maybe one day we'll have solved the chemistry involved, and have a treatment to administer to get a person clean overnight. Until then, I support the clinics.

Interestingly, my home state of Tennessee is dealing with this issue right now:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120217/OPINION03/302170054/Methadone-cuts-will-create-problem

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[rtb61]

Apparently a desire for Ibogain. Not to worry, fixed the US way. Instead of using naturally occurring plant extracts, an extremely profitable patented version was created which of course will be paid for by taxpayers with big profits going to some contemptible asshat corporation.

The US, never use cheap natural, always go for highly profitable artificial and lobbyist driven compulsory use. Americans never ever let health interfere with profits.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[YttriumOxide]

The AC that replied is quite right. My first ever cigarette tasted absolutely ghastly; caused a coughing fit since my lungs weren't used to it and gave me a nasty headspin that made me feel like I needed to sit down or throw up.

Why exactly after that I had a second is somewhat of a mystery even to me, but I was young and I can only put it down to peer pressure.

It was at least a couple of weeks before I really got comfortable with smoking and probably even did enjoy it for awhile - but only the social aspects of it - never any positive feeling from the nicotine itself (beyond "removing bad feelings"). Now, 17 years later, I very much regret it.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[YttriumOxide]

You deserve the father of the year award for taking LSD

Being AC, you're probably never going to come back and check for this reply, which is a shame.

LSD is non-harmful and non-addictive, I really only take it around 2 to 3 times a year, and I'd never be in a horribly altered state in the presence of my daughter (on LSD unlike other substances, the presence of mind to make sensible decisions isn't diminished). I'd contend it's significantly less bad that I do that than the large number of men that quite legally get drunk and do stupid stuff in the presence of their children.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[YttriumOxide]

Nicotine does have a very short physical withdrawal, but you are correct that it is the psychological habit that is the harder one to break. After the first couple days of quitting smoking, all the nicotine is out of your system so the rest is all in your head.

Unfortunately, that's not entirely true despite being very commonly stated (even in a lot of "medical" literature). Once the nicotine is out of your system, there are still physical symptoms as nicotine causes changes to your dopamine levels. Until your body/brain learns to regulate your levels without the use of nicotine, you continue to experience physical symptoms. Just how long this is depends on your own physiology, your diet, and so on; but it's not uncommon to have dopamine problems up to 3 months after smoking cessation.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[YttriumOxide]

Smoking is in no way physical addiction (unless your body pressure, breathing or anything else changes).

I've withdrawn from smoking for couple of years, and it's psychological, as you generally don't need to smoke, but you just want as you're used to it and have nothing better to do. So, generally it's just a habit.

Not true unfortunately - see my reply to Mr Whirly's reply to you.

Good on you for quitting so easily. I know of quite a few people who managed it pretty easily and I'm envious of them. I also know others who are in the same boat as me and having a really hard time every attempt. I assume it's got something to do with the physiology of the individual and how well/quickly they can recover their natural dopamine regulation.

The same could happen to LSD, but you don't take it every hour, so most unlikely.

While a psychological addiction to LSD is theoretically possible, it'd be pretty hard to establish. A typical trip lasts between 8 and 12 hours after which you would need a significantly higher dose to have any effect for at least half a week (fast and high tolerance). Beyond that, most people that take it somewhat regularly - myself included (2 to 3 times a year) - find that one trip gives enough to think about for at least several weeks afterwards and don't have a strong compulsion to "relive" the trip any time soon.

As for heroin - the addiction is really physical, as you feel Your bones breaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_danger_and_dependence.svg

Yeh, Heroin is nasty stuff. But look where Nicotine is on that chart compared to so many other substances (and LSD especially).

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[garaged]

Does it makes you a better person?

If so, how come you protect your child from it?

As much as I would like to think that you can "discover" something good by using LSD, dont you have the risk of starting to believe something stupid or plain crazy ? Like "using LSD is good thing"

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[fleebait]

is this site bogus?

Yes and no. Are it's descriptions accurate? -- a little over the top..

It's the infamous Narconon -- associated with the "Church" of Scientology

They make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims of success.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[mcgrew]

Informative, thank you.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[mcgrew]

If it's a scientology site it's certainly bogus.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[YttriumOxide]

Does it makes you a better person?

I believe yes.

If so, how come you protect your child from it?

Because she's too young to make rational decisions about powerful psychotropic substances. The same reason I drive a car myself, but wouldn't let my daughter behind the wheel for the next 15 years.

Honestly, when she's old enough (probably somewhere between 16 and 25 - depending on how emotionally and mentally mature she is), I'll happily introduce her to it.

As much as I would like to think that you can "discover" something good by using LSD, dont you have the risk of starting to believe something stupid or plain crazy ? Like "using LSD is good thing"

Basically no. LSD doesn't make you "believe" anything. It gives you a different perspective on your own views of the world and you take what you want/can from that. Some people take nothing from it and just view the trip as "a good time" (or a bad time), others take a lot from it. I can't and don't say that everyone who takes it and changes their worldview changes it for the better, but self-analysis and consideration of one's own worldview is sorely lacking in today's society, so I'd make a fair bet that the opportunity to at least examine one's own thoughts is overall more positive than negative.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[Cstryon]

You bet ;)

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[cduffy]

Spend that money on nicotine gum/patches so you'll live to see your daughter grow up.

He could be luckier(?) than that -- my maternal grandparents survived to see their daughter grow up, and raised her son (myself) while she worked... then both died of smoking-related illnesses (emphysema and lung cancer, respectively) within months of each other when I was 4 or so years old.

My grandmother quit cold turkey as soon as her daughter became pregnant -- "a grandmother shouldn't smoke" -- but it simply turned out to be too late; my grandfather, by contrast, simply couldn't kick the habit.

But... yes. Consider your suggestion seconded. Losing a parent, or a grandparent, to a preventable illness... it's not a lot of fun.

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[YttriumOxide]

Having been a child from a drug user I can only ask you to please don't do that to anybody, do whatever you want to yourself, but at least don't make it a cycle.

I had to deal with nighmares and a lot of personal issues just because of my parent drug usage, and I love my parent very much, but it was not funny to be subject to the kind of things I lived because of that.

This is the problem with the "war on drugs" - it makes people think all illegal drugs are the equivalent of each other.

I'm very sorry for you AC that you grew up in an environment that was bad for you; however I'm pretty certain the drug or drugs your parent used was not LSD, otherwise your story just doesn't make sense. There's a lot of substances out there that if I were to take them, it'd be negative for my daughter. Both legal and illegal substances - crystal meth, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, antidepressants or other mood altering "medication"; and many more. However there's also substances that are not going to cause problems - LSD is one of them. It doesn't make me irresponsible or irrational; it doesn't impair my ability to reason; it doesn't leave me incapable of functioning properly the next day; it doesn't cost significant amounts of money (actually, I spend more on cigarettes per month than I do on LSD per year - one of the reasons I really want to quit smoking); it doesn't cause mood swings... there just really isn't any way that my use of it can cause a problem for my daughter.

The only way LSD could have any influence on her whatsoever is if she were to get her hands on some and take it herself. This is something I of course make sure can never happen by never having any in the house.

As I've made clear, I take it approximately 2 to 3 times a year and do not take it where she can see. I see no difference from her point of view between this and when I go away for a day for any other reason, other than that when I come back from an LSD trip, I'm in a better mood than when I come back from a stressful business trip.

Lame.

[s0nicfreak]

Let me know when they make a drug that gives the pleasure without the bad side effects. Why the hell is pleasure illegal?

Re:To Quote Woody allen

[KingBenny]

with everything i have seen and experienced myself methadone does not break the habit, most addicts (for lack of a better word) still try to score the daily fix, on top of the methadone, it shouldnt be allowed more than a month really, in fact the physical detox doesnt even last two weeks. I'm curious to see if this vaccine could actually fight the hunger for the habit itself. It's not just the physical part, detoxing from heroin is like having serious case of the flue while crawling to the toiled to vomit while the diarrhea just runs down your pants. I would advise against it, even for experimenting unless you're terminally ill. No one, i mean no one is stronger, and even if you get off, as they say, She's the only bitch that never leaves you. There's plenty of fun substances with way less consequences if you really feel like zoning out. And one more, from personal experience, no kind of sedative or upper should be taken as relief from a bad feeling (recreationally then) or if you're down. If the need to party arises, it should be done only when you already feel good, so you can feel super-everything and when you come back down, it's not into the shit you started from but to a point of woaw that was awesome now i'm exhausted. even alcohol ... defnitely alchohol, imo it stands next to heroin and i think in the 'official' statistic it might be as well