A Cocaine Vaccine?

[Morkeliph]

Several articles have been published on new efforts to develop a "vaccine" against cocaine addiction. The vaccine aims at preventing the reinforcing "high" that occurs from cocaine self-administration. What are your opinions of such a vaccine?

I think this sounds awesome! If people could be vaccinated early on so that cocaine did not produce a reinforcing effect for them, then I think cocaine usage would plummet. What an interesting way to fight drug use!

Here are some of the articles if you want to check it out yourselves:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3804741.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1906823.stm

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/cocaine/vaccine.htm

[Nuts]

Yippee, now people can move on to other destructive drugs like Meth. Drug addicts are in search of a high, they don't care what gets them there. Not to mention, who would volunteer for such a vaccine until it's already too late? I certainly see no need for myself to get vaccinated against a drug that I have no intention of using. But if my life ever were to fall apart and I found myself wanting to try drugs, I don't think a vaccine would be a consideration.

It sounds like neat science, but the practical application seems limited.

[FallenLord]

Interesting idea, but it's like when Blizzard implemented upkeep in WC3. Making it harder to get a huge army doesn't stop people from still doing it.

As Nuts said, they'll just move onto something else.

Imo, the most effective way to stop future generations from substance abuse is to beat it into their heads that drugs are wrong. Pain is proven to help stupid people (children) do the right thing until they're educated enough to do it by choice.

[Morkeliph]

True, people will just choose other drugs. Cocaine however is thought to be the most addictive drug on the market, and is the base for many other drugs, like heroin. Another thought is, if a vaccine can be made that prevents the high of cocaine, perhaps vaccines against other drugs could be made in the future as well. We all have to start somewhere.

[Kingscrab]

Drug addicts are in search of a high, they don't care what gets them there. Not to mention, who would volunteer for such a vaccine until it's already too late...... It sounds like neat science, but the practical application seems limited. True, true. If people want to get high they will do it anyhow. They will find another way. I see it as a usefull tool to help those in rehab who might be addicted and want to quit, but that's about it. But yeah, if it works well, then by all means, i'm glad there is something that helps people get off the shit and straighten out their lives.

[GenocideAlive]

I've never tried any of the pleasure drugs, but man. I'm going to put in for Morphine right now, 'cause when I got viral meningitis, there was pretty much nothing wrong with the world.

Otherwise, the vaccine seems like a good idea, but it doesn't solve the problem with addictive behavior. You'd need a vaccine for every drug out there. Then people would just try to get high on caffeine and sugar. Some people are just bent on getting out of their skin.

[hammocksleeper]

Who would volunteer for such a vaccine until it's already too late? I certainly see no need for myself to get vaccinated against a drug that I have no intention of using. But if my life ever were to fall apart and I found myself wanting to try drugs, I don't think a vaccine would be a consideration.

I feel the same way. If you have to take the vaccine before you get addicted for it to work, I'm never going to take it. I hate getting vaccines and other unnecessary medicnes pumped into my body. And I'm sure as hell not going to give one to my children. I would rather see something that solves the addiction.

[frazz]

An interesting idea, but when addicts know they have taken the vaccine, and try to get high, they will use something else.
Interesting idea, but it's like when Blizzard implemented upkeep in WC3. Making it harder to get a huge army doesn't stop people from still doing it.

As Nuts said, they'll just move onto something else.

Imo, the most effective way to stop future generations from substance abuse is to beat it into their heads that drugs are wrong. Pain is proven to help stupid people (children) do the right thing until they're educated enough to do it by choice.
No the best way is to move in to all the cocaine farms and nuke the heck out of all the plants. Yep, that's it. Cut off the world from cocaine and... well, some people won't move on to other drugs.

[singo]

No the best way is to move in to all the cocaine farms and nuke the heck out of all the plants. Yep, that's it. Cut off the world from cocaine and... well, some people won't move on to other drugs.

Doubtful, nuclear weaponry is a bit to unsubtle for using on farms really.


Now, people in search of a high will still go for other stuff. BUT, there is a limit to how many substances can get a person high. Removing the effect of one of them I dont think can be anything but a good thing.

Of course my own views on the "war on drugs" almost echo Frazz's. Shoot anyone who sells them. But this is about the vaccine.


Also, it says that it is given to people who are already using/trying to quit.


And.
He said it was possible that addicts would simply switch to another drug, but said evidence from three US trials showed that only happened in a small number of cases.

[Xenon]

The war on drugs is like the war on terrorism. There is no way to win such a war until the root issues are addressed. What needs to be looked at is why a certain section of the population feel the need to escape from reality. If you don't treat the disease, the body is going to die.

[Dark_Magneto]

The war on drugs is the whole thing that makes CIA drug smuggling operations (http://gnn.tv/videos/1/Crack_The_CIA) so profitable. So yeah, it's here to stay.

[Eru]

Has anybody considered the idea that this is morally wrong? The government has no right to rob someone of a portion of their natural state in order to further a moral crusade.

[GenocideAlive]

Has anybody considered the idea that this is morally wrong? The government has no right to rob someone of a portion of their natural state in order to further a moral crusade.
Have you ever considered that your body's natural state is prone to dying mere days after birth? Lasting past its second year naturally would be no small feat. Part of the problem with population control is that we're no longer doing anything naturally. The "morale crusade" itself is often at the root of the cycle of poverty, drugs, and criminal behavior. You sound like you're repeating marijuana rhetoric and trying to apply it to cocaine. Marijuana advocates would hang you out to dry.

[Morkeliph]

Which is less moral: (1) vaccinating an individual at birth in hopes of preventing them from becoming addicted to a dangerous recreational drug, or (2) withholding a treatment from an individual who could greatly benefit from it and which could save their life because you do not wish to take away their natural ability to get off on dangerous chemicals?

Let's be honest here, while "morals" might vary between individuals and definitely between cultures, it is no big mystery that cocaine is a highly addictive and potentially lethal narcotic. Not to mention that those who become addicted to cocaine often spend all the money on it, neglect their families or personal health, lose their jobs, and turn to theft, prostitution, or violoent crime to obtain the money for their next fix. If you could reduce the risk of someone making this sort of a mess of their lives via a vaccination wouldn't you give it to them? Granted, the vaccine isn't going to cure all of these problems entirely, but if it reduces the chances that an individual will get caught up in them, isn't that good enough?

[Eru]

Have you ever considered that your body's natural state is prone to dying mere days after birth? Lasting past its second year naturally would be no small feat. Part of the problem with population control is that we're no longer doing anything naturally. The "morale crusade" itself is often at the root of the cycle of poverty, drugs, and criminal behavior. You sound like you're repeating marijuana rhetoric and trying to apply it to cocaine. Marijuana advocates would hang you out to dry.

Do you always write meaningless crap when you can't think of something to say? For all that bullshit you just wrote you totally failed to anwer the question of if it's a role of the government to alter a persons natural state in order to deprive the individual of an experience he could choose to do on his own.

Which is less moral: (1) vaccinating an individual at birth in hopes of preventing them from becoming addicted to a dangerous recreational drug, or (2) withholding a treatment from an individual who could greatly benefit from it and which could save their life because you do not wish to take away their natural ability to get off on dangerous chemicals?

I'm not saying it wouldn't have its benefits, I'm just saying it's not in the spirit of liberty to block possible experiences an individual may choose to partake in.

[Mtank]

I'm not saying it wouldn't have its benefits, I'm just saying it's not in the spirit of liberty to block possible experiences an individual may choose to partake in.

Well, if you consider liberty as simply absence of restraint, yes. But if you look at it in a positive sense, liberty also means the freedom to develop as an integral part of society.

In other words, sometimes liberty of an individual has to be curbed in order for general social good. The experience of Cocaine may be pleasant for the individual, but as Morkeliph pointed out, often leads to destructive consequences not only for the individual in question but also to those around him or her. So ultimately, the reduction of your liberty would probably deprive you not only of the experience of cocaine but also the negative consequences that often come with it, as well as protect others by reducing your capacity for destructive behaviour. The fact is that we live in a society, and our actions affect others. If it was a question of an activity that affected no-one but the individual, you would have a point. Unfortunately, this is not the case here. (And hardly ever is, in fact.)

At any rate, it doesnt have to be government-enforced, does it? If the parent were to decide whether a child is to be given the vaccine, that wouldnt be too bad, would it? As a parent, wouldnt you want your child to be vaccined against cocaine? I know I would.

[GenocideAlive]

Do you always write meaningless crap when you can't think of something to say? For all that bullshit you just wrote you totally failed to anwer the question of if it's a role of the government to alter a persons natural state in order to deprive the individual of an experience he could choose to do on his own.
I didn't answer your question, I simply invalidated the flawed basis for your asking it. It's like if I asked you why you chose BillAnderson as your login...if you reply that it's not then technically you haven't answered my question. But you've pointed out a GAPING FLAW in my logic.

Similarly, your original basis for stating that someone would lose a portion of their "natural state" is totally and completely baseless and irrelevant. From birth until death you are continually modified in the exact same way from your natural state for purposes of enchancing your survival rate. This vaccine would be no different. Here's hoping that you don't keep trying to look over all those trees to see the forest everybody's talking about.

[Morkeliph]

What I will never understand is how *everyone* who posts on these forums is always personally offended by however GenAl responds to their posts. Could it be that not every post is a direct attack against you personally? And even if they are, who cares? Presumably, this is some guy half-way across the continent who is calling you an imbicile over the internet. Whoop-de-freakin'-do.

[ScottieIWU]

What I will never understand is how *everyone* who posts on these forums is always personally offended by however GenAl responds to their posts.

Actually there seem to be a series of heated rivalries between WB members that show up in the most inane areas. But GA definitely gets the worst end since everybody does seem to dislike him.

Maybe it's cuz people dislike getting owned. I know I do and that's why I disliked GA at first.

[Eru]

Similarly, your original basis for stating that someone would lose a portion of their "natural state" is totally and completely baseless and irrelevant.

I didn't say I was against altering your natural state, I said I was against altering your natural state in order to further a moral crusade such as the drug war.

What I will never understand is how *everyone* who posts on these forums is always personally offended by however GenAl responds to their posts.

What I don't understand is how I'm being labeled as a GenAl hater after 10 posts on this forum.

At any rate, it doesnt have to be government-enforced, does it?

I imagine it could but it would be far more likely that the government would abuse the vaccine.

[Mtank]

I imagine it could but it would be far more likely that the government would abuse the vaccine.

I have my doubts, at least concerning this coming about in my country.

By the way, you completely ignored the rest of the content of my post, which was the main focus, rather than the afterthought.

[GenocideAlive]

I didn't say I was against altering your natural state, I said I was against altering your natural state in order to further a moral crusade such as the drug war.
What does "the drug war" have to do with a cocaine vaccine? You're trying to sling mud with very weak associations. The war on drugs doesn't particularly appeal to me and neither does the political rhetoric that it attracts. A cocaine vaccine, however, stands a very good chance of ending a vicious cycle of poverty, lack of education, and criminality that plagues the inner city. No moral crusade to be had, here; the link between cocaine and the three previously mentioned social problems is well-established.
I imagine it could but it would be far more likely that the government would abuse the vaccine.
It's becoming more and more obvious that you're wrapping your dislike for the government in the cloak of "civil liberty". There's nothing to "abuse" about a cocaine vaccine. Hell, the ingestion of cocaine itself is an "alteration of your natural state", as are all pleasure drugs.

It could be part of a cocktail that's given to all newborns that you can request to not be included. Otherwise, there's no good reason to leave it out, unless you want to have children that are susceptible to expensive, viciously addictive pleasure drugs.

[dirty_raider]

In my opinion people have the right to put anything they want into their bodies, in fact if drugs where legalised and taxed then the government would generate more monet for better policeing. Many of the problems with drugs arise from the impurity of the substances as well.
Seems only fair in a democracy that so long as the only person your hurting is yourself that you have a right to.

However as a flip side the crack down on crime to fund drug related crimes would have to increase and proper education on the dangers of drugs.

[Ubergopher]

in fact if drugs where legalised and taxed then the government would generate more monet
Yes, because after all if the goverment leagalized cocaine and taxed it everyone would stop buying it illegaly to avoid the taxes. You haven't solved anything, you've just changed the reason for buying it off the stree instead of in a 7-11.

[Mtank]

Seems only fair in a democracy that so long as the only person your hurting is yourself that you have a right to.


But that's just the kickers, isn't it? Drugs don't affect just the individual. Drug-related behaviour is destructive to those around the individual as well.

[Toucan]

Yes, because after all if the goverment leagalized cocaine and taxed it everyone would stop buying it illegaly to avoid the taxes. You haven't solved anything, you've just changed the reason for buying it off the stree instead of in a 7-11.
When was the last time you bought black market alcohol off the street? Was alcohol not once illegal? Does the government not now Tax alcohol?
If drugs like cocaine where to be made legal and sold in licensed premises people would stop buying it off the street, quite simply, in legit business the profit margin is much lower than illegal business, quantities purchased legally would be higher than illegal business.
That aside, the only reason I would not vaccinate my children with a vaccine like this one is because it is new and experimental, maybe my grandchildren will be, who knows?

[GenocideAlive]

When was the last time you bought black market alcohol off the street? Was alcohol not once illegal? Does the government not now Tax alcohol?
And alcohol has a whole host of problems that come with its use; however, it's far less physically addictive than cocaine and has much less long-term damage associated with its casual use. Please compare apples to apples if you're going to argue via analogy. And if you're going for an all-or-nothing approach, I'm for "nothing".

[Toucan]

And alcohol has a whole host of problems that come with its use; however, it's far less physically addictive than cocaine and has much less long-term damage associated with its casual use. Please compare apples to apples if you're going to argue via analogy. And if you're going for an all-or-nothing approach, I'm for "nothing".
[/font][/color]
I do agree with you, as to the nothing approach, my point was that if it where to be legalised, that people would not continue to purchases it from illegal sources.

[GenocideAlive]

I do agree with you, as to the nothing approach, my point was that if it where to be legalised, that people would not continue to purchases it from illegal sources.
Which seems like a moot point in regard to whether or not it's a major cause of decay in society.

[dirty_raider]

But that's just the kickers, isn't it? Drugs don't affect just the individual. Drug-related behaviour is destructive to those around the individual as well.

True in a non direct type of way but I'm the same way that if you kill yourself skydiving or you don't pay any attention to your family due to massivly high workloads. I'd leave that for the individual and they're family to decide. If people feel the need to take such substances then the likely hood is as they're so readily availible that they will be used whether they're legal or not.

Also remember that not everyone who would uses mind altering substances are a drug abuser, some people use in the same way that others might enjoy a few beers in a bar at the weekend.

quote=GenocideAlive]And alcohol has a whole host of problems that come with its use; however, it's far less physically addictive than cocaine and has much less long-term damage associated with its casual use. Please compare apples to apples if you're going to argue via analogy. And if you're going for an all-or-nothing approach, I'm for "nothing".
[/font][/color][/quote]

Yes alcohol is less addictive than cocaine, but its still like anything has to be taken in moderation to avoid harm. Not sure of the statistics but alcohol and tobacco abuse kills many times more people a year than illegal narcotics. OK that number is obviously greatly increased due to the legallity of the substances however they are both very harmful and yet people are left to decide whether or not they wish to use them.

In my opinion if people wish to fritter away their cash snorting a powder in their own homes then I really couldn't care less.

[GenocideAlive]

Sorry, my bullshit detector just went four-alarm fire. I got here as fast as I could.
True in a non direct type of way but I'm the same way that if you kill yourself skydiving or you don't pay any attention to your family due to massivly high workloads. I'd leave that for the individual and they're family to decide. You just compared taking drugs to skydiving, first of all. Second of all, "leaving drugs up to an individual and they're [sic] family" is the exact problem. The individual is hopelessly addicted both physiologically and psychologically, and their family isn't comprised of addiction counselors and psychotherapists. Thus they have no control, no way to determine good methods of solving the addiction problem, and no safe way to help the person without isolating them or completely incarcerating them.
Also remember that not everyone who would uses mind altering substances are a drug abuser, some people use in the same way that others might enjoy a few beers in a bar at the weekend.

Yes alcohol is less addictive than cocaine, but its still like anything has to be taken in moderation to avoid harm. Not sure of the statistics but alcohol and tobacco abuse kills many times more people a year than illegal narcotics. OK that number is obviously greatly increased due to the legallity of the substances however they are both very harmful and yet people are left to decide whether or not they wish to use them.
Yay! More argument by analogy! Whoopee! Here we compare one of the most physically addictive and destructive drugs known to man with alcohol, which by in large requires repeated, prolonged exposures before inducing physical dependence. Not only that, but alcohol doesn't give users a "high" and then a "crash", but rather simply a mood alteration and loss of mental acuity.

And your analogy regarding cigarettes and alcohol is more than likely accurate. However, the impact on someone's life from having 2 beers every weekend or two cigarettes a day vs. having two 8-balls every weekend is VAST. The death rates, which are far better comparisions because they measure users vs. deaths as opposed to simply the deaths, would display CLEARLY that cocaine is far more lethal, far faster. Do you know any cocaine users who've used cocaine for 30+ years? No, you don't. They're all fucking dead.
In my opinion if people wish to fritter away their cash snorting a powder in their own homes then I really couldn't care less. Cocaine isn't one person's problem, cocaine isn't a family's problem; cocaine is a problem associated with communities. They're going to steal, whore themselves, and completely burn themselves out to get more of the drug. This ruins families en masse and communities as a whole. It's hard to run a baseball league when half the parents would drop off their kids and fail to pick them up because they took the time to get high and passed out.

If you'd really like to learn something about cocaine, watch a few of those specials on the rural farming communities being ruined by substance abuse and look up their sources. Seriously, STFU if you're going to just post dumb random bullshit that you pulled out of your ass.

[dirty_raider]

Firstly the comparison between drugs and skydiving or someother high risk activity was meant to be taken as a death from either could be seen as pointless and irresponsible to not consider the impact such an event would have on your family. A poor analogy fair enough as the likelyhood of death via extreme sports is a lower than that of your average addict but one which is true in the idea, that of the search for some sort of buzz.

Whilst cocaine is highly addictive there are many people around who use the drug and continue to use it on a social basis, not everyone is no control. In respose to the 2 cigarettes per day, how many smokers do you know who would only smoke 2 per day as nicotine is also highly addictive, although is much less harmful.

I know noone who uses cocaine however I know one or two people who have tried it for a limited period and are not currently using nor have used in a long period of time. In fact I'd imagine that the majority of the people who've tried cocaine have not used since or at least use on such an irregular basis as to not have an serious impact on their health. In fact both Queen Victoria and Freud where both known to enjoy the odd toot and Queen Victoria lived a very long life.

http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/drugmort.htm

Heres a link showing death rates, not very good I agree however the best I could find quickly and they do see to show the death rates for many illegal narcotics to not be as high as often imagined.

If you think I'm wrong by all means tell me, but next time I'd prefer it if you left the sarcasim and abuse to a minimum.

Have a good one.

[ScottieIWU]

If you think I'm wrong by all means tell meI'm not GA, but you're wrong.

Don't argue by analogy unless it's airtight (which is very rarely,) or you trust that the other person is too stupid to punch every hole possible in your bad analogy. In this case, people aren't irresponsible when they go skydiving. Skydiving requires a certified pilot and skydiving instructor. People have to take a class to skydive, then they do it tandem with a very experienced person the first few times. Anything that can be controlled is, so as to leave little to chance. Therefore, since the chance of death is so low, nobody needs to get into the plane thinking "what happens to my family if I die."

Cocaine, on the other hand, is not even close to responsible. People buy it on the street from some guy who could put anything in it, and could get it from the most unreliable source ever. Everything is chance. You could get cocaine laced with PCP or any kind of drug. Then, you sit there and snort it and hope you don't die (as cocaine has the tendency to kill many users the first time, if it reacts badly.) Everything about cocaine is chance.

Plus, cocaine has detrimental effects on not just families but communities that GA has pointed out and you conveniently ignored. In economics there's a great debate about that and often the reason legalization is shut down is because of the terrible effect a cocaine store would have on the neighborhood around it.

how many smokers do you know who would only smoke 2 per dayHave you ever been to a party or bar, or out in the world? If I'm at a party I may often smoke one cigarette the entire night. Then, I have no temptation to touch cigarettes again. In one weekend I smoked three cigarettes a day for two days then immediately stopped. People can do it.

Plus, smoking doesn't destroy families and communities. Have you ever heard of a woman whoring herself out to anybody who would pay to get a pack of cigarettes?

I'm also going to address your source, but not like doing it. That source is very dubious and all of those numbers are estimates. But no matter, the point is simply that even in a world where death rate is higher for alcohol and cigarettes, those don't demolish the families and communities of those around. Plus, cigarettes and alcohol are easier to kick than cocaine.

And, if you even try to question that cocaine is hard to kick or that it doesn't destroy families, take me. My father fucking did cocaine around the time I was born. My family was destroyed and my sister and mother have suffered permanant psychological damage. My father has managed to get his life back on track but still suffers some health problems and has to live with what he did to my family, and he too has some psychological damage.

To me, there should not even be an issue. All children should be vaccinated at birth against cocaine once the vaccine is proven safe and effective. I don't feel anybody should ever have to suffer what my family has (and I'd say we're on the light end of it.)

[dirty_raider]

I agree the analogy was bad however they are often a good way of expressing an idea quickly, and as I said the source didn't seem all that good, however I still doubt that the death rates for cocaine are all that much higher, considering the number of users compared with the lack of reported deaths.

If a substance is legalised and therefore regulated then there isn't that problem with people cutting it with all sorts. Yes I have been to a party or bar and I see people chain smoking all the time, if you can smoke just one cigarette then you are very much against what is the norm, however just like you there are people who can control their use of various other substances and who would use irregualrly.

I'm not trying to deny that cocaine isn't highly addictive and hard to kick and I'm truely sorry for the effect its had on your family however I still believe that any Government has no right to tell people what to put into their bodies.

Maybe what needs to be do is better education from a young age and addressing the issue of why people feel the need to take such substances rather than just prohibition which only lends a hand to various forms of organised crime, with many crimes caused due to drug trafficing.

Have a good one scottie.

[GenocideAlive]

I agree the analogy was bad however they are often a good way of expressing an idea quickly, and as I said the source didn't seem all that good, however I still doubt that the death rates for cocaine are all that much higher, considering the number of users compared with the lack of reported deaths.
So you agree your analogy was bad, you agree that your source wasn't that good, and your argument is already suffering from proper alliteration and cohesion. I really don't see how you're positing that you still have a leg to stand on.
If a substance is legalised and therefore regulated then there isn't that problem with people cutting it with all sorts. Yes I have been to a party or bar and I see people chain smoking all the time, if you can smoke just one cigarette then you are very much against what is the norm, however just like you there are people who can control their use of various other substances and who would use irregualrly.
Social smokers as well as social drinkers are well documented and comprise the majority of those that indulge in smoke or alcohol. Your average user isn't some hopelessly addicted maniac. And why should the law concern themselves with people dying from cocaine that has been cut with vicious poisons when those people don't even care to obey the law? Crack fiends need help, not purer crack.
I'm not trying to deny that cocaine isn't highly addictive and hard to kick and I'm truely sorry for the effect its had on your family however I still believe that any Government has no right to tell people what to put into their bodies.
Then move out of the US into whatever country has the most lax laws and regulations on drugs both legal and otherwise. I'm sure you'll come hurrying back after you find out what it's like when nobody regulates harmful substances: drug slums, run down inner cities, and prolific crime will be the best living conditions whereas hardcore mafia activity, murder rackets, and criminal tyranny will reign in the worst regions.

It's always fun to sit in our middle-class white neighborhoods and talk about what laws should and shouldn't be, but in practice there are an entirely different and much larger strata of people that have conditions much less liveable.

[ScottieIWU]

Maybe what needs to be do is better education from a young age and addressing the issue of why people feel the need to take such substances rather than just prohibition which only lends a hand to various forms of organised crime, with many crimes caused due to drug trafficing.Clearly all of the poor, urban children who come out of the womb addicted to cocaine/crack can fight that with an education! Oh yes, and the psychological issues of people who are so depressed that cocaine seems the only option can all be treated by an already-existing structure of health classes that hammer home "drugs are bad." Clearly this program would solve drug woes.

I still believe that any Government has no right to tell people what to put into their bodies.Then by your same logic the entire cocaine industry should be legal AND unregulated, since government regulations on what is laced in cocaine would be telling people what they can and cannot put into their bodies.

Also, take a hint. Me talking about my family was me saying that I know more about the actuality of this topic than you do. That was a subtle way of me saying that maybe you should keep your mouth shut until you know what you're talking about. The pain that vaccine would save countless lives makes it one of the more invaluable discoveries to date in dealing with drugs.

[Ubergopher]

...right... could a mod please delete this post?

[Mtank]

The only problem I can see with this cocaine vaccine is even if it takes away the physical NEED for another snort or whatnot, but it might not take away the mental WANT for it. Infact, I can imagine in some people it might even result in some people to use cocaine who wouldn't use it if the vaccine was avaible, their "logic" being "Hey, I can take it for the high, but I won't get addicted to it 'cause I have the vaccine."

Obviously you didn't read the first post. The vaccine doesn't remove the addiction, it eliminates the high. (Which, actually prevents addiction in turn)

True in a non direct type of way but I'm the same way that if you kill yourself skydiving or you don't pay any attention to your family due to massivly high workloads. I'd leave that for the individual and they're family to decide. If people feel the need to take such substances then the likely hood is as they're so readily availible that they will be used whether they're legal or not.


If you can't use proper analogy, just steer clear of it.

In Skydiving, the risk (minimal as it is) in on you only. Cocaine use could possibly be compared with jumping off a plane and dragging half a dozen people down with you as well. When I say that cocaine use has adverse effects on the people around him, im not just talking about the psychological impact on the family. I'm talking about the crimes he commits and the people he harms in order to fulfill his addiction.

And the government has every right to restrict your liberty if it means restricting your ability to harm others.