• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

is it true that alcohol is the only recreational drug you can't create a vaccine for?

B

burn out

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
8,064
Location
Michigan
i saw a presentation on a cocaine vaccine being studied, it worked by causing the body to build up antibodies to cocaine. the professor said it was possible to make for every drug of abuse except alcohol. (i'm assuming because alcohol occurs naturally in the body). but doesn't ghb occur naturally as well?
 
Good luck creating a vaccine for anything endogenous.
In fact, good luck creating a vaccine for most molecules anything smaller than coke. Their structure is just too similar to other things in the body.
So yeah I expect you can't create a vaccine for GHB, no.
 
I know this isn't exactly on topic, and it may not be acceptable for ADD, but this really bothered me and I just had to post--(I am sorry... don't flame me...)

Does it bother anyone else that they are creating vaccines against many psychoactive drugs that could be useful medically? Although many of these drugs are not considered to be "therapeudic," in fact, I find many controlled substances to be just as useful than many non controlled ones. (ok, maybe not cocaine, but still, there are many drugs in schedule I that I don't think should be there (and I think you guys agree with me here)...)

Whose to say that they won't start requiring vaccinations for a person to get a job or anything else? It kind of reminds me of eugenics. Somehow, there was a time in the history of the US that forced sterilizations were ok. It isn't exactly the same thing, but I feel as if we have a right to decide what goes into our bodies. So, I don't have a problem with creating a vaccine for people to use if they chose to, but they should never be forced on anyone. However, with the anti-drug sentiments worldwide, I have a feeling that these vaccines would be used indiscriminantly, and be required by employers, schools, etc...

Ok... off my soapbox...

However, I don't think anyone would waste their time making vaccines for endogenous compounds. The last thing you want is self-nonself interactions. Autoimmunity sucks.

Honestly, I think vaccines should be left to defeating infectious disease.
 
I think the whole idea is disgusting. It's so A Clockwork Orange.
The aftermath of something going wrong is horrific. A mishaps with these could ruin many people's lives.

I suspect if introduced they'll be "voluntary" ... but without "voluntarily" getting the "voluntary" injection you won't be able to get a driver's license, etc.
 
As long as it always remains a choice (bvoluntary) what is wrong with it?

Obviously for someone who has had a history of struggling to shake abuse of a substance this would be a potential panacea for that situation i suppose
 
Well consider this scenario. You get vaccinated against opioids for whatever reason (including the Nazi employer case), then you're in a car accident, have a heart attack etc and are in incredible amounts of pain... you've just ruled out the one group of druga that make the difference between being in some discomfort in an A&E/ER situation and a trip to the 7th circle of hell. There would be cases of law suits left, right & centre for the distress & suffering caused having the vaccine

That's not even considering what having a terminal carcinoma without pain relief would be like.


Now considering how many drugs of abuse have some clinical potential (some a whole load - see example above), I think the whole vaccine business is a non-starter for all but addicts who have tried every other method and failed. Even then, after having the potential outcome of such a treatment outlined, only a very few would go ahead I think
 
^ I got a small taste of that scenario when I broke my tibia/fibula not so long ago while on suboxone. No matter how much dilaudid they gave me, I could not feel a thing. I was in severe pain (my ankle was broken and twisted at 90 degree angle) until the next day, when the dilaudid started to break through my suboxone dose.

I wouldn't wise the "opiate vaccine" on anyone, on account of some freak accident which necessitates opiates.
 
MattPsy said:
I think the whole idea is disgusting. It's so A Clockwork Orange.
The aftermath of something going wrong is horrific. A mishaps with these could ruin many people's lives.

I suspect if introduced they'll be "voluntary" ... but without "voluntarily" getting the "voluntary" injection you won't be able to get a driver's license, etc.
Click to expand...

lol, they were doing this to try help addicts stop using cocaine. the government is never going to require every person get vaccinated for every illegal drug in order to get a driver's license, that's absolutely ridiculous and the legislation would never pass.

can you imagine all the law suits from people claiming they suffered ill affects from the vaccine? can you imagine the insane and completely unnecessary expense of vaccinating the millions of people who have no intentions of ever using the drugs they are being vaccinated for? i hope you weren't being serious when you posted that.
 
^ Hey, these days, with the total insanity of how much effort various governments put into the 'war on drugs' (esp now they've managed to link it with terrorism), I wouldn't put a watered down verson of the scenario MattPsy has outlined in the realms of 'wouldn't happen'. Look at how many civil liberties have already been eroded by various western governments, and how many unacceptable things have been let slide (not just the US either - I wouldn't want to be a Brazillian electrician in London for all the money in the Bank of England, not when nobody in the Met got more than a wrist slapped for executing an innocent person in the middle of a tube train).
 
i'm definitely putting it in the realms of wouldn't happen. you can't force people to get a vaccine. they have the vaccine already, yet as far as i know it's not even voluntary for non addicts, let alone mandatory. you can't go to your doctor and say you want to get vaccinated for cocaine, you have to be someone who has tried but been unable to stop using cocaine to even qualify for the vaccine.
 
The choice I outlined is called a Hobson's choice afaik.
The best example of this type of choice is one where you accept an offer... or die.
Not much of a choice, is it? One can still claim that it is voluntary, however.
 
i never meant to contest that, what i am contesting is your suspicion that the vaccine will be used in such a way and your disgust at doctors trying to create something to help cocaine addicts stop using cocaine.

the vaccine in question only lasted a few months. administering it to people who don't use cocaine would simply make no sense. if the government wanted to withhold driver's licenses from people who use drugs, they already have a perfectly good way. drug testing.

and since it's much harder to come up with an excuse for why you will not submit to a drug test than it is to come up with an excuse for why you don't want to risk getting a vaccination you don't need, it's far less likely that the latter scenario would be enacted into law.
 
It might be designed for that, but i'm sure it will be extended, like much of humanity's technological advances.
I like the idea of a vaccination that coke addicts can get voluntarily so they can't indulge themselves. I don't like the idea of that same vaccine used in any other context, at all.

We have only to look at some US schools where you cannot play on the sport teams, park in the school carpark, etc if you don't submit to drug tests.
The same type of choice, you can see.

It's cheaper to vaccinate people than to continuously test them.
 
the vaccine only lasts a few months so how is it cheaper? plus what about the risks of introducing a vaccine to people who don't need it? if they can pass a drug test, why should they have to submit to a vaccine?
 
Are you SURE it will only last a few months? What about people where it doesn't, and it lasts a lifetime? (theoretical, 'shit happens'-type concepts, etc)
It's all very well posing these questions, but first you have to be totally sure of the factual accuracy of the premises to come to a conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top