The Ultimate Anti-Drug

5-HT2 said:
Well, IF they are talking about a phage or other virus expressing drug-binding antibodies on its protein coat (judging by their calling it a vaccine), it will produce some kind of alteration for a period of weeks or months, after which it would need to be readministered. However, whether this alteration has any effects other than the one intended is unkown. Youve seen the recent PNAS article from George Koobs group about such vaccines, right?
Click to expand...

From what I read, it was actaully just cocaine, or nicotine or whatever, just covalently bound to some inert protein.

Meanwhile, I feel people can see that this vaccine isn't neccasarily a bad thing. Just as giving baby naltrexone depot injections or pellets as they are born to protect against future drug use would probably be a bad idea, but that doesn't neccasarily make naltrexone a bad drug.
 
BilZ0r said:
The developers of this drug intend for it to be used in people who have shown themselves to be unable to control their drug use by will-power alone. It has never been propossed by the original authors, to be given en masse to babys everywhere.
Click to expand...

BilZ0r I'm not trying to flame you for the quote, but think of PATRIOT Act I. The original writers of the Patriot Act never intended it (and the expansion of Government powers it provided) to be used to 'better' prosecute US Citizens. Just like Mr. Einstein never intended his research to be used to vaporize 100s of thousands of fellow humans in WW2.

As much as I want to beleive that the propsed vaccine (and the similar substances that follow) wont EVER be used as a tool for oppression... I just can't trust the Man to make an honestly healthy decision with something like this. It's sad really.
 
Last edited:
This isn't a vaccine in the conventional sense of the word. As Bilzor said, it works by making it so that the specific drug that you are immunised against can no longer cross the blood brain barrier because it is "stuck" to an inert protein.

This is already being used in the UK (and possibly other places I haven't heard of) to treat addiction.

This idea of making an anti-coke or anti-smack vaccine standard for children is harmful because it is one group of people forcing others to conform with their expectations of how people should live their lives. In this case it is people who think that getting high is morally wrong making it impossible for people to get high.

Immunising children against getting high is FUCKED. Children are too young to be able to make that kind of choice. That said, we socialise children to behave in a certain way all the time. Anyone who has kids of their own or who has any experience with children will know that. Every interaction with them is designed to condition them to behave and think in a certain way, whether you realise (or admit) it or not.
 
Oh don't get all "slipper slope" argument on me Greezooo. Everything is a slipper slope, or could lead to something worse, or could be misused. The patriot act leads on from other acts, all the way back to whatever America has, the Crimes Act I would geuss. Should be dispell the crimes act because it could lead to a police state? Should be remove fluridation of drinking water because it could lead to mass drugging of the people? Should we allow pedophiles to fuck children, because if we start saying that one group can't fuck another, that might lead to saying that whites can't fuck blacks?

You fight against something because it is wrong, not becasue in the future it could lead to something being potentially wrong.

Meanwhile; satricion, I find it really hard to believe that it is allready being used clinically, do you have any proof?
 
"Just like Mr. Einstein never intended his research to be used to vaporize 100s of thousands of fellow humans in WW2."

To be fair, Einstein was asked by the government to do the research into the atomic bomb. He was never told exactly why, but he concluded his paper something along the lines of: "And when you mix the plutonium with [...I don't know what...] well, have a nice day." He knew what he was doing, he just thought it was going to be used on the Germans who tried to kill him cuz he was a jew.
 
Are some of you deliberately ignoring the evil part?

Children to get jabs against drug addiction



Ministers consider vaccination scheme. Heroin, cocaine and nicotine targeted



By Sophie Goodchild and Steve Bloomfield




25 July 2004





A radical scheme to vaccinate children against future drug addiction is being considered by ministers, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
Click to expand...

From the article. Thanks.
 
Crazeee said:
Christian Soldier, Did you even READ the article ???

8)
Click to expand...

Did you even READ what he posted? CS said nothing condeming or endorsing its use as vaccination on children. He noted that it could be a wonderful option for willing addicts - which is part of the article

But the anti-drug vaccine is a fundamentally different proposition in this respect as well, for at least two reasons. One is that it is not necessary, as effective alternatives for reducing or avoiding the harms that sometimes from drug addiction are already available - moderation, harm reduction
Click to expand...

"It is not necessary".. what a fucking pontifical jackass. Moderation and harm reduction still have me frighteningly hitting the needle every few weeks when the cravings become too intense. Don't tell an addict what is and is not necessary in self defined recovery

and abstinence.
Click to expand...

:\

The other reason is the sheer scale, in time and in numbers of people, that would be needed to thoroughly assess an anti-drug vaccine's risks and effects. It's not something that can be accomplished in one or even ten years, with any reasonable number of people, because it's not sufficient to inject a test set of children with the vaccine and then feed them addictive drugs years later to see what happens
Click to expand...

sign me up on the secondary trials. If it by then hasn't extreme affects amongst the initial (desperate) trial populace - I'm a willing subject. This definitely needs to be kept away from the unwilling; but the hardline counter that it shouldn't be sponsored or developed at all is beyond shortsighted
 
Bullshit..fuckin bullshit!

This is complete, utter, fucking bullshit!

Reading this article has got me so pissed I think I have to go for a walk after explaining why and how strongly I disagree with these assholes.

What happened to human rights? Who's to say these kids wouldn't want a vaccine if they were to get older and have an open mind? The way society is going to day all our next generations are going to be so brain washed and manipulated we are going to have a population of anti-drug know it alls.

I honestly think this is unethical, immoral, and humanly wrong! We are the way we are, if they are so damn worried about kids smoking or growing up and being smokers then take the damn smokes off the market - Oh thats right.... they wont because the governments make so much money with it..

I guarantee if this did become available it would have to be purchased for a ridiculous amount of money, and im sure the governments would have scare tactic commercials to scare parents into getting it for their newborns.

Sooner or later were all gonna have a fuckin' computer chip in our arms!

Go listen to the song propaganda by dead prez, what the fuck is the world coming to?????
 
I had to edit this, I wrote this first thing in the morning... wasn't too happy to read it, but thats life, things will always make ya upset.
 
Last edited:
BilZ0r said:
Oh don't get all "slipper slope" argument on me Greezooo. Everything is a slipper slope, or could lead to something worse, or could be misused. The patriot act leads on from other acts, all the way back to whatever America has, the Crimes Act I would geuss. Should be dispell the crimes act because it could lead to a police state? Should be remove fluridation of drinking water because it could lead to mass drugging of the people? Should we allow pedophiles to fuck children, because if we start saying that one group can't fuck another, that might lead to saying that whites can't fuck blacks?

You fight against something because it is wrong, not becasue in the future it could lead to something being potentially wrong.

Meanwhile; satricion, I find it really hard to believe that it is allready being used clinically, do you have any proof?
Click to expand...


Well I mean I don't have a link or anything but I knew about this before this news story because I was shown a video describing the procedure in a psychology class at uni last semester.

So I guess you can choose to assume I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, but the video showed a couple of addicts being interviewed about how the technique went for them, and it also described a bit of the pharmacology. It was done in the UK.

The addicts shown were all of the opinion that it was great and that it helped them fix their lives. The people who made it did raise the possibility of giving the 'vaccines' to children, but only in the process of exploring the possible ethical implications of such a technique. They didn't endorse it at all.
 
brought to you by the man who declared that "Far from dangerous, blind faith is exciting, rewarding, liberating, and empowering" in T&A
Click to expand...

Crazeee << Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak.

Why don't you keep your retarded bigotry to yourself? Better yet, why not keep on topic?

Nope. God told him what it said and then let him know he need not read it.
Click to expand...
GentlemanLoser << Try putting a bit of humor into your "jokes," as it often helps to make them funnier. :\
 
In my above post, the first response was to vegan and not Crazeee. I sincerely apologise for this mistake.
 
Last edited:
Crazeee said:
The saddest part of it all is, even if not mandatory, if available plenty of parents would go for such "vaccine".

Long term health effects and violation of personal freedoms would be my most immediate concerns here...

:(
Click to expand...

Hopefully it wouldn't be legal for parents to decide to give their children this, as it's not a choice they're making.

As has already been stated, if someone chooses to take this "vaccine", then that's fine. But giving it to anyone without the choice is immoral.
 
wouldn't this vaccine prevent normal human emotions of love and empathy?

I'm not very educated on how chemicals effect human emotional responses, but as far as I know, seratonin and dopanine are chemicals that our brain needs to facilitate feelings of empathy, self-eficacy, and most importantly, love and a sence of personal connection with others! Like when someone rolls on X, all they want to do is open up their souls, and feelings of love and personal connection are induced artificially due to the seratonin. Wouldn't a vaccine that would prevent these chemicals from being released into the brain turn the subject into a flat, emotionally void mess? Does anyone know if this vaccine would have this type of effect chemically? what an interesting discussion!
 
^^
No it wouldn't. Have another read of the thread...the drug doesn't stop serotonin from getting into the brain, but it would stop ecstasy (or whatever drug it was immunising against) from getting in.

It stops the drug, not the neurotransmitters (such as serotonin).
 
^^
...Their responsibility for what? Their drug problem?

This is a TREATMENT for DRUG ADDICTION. If people CHOOSE to have this done then they want it to help them beat addiction. It sounds like a pretty awesome treatment to me.

So...what's your point anyway? :p
 
NO, this is NOT a TREATMENT. It is being talked about as an "immunization" for children! This could very well destroy the brain's capability to respond to "legitimate" medications, particularly high-level painkillers. Not to mention the ostensibly large impact it could have on mental illness.... And the fact that it destroys a person's CHOICE to take drugs or not. This is just disturbing... even more so because people like you are clearly not reading very closely...

There are antibody-based vaccines for treating drug addiction, and we've had them for a while now, but that's NOT what we're talking about here. Instead of teaching children to be responsible individuals, parents (and the goverment) would rather just have us shot full of chemicals to "fix" us.
 
kittyinthedark said:
NO, this is NOT a TREATMENT. It is being talked about as an "immunization" for children! This could very well destroy the brain's capability to respond to "legitimate" medications, particularly high-level painkillers. Not to mention the ostensibly large impact it could have on mental illness.... And the fact that it destroys a person's CHOICE to take drugs or not. This is just disturbing... even more so because people like you are clearly not reading very closely...

There are antibody-based vaccines for treating drug addiction, and we've had them for a while now, but that's NOT what we're talking about here. Instead of teaching children to be responsible individuals, parents (and the goverment) would rather just have us shot full of chemicals to "fix" us.
Click to expand...


***Claps**** Bravo!!! You took the words right out of my mouth.

I have a teenager (he is 13). I want my son learn to be a responsible adult and learn from his mistakes. This is what makes a person who they are.

I certainly do not need the fucking government and a chemical "vaccine" to teach my son not to abuse drugs. Any parent who thinks that this is a good idea does not need to be a parent in the first place!!!

What absolute bullshit! 8(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top