• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Anti-Euphoria Injections

Anyone seen Equillibrium, the drug they inject to keep the people in order? lol.
 
VelocideX said:
To be honest, i dont care for google. I want references from reputable medical journals. I.e. references in pubmed. I want citations. Not bullshit scare-tactic websites made by fanatical people with little to no scientific knowledge
Click to expand...

As if you couldn't get references to "reputable medical journals" in google??!! Don't you know what a search engine is? And citations won't help you - regardless who has made the original statement as you do not know what their interests are. If you think for yourself you will see what is reasonable (if you are smart enough)...

I started to ask ppl as soon as 1994 "have you gotten lousy memory for names, numbers etc this last year" and around 30% answered "yes what the f-k is happening?"(among the intelligent ones rather 90%). But it wasn't until 2 years later I started to suspect cell phones. They are actually the only big thing that has happened that can explain it. Already in 1995 the banks confirmed that forgotten personal codes was up with 200% the last year...But this is in Scandinavia and we have by far the most cell phones, most magnetic fields etc compared even to countries like US and Switzerland. Perhaps you haven't noticed anything down under yet...If so you are lucky. Goodbye. I give up - you will see...
 
But your arguement, Velocide, relies on the axiom that it is wrong to stop people taking drugs. Now while I don't think I could be bothered playing devils advocate in that arguement, my point from the begining (in the front page forum) still stands: That the arguements used in the original article are specious. As far as anti-drug stratagies go, that one is preety damn good. Now if you think all anti-drug stratagies are wrong, then of course you think this is wrong, and even more wrong than most, because it could be so damn effective. But any arguements in this thread, that so far have tried to pin a somewhat objective negation on the "childhood drug immunisation" plan, have failed. At least in my opinion.
 
I don't think everyone in this thread who had a negative response to the article was against all anti-drug campaigns. I think the ones that don't work are stupid and the ones that criminalize drug use rather then actually helping the problem. However harm minimisation and listing the facts of drugs truthfully are good ways of reducing the damages of drugs to our society.
I don't think taking peoples freedom away to take drugs is a good idea, especially if one day these drugs do gain legal purposes, although I doubt that, they could still become legal recrational drugs next to alcohol and these people who have been immunised won't be able to use these drugs.

They have anti-drug campaigns (zero tolerance)
and they have harm mimisation

Maybe instead of using zero-tolerance injections, they can develop a harm minimisation injection.
Could you imagine that... A world where drugs didn't have any or a low amount of negative side effects.
 
BilZ0r said:
But your arguement, Velocide, relies on the axiom that it is wrong to stop people taking drugs. Now while I don't think I could be bothered playing devils advocate in that arguement, my point from the begining (in the front page forum) still stands: That the arguements used in the original article are specious. As far as anti-drug stratagies go, that one is preety damn good. Now if you think all anti-drug stratagies are wrong, then of course you think this is wrong, and even more wrong than most, because it could be so damn effective. But any arguements in this thread, that so far have tried to pin a somewhat objective negation on the "childhood drug immunisation" plan, have failed. At least in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree that insofar as it is a usage reduction strategy it's probably the best to date, but my main issue lies with its (potential?) irreversibility. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about medicine to know how long such a vaccine would potentially last. If such a vaccine was targeted so that the person would have no reaction to drugs until age 18, perhaps, i might accept that.

But a permenant vaccine is a life-long issue. Moreover it is an irreversible action by a democratically elected parliament. Parliaments (and governments) derive their authority from the people, and generally are around for 3-4 year terms (at least in Aus). For them to take action on a 50+ year timescale is in essence doing something which no future government could undo, even given limitless resources. Such an act to me seems to be binding the sovereignty of future parliaments, something which is not allowed in the UK or Australia (for instance, a parliament cannot pass a law which provides that no future parliament can make laws about XYZ, because that would reduce the future parliament's sovereignty which is derived from the people specifically at the election date).

I agree that my argument is premised on the notion that people should not be prevented from drugs. But in my view governments should be much more careful about compelling performance of some action than prohibiting it (taxation legislation etc aside). Increasingly restricting personal liberties is a slippery slope to psuedototalitarianism, and something that should not be taken lightly.

I have no problem with the vaccine being voluntarily offered to addicts who seek treatment.
 
hmmm...

Yeah, I suppose thats preety good. Nice work.

Even though right now, the treatment only last for about a year. But yeah...
 
I don't know much about the physiology of all of this, but would delivery method make any difference?

I mean, something like this would be pretty pointless if it didn't work when you inject or drop it in your eyeball...
 
The only way of administration which might get around the antibodies, at least for a while, would be to inject it directly into your brain... which I don't really see happening.
 
BilZ0r said:
The only way of administration which might get around the antibodies, at least for a while, would be to inject it directly into your brain... which I don't really see happening.
Click to expand...

Brings new meaning to the term "mainlining" :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top