Vaccine to prevent drug abuse, looks like an anti-pleasure dangerious vaccine Options

[Tone]

Note: If this vaccine blocks the euphoria from herion, cocaine... would it also block the pleasure from everyday physical and social activities that cause natural endorphin release (both use same receptors)?? Could this vaccine cause depression? Is it right to vaccinate a baby just because they MIGHT abuse drugs later?? What if someone had the vaccine and then needs pain relief later in life? see news story below.

What if i got this vaccine and then all of the sudden my mu receptors are blocked and natural endorphin transmission is diminished and since its a vaccine its forever. so im screwed for life and theres nothing but suicide left

Tone

----

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/sto...sp?story=544439


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Under the plans, doctors would immunise children at risk of becoming smokers or drug users with an injection. The scheme could operate in a similar way to the current nationwide measles, mumps and rubella vaccination programme.

Childhood immunisation would provide adults with protection from the euphoria that is experienced by users, making drugs such as heroin and cocaine pointless to take. Such vaccinations are being developed by pharmaceutical companies and are due to hit the market within two years.

The Department of Trade and Industry has set up a special project to investigate ways of using new scientific breakthroughs to combat drug and nicotine addiction.

A national anti-drug immunisation scheme is one of the proposals being put forward by the Brain Science, Addiction and Drugs project, an expert committee of scientists appointed by the Government earlier this year.

Professor David Nutt, a leading government drugs adviser who sits on the committee, told the IoS that anti-drug vaccines for children are likely to be among the panel's recommendations when it reports next March.

Professor Nutt, head of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol and a senior member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, said: "People could be vaccinated against drugs at birth as you are against measles. You could say cocaine is more dangerous than measles, for example. It is important that there is a debate on this issue. This is a huge topic - addiction and smoking are major causes of premature death."

According to the Government's own figures, the cost of drug addiction - through related crime and health problems - to the economy is £12bn a year. There is a strong incentive for the Government to find new ways to halt spiralling addiction. Last week, the IoS revealed that cocaine use had trebled in Britain with increasing numbers of users switching to highly addictive crack cocaine.

Scientists are already conducting trials for drugs that can be used by doctors to vaccinate against cocaine, heroin and nicotine addiction.

Xenova, the British biotechnology firm, has carried out trials on an anti-cocaine vaccine which showed that 58 per cent of patients remained cocaine-free after three months.

Meanwhile, experts at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California, have developed a super-virus, harmless to humans, which produces proteins that can block or reduce the effects of cocaine.

The team at Scripps tested the virus on rats by injecting it into their noses twice a day for three days.

On the fourth day, the rats were given a shot of cocaine. The researchers found that cocaine had more effect on the rats not injected with the virus than those that were. Scientists hope that the virus will help stop the cravings experienced by cocaine users for the drug by blocking the pleasure they normally associate with cocaine. This anti-drug medication is expected to be available to users within the next two years in the form of a nasal spray.

Proposals to introduce a national anti-drug vaccination programme have been given a cautious welcome by MPs and experts.

Ian Gibson, head of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, said the Government would have to carry out public consultation. "There is no reason to think this would not be a starter or beneficial," said Dr Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North. "But ... proper consultation with the public needs to happen well in advance."

David Hinchliffe, chairman of the Commons Health Committee and Labour MP for Wakefield, said: "This could have a huge impact on society in terms of preventing damage to others and dealing with addicts. [But] the ethical perspective does need to be looked at closely."

The National Treatment Agency, which manages drug-addiction programmes, welcomed any new ways of treating addiction but said there was no "magic bullet".

[Robert the Bruce]

If they have it they will use it. Antibuse is used despite being against the law in California. The clinics get warned before the inspectors arrive. Lobotomies are still used in Canada and the government is actively promoting ECT as 'like a heart pacemaker to re-start the biological rhythms' for the elderly.

[rhymer]

My view is that each person reaching 10 should be told (and retold on each birthday, thereafter) that if they willingly decide to take any drug (including all those that lead to aftercare requirements in later life eg., tobacco, alcohol etc.) other than as prescribed by official professional practising doctors (or their types), then they take all responsibility for their own health and no State agencies will deal with them. EAch person should be required to sign an agreement to this effect.

The age of 10 could be changed based on data relating to a sensible age of reasoning with some leeway for error.
Exceptions would be sensible for unexpected reactions to sensible intakes.

I do not agree with anti-abuse vaccination.

[Dan]

I disagree with a 'pre-emptive' vaccination. However, it does make sense in the context of freely-choosing individuals as a tool for rehabilitation. Perhaps convicted drug users can choose the 'vaccination' in lieu of prison time.

[Robert the Bruce]

I would agree with that if the peson was not under duress or had full knowledge of the side effects and implications. However, Informed Consent is not really possible in truth.

[Tone]

First of all no one should go to prison for using drugs, thats outragous and therefore someone shouldnt have to choose between a vaccine and prison, because prison isnt warented in the first place.

Secondly, you dont know, this vaccine could be even worse than going to prison. afterall the mainstream medical community doesnt believe risperdal and antipsychotics cause agonizing mental depression when they do for a lot of people. the medical community does not believe naltrexone after dextox causes dysphoria just as opioids cause euphoria, yet it does and there is at least one paper that mentions this. SO imagine if this vaccine is like perminate naltrexone (which causes severe mental pain and depression in people even after detoxed). that would be a fate where only suicide is left

[Unknown]

[Dan]

tone, I'm talking about some ideal vaccine that does not have the effects you described. naturally I would be very suspicious of such 'vaccines' initially because they likely will seriously fail in unexpected ways such as you have described. however, if such a vaccine were perfected, it certainly would be valuable at least to those who wish to kick some particular destructive addiction but lack the self-control to do it and moreso for stopping those who would otherwise seriously endanger others.

[Dan]

[Unknown]

[Tone]

sorry, forgot to post my name, the post right above this one by unknown is me

[Abolitionist]

If we could really provide people with better alternatives - mood elevators that improved a person's life and productivity without the nasty homeostatic consequences - drug dealers would simply become obsolete.

An upgraded definition of mental health is neccessary. Simply developing drugs to make one normal will never abolish sentient suffering.

It may take illegal means to develop aforementioned substances/treatments as they offend the status quo and power of "invested" individuals - but once the alternatives exist - the use of delusive shortcuts to happiness (current illegal drugs) as well as the present corporate pharma monopolies will become history.

Drugs that make one smarter, more compassionate, and happier may well make one less likely to covet excess wealth and power over the happiness of others~