Britain

[Nodrog]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...p?story=544439

[Sunday8pm]

I hear they are working on vaccine's for sugar and cocoa when those crops finally die out.

[Radical Edward]

[roadrunner_0]

thats got to be bollocks

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

thats got to be bollocks

as in bad idea or not real?

[roadrunner_0]

not sure, both? surely they cant immunise against something that is a choice? (albeit a very bad one) rather than something you just catch

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

not sure, both? surely they cant immunise against something that is a choice? (albeit a very bad one) rather than something you just catch

well apparently they can.

so in what way is catching measles not a choice? I mean, if I want to catch it now, I can't.

[sayonara]

Maybe I can get immunised against football, just in case.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by sayonara

Maybe I can get immunised against football, just in case.

no need, it'll never catch on.

[Ste]

Can someone explain how this would work? In my limited understanding of Biology I can't see any way that you can immunise against certain effects of certain chemicals without screwing your body up even more.

I would think it would be of great use for rehabilitation, but prevention? That won't work.
How many people actually smoke because of the 'high' nicotine gives? it's used as an excuse but in reality it's just habit.

Stupid idea, and a much bigger step towards a nanny state than any smoking ban proposal so far.

[madi]

apparently it stops you enjoying it

[Ste]

Originally Posted by madi

apparently it stops you enjoying it

Originally Posted by Ste

In my limited understanding of Biology I can't see any way that you can immunise against certain effects of certain chemicals without screwing your body up even more.

?

[LHC]

Apparently it does though.

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.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Ste

Can someone explain how this would work? In my limited understanding of Biology I can't see any way that you can immunise against certain effects of certain chemicals without screwing your body up even more.

The article doesnt seem to suggest how it might work so i'll take a few guesses.

1) They design some kind of antibody/protein that will break down the drugs into some non-toxic or addictive chemical when they enter the body. Not quite sure how they would design this to stay with you for life as your body wouldnt naturally make the protein, so its probably not this option.

2) They block the receptors that are targetted by the drug in question. This would stop you from getting high and so you wouldnt get addicted. I've no idea what receptors different drugs target so whether or not blocking them would have some undesired effect on another function or pathway in the body i dont know.

3) If we were talking about mice here i would suggest 'knocking in' genes to make them resistant to the drugs as in 1) by producing enzymes against them constantly. We cant do this in humans yet so this wont be a way of doing it for +10 years.


Edit:

Not sure how different drugs are abosorbed into the blood stream, carried in the blood stream or carried across the blood brain barrier, so any of those could be targets for preventing drugs from having their effects but it all depends on how blocking them at certain points would effect other 'normal' pathways in the body.

[Ste]

my mum, who has a pharmacy degree, says that the story must be a hoax.

[JC]

It was discussed on The Wright Stuff on C5 today so i dont think its a hoax.

[sayonara]

Similar therapies have been available for severe nicotine addiction for ages, so I don't see why it can't be real.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JC

It was discussed on The Wright Stuff on C5 today so i dont think its a hoax.

The Wright Stuff is a sort of incredibly bad tabloid opinion collumn in televisual form, though. I would be cautious in drawing on anything they're going on about as supporting evidence.

It sounds a bit far-fetched to me, tbh.

[Ste]

Ok, I found this journal on Cocaine "Vaccines":
http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/data/28/2/DC1/6

It seems that they will work for several months at a time and can be used in conjucntion with anti-depressants and other drugs that reduce craving. But they don't stop the effects of Cocaine indefinately.
Also, if someone simply takes a much larger dose than usual the vaccine will not stop the effects.
An actual immunisation would need boosters every few months.
I can see the only realistic use for it as "relapse prevention".

EDIT and an article on Nicotine "Vaccines": http://www.atenciontabaquismo.com/at...actualidad.pdf

[IncubusGod]

There are drugs that will stop the cravings for alcohol and will stop the desire to drink by blocking certain receptors in the brain. Though, again, this is only a temporary thing. They have to keep taking the drug and it has some vicious side effects in some people.

This sounds a little sensationalist to me. Plus, if you block receptros in the brain so people will not feel euphoria or a rush when artifically enduced with drugs, then surely you will block normal release of these chemicals when excited.
So you'd end up with a generation of tedious unexcitable grey blobs or an entire generation of ultra-extreeme sport enthusiasts who resort to stupidly dangerous sports such as rocket bike canyon jumping to experience even an mild thrill.

[Zaphod I]

They do have antabus for alcoholics, so I guess taking something could make it very unpleasant to try the drugs. Don't know how a vaccine would work though, but then again, I'm not an expert.

And about taking away the choice by medication: my uncle drinks himself silly constantly even though he takes antabus! When there's will...

-Zaps

[Zar]

big brother...

will they start vaccinating us against ever rebelling or having an opinion?

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

that's ****ing bullshit! why do they want to spoil every little enjoyment in life?

[Deffeh]

Great idea, thoroughly behind it.

[Phang]

This is a ****ing hard one.

On the one hand, it's a ****ing enormous breach of civil liberties and i abhor everything it stands for.

On the other hand, stamping out the three substances in question is overflowing with genuine societal benefits. The only question is how slippery the slope is.

[Deepflow]

STANZA 1:
When Britain first at Heav'n's command, Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land, And guardian angels sang this strain;

CHORUS:
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never shall be slaves.

STANZA 2:
The nations not so blest as thee, Shall in their turns to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free, The dread and envy of them all.

CHORUS:
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never shall be slaves.

STANZA 3:
Still mor majestic shalt thou rise, More dreadful from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies, Serves but to root thy native oak.

CHORUS:
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never shall be slaves.

STANZA 4:
Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame, All their attempts to bend thee down;
Will but arouse thy generous flame, But work their woe, and thy renown.

CHORUS:
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never shall be slaves.

STANZA 5:
To thee belongs the rural reign, They cities shall with commerce shine;
All thine shall be the subject main, And every shore it circles thine.

CHORUS:
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never shall be slaves.

STANZA 6:
The Muses, still with freedom found, Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crowned, And manly hearts to guide the fair.

CHORUS:
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never shall be slaves.

[Deepflow]

and on topic, its a stupid and highly insulting idea. The right to **** your life up should never be taken away! seriously

[Vermillion]

(Assuming the is is real and not a load of tripe)

Why is it a breach of civil liberties? I assume such shots will be given with the consent of the parent or guardian. If the shots do what they purport to do, they will eliminate some of the effects of dangerous addictive drugs. You can still take them, the chemical effects are just muted or eliminated.

As long as it requires the consent of the guardian, I don't see the problem.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

(Assuming the is is real and not a load of tripe)

Why is it a breach of civil liberties? I assume such shots will be given with the consent of the parent or guardian. If the shots do what they purport to do, they will eliminate some of the effects of dangerous addictive drugs. You can still take them, the chemical effects are just muted or eliminated.

As long as it requires the consent of the guardian, I don't see the problem.

The links I posted earlier in the thread highlight some of the ethical problems that could arise from it.

There is a fine line and I personally think your parents don't have the right to decide what you are going to do with your life.

[MrL_JaKiri]

It's removing the ability of the individual to experience (or do) something which they may wish to do. Whilst there is an argument for it to apply to children, as this would probably be a lifelong thing (I can't access the article in questions), the argument that children do not have the moral experience to make such a choice and therefore should have it made for them does not apply, as it is effecting the adult just as much, if not more, than the child.

[acropolis]

it should be illegal to lock your house because that removes the ability of an individual to experience something they might wish to do!

one option would be to put your doorknob up high where kids can't reach it.

[vampire_lestat]

Ministers consider vaccination scheme. Heroin, cocaine and nicotine targeted

this can't be true, vaccination uses a bit of the desiese or something simmilar to cure it, you can't cure heroin addiction with more heroin, that's just stupid.

[Deffeh]

Its a thoroughly justifiable idea, because the ordinary taxpayer shouldnt have to pay to support those who have made the choice to do drugs.

The sooner we stamp out ciggarettes the better. Thats not even up for debate, imho.

I dont give a shit if its a breach of liberties

[xtrasyn]

It´s almost as revolting as abortion and the death penalty.

However I am against it. The point made that you will not be able to get your kicks with anything is imho very valid.

[xtrasyn]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Its a thoroughly justifiable idea, because the ordinary taxpayer shouldnt have to pay to support those who have made the choice to do drugs.

The sooner we stamp out ciggarettes the better. Thats not even up for debate, imho.

I dont give a shit if its a breach of liberties

The sooner we stamp out people with opinions like yours the better.

[LHC]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Its a thoroughly justifiable idea, because the ordinary taxpayer shouldnt have to pay to support those who have made the choice to do drugs.

They don't. This way, the ordinary taxpayer does have to pay to support those not taking drugs however.

[Deffeh]

Hospital bills, etc? Deaths caused by those driving on drugs?

You people absolutely disgust me sometimes. Its all very ****ing well being a liberal, being into all the lovely buzzwords like freedom and liberty, but times like now, when something comes up that could realistically protect your children from the physical drains of smoking 40 a day, from heroin addictions that could force them onto the streets whoring themselves, and from the crippling financial aspects of funding a cocaine habit, suddenly its "omg no wtf bcoz that takes away my freedom to destroy mine, and my childs life"

Its painful. Really, really painful. You're more traditionalist and conservative than me, simply because you reject any change that eliminates a bad choice.

[xtrasyn]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Hospital bills, etc? Deaths caused by those driving on drugs?

You people absolutely disgust me sometimes. Its all very ****ing well being a liberal, being into all the lovely buzzwords like freedom and liberty, but times like now, when something comes up that could realistically protect your children from the physical drains of smoking 40 a day, from heroin addictions that could force them onto the streets whoring themselves, and from the crippling financial aspects of funding a cocaine habit, suddenly its "omg no wtf bcoz that takes away my freedom to destroy mine, and my childs life"

So they can eat subway and mcdonald and die of heartcancer?

God you need life experience youngster

[LHC]

Maybe we should outlaw bad decisions

[Phang]

Originally Posted by LHC

Maybe we should outlaw bad decisions

but it isnt outlawing bad decisions. thats what we're doing now.

IT'S STOPPING THEM FROM BEING MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Ste]

no it's not.

What the Independent article says is misleading. They couldn't give you one injection and then you'd never take drugs. it would need an injection every three months for your whole life and even then it wouldn't stop you taking it, it would just need a bigger hit than you would normally need for an equal high.

Read the articles I posted which actually report it properly and you'll see it would just be a way to help people give up, not stop them starting.

[acropolis]

maybe we should outlaw doing things that are illegal!

ps: i think the discussion of vacciniation from cigarettes and vaccination from heroine should really be treated separately.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by xtrasyn

So they can eat subway and mcdonald and die of heartcancer?

God you need life experience youngster

Every time, every time all anyone can come up with is the fatty foods argument.

Thats a technicality. Is it the one lawyers trick you've learned from years of Hollywood? Maybe my life experience that i need to gain is another 8 years in front of the TV till i'm as worldly as you? Dont make me laugh

There's no comparison between drugs and fatty foods. None. But if people want to kill themselves, they can do it in any other way.

You're not about to hear me advocating a drug to prevent enjoyment of fatty foods. Because foods are meant to stop hunger. I cant even believe we're going down this shitty route again, so im not going to explain the basic principles of why food is different from drugs. So instead, i'll play you at your game.

Subway does at least 6 subs with less than 6 grammes of fat you faggot

[xtrasyn]

Originally Posted by acropolis

ps: i think the discussion of vacciniation from cigarettes and vaccination from heroine should really be treated separately.

No, because then I would have liek a HOOJ list of things I´d like to separate from each other. And the criminals as well...

[xtrasyn]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Thats a technicality.

Hohoho.

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Maybe my life experience that i need to gain is another 8 years in front of the TV till i'm as worldly as you? Dont make me laugh.

Dude, no. What I mean is that some people in this life don´t feel as well as others, resulting in drug use/speeding/owning of weapons/burglary/murder/arson/abuse of power/bombing third world countries/adultery/lies/indecent behaviour/hiding WMDs.

You can not outlaw ´human nature´ because that is the sole point of this already too long lasting discussion. Ofcourse I´m as opposed to herione as the next man but I don´t believe it´s a problem per sé for me. I cry myself to sleep thinking about all the morons, bad highway projects and bombs I´ve sustained with my taxmoney, so I fail to feel something special for ´teh junkeh´ and their ´axis of evil´.

Originally Posted by Deffeh

There's no comparison between drugs and fatty foods. None. But if people want to kill themselves, they can do it in any other way.

So, you get the point! \o/

Originally Posted by Deffeh

You're not about to hear me advocating a drug to prevent enjoyment of fatty foods. Because foods are meant to stop hunger. I cant even believe we're going down this shitty route again, so im not going to explain the basic principles of why food is different from drugs. So instead, i'll play you at your game.

Subway does at least 6 subs with less than 6 grammes of fat you faggot

Drugs are invented to stop pain and suffering. That a greater group abuses them is true but imho not a problem, just like eating fat food is abused by so many. And it´s really not about drugs, it´s about putting people in jail because they COULD become criminals, it´s about stopping to sell cars because they kill, and about not giving cutlary ´because the guy at number 33 stabbed himself in the stomach whilst peeling an apple´.

So there.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Its a thoroughly justifiable idea, because the ordinary taxpayer shouldnt have to pay to support those who have made the choice to do drugs.

That's only because they're illegal though; if 'drugs' were legal, then the government would make an enormous profit, as the tax income would be astronomical, and the hospital costs may actually go down.

Furthermore, you CAN ban everything which might be counted as unhealthy, that might be seen as dangerous. But is that what we want? Why is this a good thing?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

when something comes up that could realistically protect your children from the physical drains of smoking 40 a day, from heroin addictions that could force them onto the streets whoring themselves, and from the crippling financial aspects of funding a cocaine habit, suddenly its "omg no wtf bcoz that takes away my freedom to destroy mine, and my childs life"

Even ignoring the whole liberty angle if you are relying on Government needles to prevent you being a shit parent then I pity your offspring. Seriously, please don't have children.

Anyway, I'm not going to do my "power of the state" diatribe, you've all heard it. But I will say that even though I wouldn't count myself as a regular drug taker I think that drugs (for some) help to enrich your life. I've not taken heroin so I can't comment on that, but every other recreational drug I've tried I've come away with new insight. That's even true for shitty drugs like cocaine. Individuals depriving them that opportunity (for enjoyment if nothing else) seems rather foolish.

I'm not opposed to the existence of a vaccine which makes drug use impossible. It would be great for those who wanted to use it. It is slightly worrying though that we're saying parents can make lifestyle choices for their children which last their entire lives (and are potentially irreversible). Parents can already do this to an extent; e.g. sending their kids to a particular type of school. But that's not a one shot deal - children can complain over time eventually pressure their parents into changing schools and so on. And you can overcome most of your education. Potentially, you might not be able to overcome changes to your brain chemistry.

Would Deffeh support this if it was a "vaccine" against alcohol btw?

[Vaio]

Can they create a vaccine to stop teenagers being mouthy twats ? Depikeynate them or something ?

~Vaio~

[JC]

We should just shoot them on site instead Vaio.

[JonnyBGood]

This is an interesting one. Not for the fact you might be able to vaccinate against addictions but rather for the fact the child will have the choice made for him before he reaches the age of reasoning. Assuming that this won't have huge side-affects, one can guess that this will undergo even more rigourous testing than normal vaccinations before it's used generally, the problem lies in the fact that the child is having his choices made for him, when the choices affect him when he ceases being a child (you can decide this is any age, it doesn't really matter that much in this situation). It should be noted that this initially appears to be a very different sort of immunisation. Preventing the possibility of becoming euphoric from using certain drugs sounds so ****ed up it's hard to believe.

Firstly, is this similar to vaccinations against diseases? Nicotine, heroin and cocaine (one assumes that alcohol is actually good for you ) in general have adverse effects on us, this much we can probably agree on. Obviously diseases have adverse effects on us as well. I imagine it would be theoretically possible to enjoy having a disease (and it has been shown that vaccinations weaken our immune systems so there is definitely a bad aspect to being vaccinated). It's a very different kind of vaccination, a super-virus which creates a protein which inhibits the effects of cocaine, but essentially the concept seems to be fairly similar. I mean if I want to go and get measles now I don't think I can, why I'd do this god only knows, then again heroin's hardly been shown to improve the quality of your life drastically. Should we argue against all vaccinations as restrictions of freedom of choice if we oppose this one?

Personally I wouldn't due to the epidemic nature of polio, measles etc. Drug use can also have anti-social effects, increased crime etc but I don't think there's anything which gives each individual a 35% transmission rate regardless. As i read back up this thread though I see that the article misrepresented the strength and longevity of these vaccinations. In this case at least, we appear to be arguing against something that isn't possible yet (hardly a reason to cease the argument but something to keep in mind nonetheless).

On another note should the parents of children be allowed to make these decisions? Should a parent be free to send their child to a fundamentalist christian school? What should parents tell their children when they ask about god? If everyone systematically lied to you that black people want to destroy civilisation would you be morally wrong for believing, and taking actions based on these beliefs, that this is true? Do you have a responsibility for ascertaining the truth yourself? The answers that parents give at these times can shape the lives of their offspring, should we give guidelines that must be followed? Mere recommendations if you don't support this? Is every opinion as valid as every other one?