Maybe the war on drugs could eventually work...

[irishScott]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04vaccine.html?_r=1&hp

If such vaccines became viable it would be a simple matter to include these in any sentence related to possession/usage of drugs. Might also become one of those vaccines you get when you're a kid; I'm sure there are plenty of parents who would enjoy medical certainty that their kid would never enjoy drugs.

 

[Doppel]

If somebody could come up with a specific vaccine for such a thing it sure would sell like hotcakes. What they cannot do on that chemical basis is counter the strong habitual component of something like smoking.

 

[PokerGuy]

Interesting, but I think there would be some potentially ugly side effects. For example, the vaccine that would keep you from feeling the effects of an opioid or something might also cause the anesthesia not to work during surgery or something weird like that (I'm no doctor or chemist, just speculating).

Treating the addiction like a medical issue is the right path IMO.

 

[xj0hnx]

Interesting concept, this is one of those things that could really help but even as mentioned in the article ...

All three researchers say they are hobbled by a lack of interest — read: financing — from pharmaceutical companies in vaccines for any drug other than nicotine, presumably because there is little money to be made in a shot given once every six months, and because such companies aren’t eager to associate their brands with drug addicts.

Anyone that thinks big pharma is out to help people is a fool. It's kind of why methadone is still being used, it almost guarantees a lifelong customer because it is a replacement, not a cure.

 

[xj0hnx]

Interesting, but I think there would be some potentially ugly side effects. For example, the vaccine that would keep you from feeling the effects of an opioid or something might also cause the anesthesia not to work during surgery or something weird like that (I'm no doctor or chemist, just speculating).

Treating the addiction like a medical issue is the right path IMO.

That's a very interesting point, and probably true. The problem is that a lot of addictions start out as recreational, or even medically necessitated, plus it's not dealing with the triggers that cause addiction in the first place, but getting rid of the drug component is a big step.

 

[dank69]

Why do people on the right, people that supposedly support personal freedoms, also champion the fight against people doing whatever they want with their own bodies? Oh that's right, some people that do drugs also commit crimes. Punishing the actual crime isn't enough, we must punish people because they might commit some crime. Forget the fact that millions of drug users do not break any laws other than the bullshit drug laws. Forget the fact that many people using legal drugs do commit crimes. Forget the fact that many people using no drugs commit crimes.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Why do people on the right, people that supposedly support personal freedoms, also champion the fight against people doing whatever they want with their own bodies?

Because conservative American swine want total control over every aspect of human life; money, thought and action.

I am all for a vaccine. Americans are awful thoughtless drug addicts. If drug trafficers are to the point where a military (Mexican) presence has NO effect on them and they behead people who don't pay them "protection" money - you know American drug users are throwing serious cash at the dealers.

However, where this vaccine stops the addition to drugs, there is still the underlying issue that led them to drugs. And, that may require a headshrink to work on that/those issues.

 

[xj0hnx]

Why do people on the right, people that supposedly support personal freedoms, also champion the fight against people doing whatever they want with their own bodies? Oh that's right, some people that do drugs also commit crimes. Punishing the actual crime isn't enough, we must punish people because they might commit some crime. Forget the fact that millions of drug users do not break any laws other than the bullshit drug laws. Forget the fact that many people using legal drugs do commit crimes. Forget the fact that many people using no drugs commit crimes.

I don't care what people do, if they want to shoot dope all day, fine, want to smoke crack all day, fine, but I do want there to be resources available to people that do want to get help.

 

[dank69]

I don't care what people do, if they want to shoot dope all day, fine, want to smoke crack all day, fine, but I do want there to be resources available to people that do want to get help.

Good for you. OP seems to think the war on drugs could eventually work.

 

[K1052]

If such vaccines became viable it would be a simple matter to include these in any sentence related to possession/usage of drugs. Might also become one of those vaccines you get when you're a kid; I'm sure there are plenty of parents who would enjoy medical certainty that their kid would never enjoy drugs.

Present medical science should not be wielded as a billy club in a bid to keep society in line. That's how we ended up with the eugenics programs of the early 20th century.

 

[xj0hnx]

Present medical science should not be wielded as a billy club in a bid to keep society in line. That's how we ended up with the eugenics programs of the early 20th century.

A-fucking-men. As an alternative to treatment, or a replacement for current replacement therapy sure, but not a preemptive behavior modifier.

 

[bfdd]

more drugs!!!! what i don't get is why so many of you have distinct lines on what is a "drug" and what isn't, when really pretty much everything we consume is a drug or contains a drug of some sort. we're a nation of drug users and abusers, we need to cut out the abusing part.

 

[xBiffx]

Why do people on the right, people that supposedly support personal freedoms, also champion the fight against people doing whatever they want with their own bodies? Oh that's right, some people that do drugs also commit crimes. Punishing the actual crime isn't enough, we must punish people because they might commit some crime. Forget the fact that millions of drug users do not break any laws other than the bullshit drug laws. Forget the fact that many people using legal drugs do commit crimes. Forget the fact that many people using no drugs commit crimes.

I have no issue whatsoever with someone using any and all drugs. I won't use illegal drugs and that's my choice. The problem is when this drug use spills over into affecting more than just the user. That is when someone has the draw a line and pull in the reigns. Personal freedoms are fine, but when you are harming others with your habit, its no longer personal.

 

[woolfe9999]

Interesting concept, this is one of those things that could really help but even as mentioned in the article ...



Anyone that thinks big pharma is out to help people is a fool. It's kind of why methadone is still being used, it almost guarantees a lifelong customer because it is a replacement, not a cure.

Good point. I think the economic incentives actually lean in a different technological direction: developing mind altering euphoric drugs that are non-addictive and reasonably free of negative health consequences. Big pharma could make a mint off of that.

 

[Arkaign]

I have no issue whatsoever with someone using any and all drugs. I won't use illegal drugs and that's my choice. The problem is when this drug use spills over into affecting more than just the user. That is when someone has the draw a line and pull in the reigns. Personal freedoms are fine, but when you are harming others with your habit, its no longer personal.

This is very true.

I do think the greatest harms from the drug situation actually come in financial hardship and misallocated resources. You and I, although we don't use illegal drugs and probably have never had a crime committed against us by a druggie, have a significant # of tax $ taken to chase this drug war. And prison space that would MUCH better be used to support longer sentences for violent crime, sexual predators, and major property crimes are wasted when they warehouse people who have done nothing but a drug crime. Do I need to mention that this prohibition, just like the alcohol prohibition of the early 20th century, merely manages to create truly epic organized crime and pour $$ out of the country? Sheer idiocy that only benefits a few at the expense of the rest of us. Even just legalizing + taxing MJ would have dramatic benefits at every level of our government and society.

 

[dank69]

I have no issue whatsoever with someone using any and all drugs. I won't use illegal drugs and that's my choice. The problem is when this drug use spills over into affecting more than just the user. That is when someone has the draw a line and pull in the reigns. Personal freedoms are fine, but when you are harming others with your habit, its no longer personal.

That's exactly my point. The line should be drawn when someone starts affecting someone else negatively with respect to the law. Currently, the line is drawn before someone starts affecting someone else negatively with respect to the law, and as a consequence we have far more problems than we would have if the line were shifted back where it belongs. Owning and using drugs should not be a crime in and of itself. Sale and distribution of drugs should be regulated by the government, not banned.

 

[Moonbeam]

Do you remember when we were first attacked by terrorists and the news media started listing every vulnerable target we have in the country? I'm not like that so I can't post anything meaningful in this thread.

 

[xBiffx]

That's exactly my point. The line should be drawn when someone starts affecting someone else negatively with respect to the law. Currently, the line is drawn before someone starts affecting someone else negatively with respect to the law, and as a consequence we have far more problems than we would have if the line were shifted back where it belongs. Owning and using drugs should not be a crime in and of itself. Sale and distribution of drugs should be regulated by the government, not banned.

Then why didn't you just say that in your first post. Instead, you make another blanket statement about "the right" that simply is not true. There are some on the right, and the left, that fit your description but not all. I agree though, we spend far too much money and jail space on petty, non violent drug crimes. This is one place where legalization/regulation would do more good than harm.

 

[dank69]

Then why didn't you just say that in your first post. Instead, you make another blanket statement about "the right" that simply is not true. There are some on the right, and the left, that fit your description but not all. I agree though, we spend far too much money and jail space on petty, non violent drug crimes. This is one place where legalization/regulation would do more good than harm.

Notice I did not say all people on the right. I was speaking specifically about the OP. I know not all people on the right agree with the war on drugs. I wonder how ANYONE on the right could possibly agree with the war on drugs.

 

[xBiffx]

Notice I did not say all people on the right. I was speaking specifically about the OP. I know not all people on the right agree with the war on drugs. I wonder how ANYONE on the right could possibly agree with the war on drugs.

How can people on the left agree with it? Please don't try and act like you weren't trying to label the right on this one. That boat won't float.

 

[dank69]

How can people on the left agree with it? Please don't try and act like you weren't trying to label the right on this one. That boat won't float.

Because some people on the far left are for government controlling as much as possible? You are trying to make an issue out of nothing. I do not make sweeping generalizations, ever, except tongue in cheek to point out other people's stupidity.

 

[xj0hnx]

Because some people on the far left are for government controlling as much as possible? You are trying to make an issue out of nothing. I do not make sweeping generalizations, ever, except tongue in cheek to point out other people's stupidity.

Actually, you did ...

Why do people on the right, people that supposedly support personal freedoms, also champion the fight against people doing whatever they want with their own bodies?

The War on Drugs™, just like drugs themselves do not know, or respect social class, or political standing.

 

[dank69]

Actually, you did ...



The War on Drugs™, just like drugs themselves do not know, or respect social class, or political standing.

So if I said 'Why do people like Justin Bieber?' you would immediately assume I think all people like Justin Bieber?

 

[xj0hnx]

So if I said 'Why do people like Justin Bieber?' you would immediately assume I think all people like Justin Bieber?

You didn't make a comparative statement, you made a sweeping generalization "Why do people on the right" , not "some people on the right", or "people on the right like such and such", or even "people on the right like the OP"

 

[dank69]

You didn't make a comparative statement, you made a sweeping generalization "Why do people on the right" , not "some people on the right", or "people on the right like such and such", or even "people on the right like the OP"

Answer the fucking question. Don't obfuscate, answer.