Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Everybody Can't Get Stoned!

By the Epopt in News
Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 12:11:57 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

According to this article in the 10th June 2000 New Scientist anti-drug vaccines are being developed at least five companies. Immunity to cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), methamphetamine and even nicotine may well be possible -- and may well be required by law -- for future generations.


"BILLY wanted to be bad. He just never quite made it. Sure, he'd put in the hours hanging out with the wrong crowd. He'd snorted what they snorted, injected what they injected and smoked what they smoked. But while his friends found bliss or oblivion, Billy was left to watch from the sidelines, untouched by the drugs.

"Billy's parents couldn't have been happier with the result. Years ago, they'd made the decision to vaccinate their son against addictive chemicals. Thanks to a few simple injections, Billy's blood was brimming with antibodies that bind to these substances and stop them getting to his brain, like a thin red line of defence against life's vices."

So what do you think, man? Should, like, The Man be able to make you immune to getting high? Or do people have a right to be able get stoned even when getting stoned is illegal?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o this article
o New Scientist
o Also by the Epopt


Display: Sort:
Everybody Can't Get Stoned! | 51 comments (49 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
Most addicts are begging for a cure (4.70 / 3) (#2)
by Anonymous Zero on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 11:23:07 AM EST

I don't think you'd have to legally force any addicts to take a wonder cure for heroin addiction, crack addiction, or nicotine because they'd probably kick down your door and forcefully steal it from you if they knew you had such a cure. The addiction gets to a point where the addict isn't even getting high anymore and they just need the substance to keep the pains of withdrawal away and they just wish they could break free of it.

Re: Most addicts are begging for a cure (4.50 / 2) (#3)
by hurstdog on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 11:32:33 AM EST

hear hear. many addicts _dont'_ like being addicted. And they would jump on the chance for immunity.

On the other hand, this does raise some interesting questions about the gov't passing a law forcing people to get immunized at birth. I would not like that to happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against heroin, meth, etc... but if your getting immunized, how do you know whats really in that shot? They could be immunizing you against other stuff as well. Maybe a company that sells a drug immunizer solution could just slip in something that immunized you against competitors products... now that could get scary. All of a sudden find out morphine from corp XYZ doesn't work anymore, and you'll have to wait 3 days for them to get a shipment across the country while you lie there in pain... *shudder*

Anyway, I definitly agree with the idea of drug immunizations, just not forced ones (unless your in rehab or in a situation with the law).

-Andrew

[ Parent ]
now there's a spooky-assed question! (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous 242 on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 02:03:16 PM EST

I'm totally against heroin, meth, etc... but if your getting immunized, how do you know whats really in that shot? They could be immunizing you against other stuff as well. Maybe a company that sells a drug immunizer solution could just slip in something that immunized you against competitors products...

This thought will give me nightmares. I'm not exactly paranoid, but pharmaceutical companies have more than earned my distrust. I'd be willing to wager that some of these immunizations have the potential to be administered orally and if that happens, it would not be that hard for drug brand x to have a side effect of making a person 'immune' to drug brand y. Egad!



[ Parent ]
Vaccine != cure (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by julian on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 02:29:10 PM EST

That's all that needs to be said ;)
-- Julian (x-virge)
[ Parent ]
Re: Vaccine != cure (none / 0) (#26)
by Tin-Man on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 07:17:12 PM EST

Maybe a little bit more does need to be said. Reading the article, it sounds more like this will be part of a treatment program. The addicted person is admitted to the program and given some of this drug, which may work for as long as a year. That basically gives the addict some time to get cleaned up and away from the highs and the withdrawals for a long enough period to leave it all behind.

Without having the desire to be cured, or even without the strength or support to make it, the addict can and will turn back to drugs, trying alternate drugs, or larger doses, or most likely both, in an attempt to get the high. In some cases, this could be fatal.

This should definitely be considered before administering an unwanted vaccination to an errant teen.
--
The future sure isn't what it used to be!
[ Parent ]

I have my doubts about that. (none / 0) (#31)
by marlowe on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 09:29:57 PM EST

I've had the dubious pleasure of knowing many alcoholics, and most of them weren't interested in a cure. They didn't even want to admit they had a problem.

It's often said an addict has to "hit bottom" before he can want to escape his addiction. But I've yet to see a concise defintion of that phrase.

--- I got bored with my old tagline, but I havent thought up a new one yet ---
-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
Damn The Man. (2.00 / 1) (#4)
by MrEd on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 11:36:07 AM EST

Interesting idea, this. I myself have only had good experiences with marijuana and psychedelics, and am of a firm belief that, used in moderation, both can be very educational and character-building. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.

However, for those addicted to nicotine, this will be a *godsend* if it ever makes it to market. All the smokers I know would quit if the withdrawl symptoms weren't so harsh. This product alone could make the research pay off tenfold.

As far as controlling your children's ability to get high... Do parents really need to strap their kids down and get them injected with antipsychadelics? Is simply educating them about the facts not enough? Do they not trust them enough? If parental control ever gets to that point, then the family is fucked up anyhow.

Watch out for the k5 superiority complex!


Re: Education (none / 0) (#7)
by Tin-Man on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 12:24:13 PM EST

I agree with your assessment that education should be the family's approach with its youngsters. I do not think that parents should give these immunizations to their children along with the standard childhood immunizations against diseases.

But I do have a question about the effectiveness of that education. I assume most parents teach their children about drugs and abuse. I also know of people who have been taught to stay away from drugs, but decided that they had to try it out for themselves to see what was so bad about it. Several people I know have done this, and the majority of them have become addicted. One of my friends died from an overdose.

My question, then, is what part of the process fails? Is it the parents who do not use the proper methods to educate? Is it just that some young people are not strong enough to withstand the addictions?

And is there a point at which the parents, seeing their child addicted, should be able to check that child into a treatment center against his or her wishes, and administer such an immunization?
--
The future sure isn't what it used to be!
[ Parent ]
Re: Education (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by analog on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 02:21:11 PM EST

Problem is, education is just the start. You've let them know what the drugs can do to them; now you need to give them a life that's less painful than that.

Let's face it, we treat kids in general (and teenagers in particular) like garbage (in the USA, anyway). What should be the most joyful part of a person's life more often ends up being the most painful. Kids hurt, and contrary to popular belief, they're not stupid. Give them the chance, and they will self medicate.

A local fairgrounds had a rave party last weekend; they expected 11,000 people, and over 22,000 showed up. Eleven people required medical attention, most for drug related problems, and two that got in a knife fight. I heard this, and my first thought was that they need to hold these things more often, because these kids obviously have a real need to blow off some steam. Anticipate the large crowds, and set up the infrastructure accordingly, and all should be well, right? Nope. What they're going to do instead is ban these types of parties altogether.

Eleven people out of 22,000 get out of hand, and they're going to ban the damn things. Is it any wonder so many kids think getting high is the only way to have fun?

[ Parent ]

Typical response (none / 0) (#40)
by spiralx on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 06:37:48 AM EST

Over here in England, where the club culture is well established, we've had 17 deaths IIRC in the last fifteen years or so from Ecstacy, which is a rediculously small number considering that hundreds of thousands of people go out every weekend, and the amount of drugs caned by them... But it's still enough for the tabloids to whip up scare stories about the evils of taking pills - there was a huge one after a girl called Leah Betts died in a club - of course what wasn't called to attention was the fact that thanks to scare stories in the past she'd drunk 17 pints of water beforehand to prevent dehydration and drowned her body.

Still, it all continues over here despite this, and even if it does get shut down, there's still plenty of free parties held illegally... :)


You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Re: Typical response (none / 0) (#47)
by TheDude on Fri Jun 23, 2000 at 10:45:54 AM EST

Yup, that's all it seems to be about anymore. Some small number of people die, the media gets all over it, and tries to scare people off the drug. Some other examples? DARE is nothing but scare tactics, jail terms scare the hell out of at least me, stories about drug-related deaths, overdoses and crime sprees - all are just scare tactics with some small amount of truth behind them. There are people who die from legal, medical drugs; people go on crime sprees without the influence of drugs, people die every minute. The reason we have "so many" drug-related deaths and crimes is that people have to hide the fact that they take the drugs. Thus, impure drugs, overdoses, anger and resentment at the community keeping the user afraid, etc. If drugs were legal, there'd be much less of a problem.

Giving people immunizations for drugs would just make most addicts go for higher doses of more powerful drugs - and a greater chance of ill effects. If a person wants to get immunized, fine, but NO ONE should be forced to be immunized. Personally, I don't even see how an immunization would work. I can't see myself getting immunized for nicotine and then just all of a sudden quitting smoking.... Addiction is a habit, not a disease. You can't just cure an addiction with a shot. You have to change a person's habits, not their body chemistry. My $0.02 anyways.

--
TheDude of Smokedot
Drug Info, Rights, Laws, and Discussion
Visit #smokedot on irc.smokedot.org

[ Parent ]
Reminds me... (3.50 / 2) (#5)
by Denor on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 11:38:13 AM EST

  Of a scene in Neromancer, where the main character has surgery done on him so that he can take all the drugs he wants, but they won't have an effect on him.
  It really makes me ask the question - do we want this? I mean, yes, it'd be great for people hopelessly hooked on some drug and want a way out, I'm not arguing that. But mandatory injection with anti-drug antibodies? What if I later move to a country where getting stoned is legal? Why am I prevented, for the rest of my life, from doing this activity which is only illegal in certain areas?
  The article touched on the ethical concerns quite a bit, and I'm glad that they're already starting to think of it. Something tells me, though, that there's not going to be as much debate as we might like.
  I think it'll be interesting to see where this goes. It's very interesting technology, that's for certain. How people will use it is a different matter entirely.


-Denor


Re: Reminds me... (none / 0) (#23)
by meldroc on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 03:03:48 PM EST

Yes, in Neuromancer, Case had an enhanced liver implanted in him (involuntarily) that metabolized most recreational pharmecuticals at such a high rate he wouldn't get high. Case worked around his new liver by taking a hit of stuff so strong it overwhelmed his liver so he can get high.

This is exactly what many addicts would do if they were involuntarily vaccinated against their drugs, they would find some other way to get their high - possibly by overdosing or switching to more dangerous substances. The vaccine would have the opposite of the intended effect. Having immunity to an addicting substance does not remove the powerful urges that make up an addiction.

Meldroc

[ Parent ]

Re: Reminds me... (none / 0) (#29)
by hypatia on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 07:41:19 PM EST

What if I later move to a country where getting stoned is legal? Why am I prevented, for the rest of my life, from doing this activity which is only illegal in certain areas?

Absolutely. Or maybe you'll move somewhere where heroin is legally used as a painkiller, and become sick enough to need it?

Is it true that the US is developing herbicides or something that can be sprayed on coca plants from above? How do they justify this to the target country?

[ Parent ]

Re: Reminds me... (none / 0) (#34)
by Imperator on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 12:23:07 AM EST

Is it true that the US is developing herbicides or something that can be sprayed on coca plants from above? How do they justify this to the target country?
Bribery. The US funds Latin American dictatorships. Money supposedly fighting the Big Evil Drug Warlords really goes to suppressing rebels. In turn, US companies (often petrochemical) get protection from the regimes.

It's the local populations that really bear the burden. Not only are they politically enslaved, but they also get to work for the company that's raping their natural resources and sending them away for processing and profits back home.

[ Parent ]

Re: Reminds me... (none / 0) (#36)
by rusty on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 12:49:41 AM EST

Heroin is a very bad painkiller. IIRC, it's basically polluted Opium to begin with, and must be manufactured from a purer Opiate. The difference is it gets to the brain faster, thereby increasing the danger of overdose, while simultaneously amping up the addictiveness to boot.

Really neither here nor there, but I just thought I'd put that out there. Any people here who are good at chemistry who know if I'm wrong?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Re: Reminds me... (none / 0) (#46)
by DavidTC on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 10:01:07 PM EST

Ah, but morphine is a darn useful painkiller, and chemically, that's what heroin breaks down into (Plus, yes, other junk) inside your body, before it hits the brain. If you can't use heroin, you cannot use morphine.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]
Re: Reminds me... (none / 0) (#49)
by rusty on Sat Jun 24, 2000 at 11:38:22 AM EST

Right, heroin metabolizes into morphine, which makes it a perfectly servicable opiate. What makes it a bad painkiller, medicinally, are the reasons I mentioned. High addiction rates and easy overdoses. Basically, yes, the active ingredient is the same, but as a medicine, it'd be better to just use the morphine you probably started with. It's like, for example: willow-bark poultice: not a great medicine. Aspirin: much better. Same basic ingredient, one's just much more effective.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Should getting stoned be a right? (none / 0) (#32)
by marlowe on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 09:33:24 PM EST

Getting stoned means you voluntarily impair your own judgement. Chemically induced stupidity. You don't mind it, `coz you're a complete moron at the moment, and the heavy machinery you're operating isn't going to pass judgement on you. But the little girl you just ran over might have some objections.

--- I got bored with my old tagline, but I havent thought up a new one yet ---
-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
Re: Should getting stoned be a right? (3.50 / 2) (#39)
by spiralx on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 06:29:58 AM EST

I think you overstate the effects of dope there a little - most people I know who smoke it aren't likely to go an run someone over at all - they tend to drive at about 15mph instead... Personally I don't smoke dope, I don't like the effects of downers at all, but I do take speed, MDMA, LSD and coke on a semi-regular basis, and don't see the harm in that (in moderation).

I was once addicted to speed, and that was a bad time, but it took a while for me to realise that and a "cure" against it would have been unwanted until then. And it wasn't stopping that was the problem, it was the aftereffects - nine months of feeling slow, tired and forgetful - which this kind of thing would have no effect on anyway...


You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Re: Should getting stoned be a right? (none / 0) (#50)
by el_chicano on Sat Jun 24, 2000 at 12:30:43 PM EST

Getting stoned means you voluntarily impair your own judgement.

Some do, while others voluntarily enhance their perception...

Chemically induced stupidity.

for some while others reach chemically induced enlightenment...

...the heavy machinery you're operating isn't going to pass judgement on you. But the little girl you just ran over might have some objections.

There are an estimated 20-25 million cannibis smokers in the US. Where are all the dead little girls??? :->

I remember reading an article in Road and Track (or maybe Car and Driver) in the late 1970's. They went to a test track, and some drivers smoked some weed and others drank alcohol. The result? The drivers that were drinking drove faster and more aggressively whereas the stoned drivers drove slower and more carefully.

They came to the conclusion that while one should not drive while intoxicated cannibis did not negatively affect your driving skills like alcohol did...


[ Parent ]
Hmmm...... (4.00 / 1) (#8)
by Nio Spartan on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 12:40:26 PM EST

...Since many drug tests are incapable of telling the difference between cocaine and saccharin, one can only imagine how the anti-narcotics will react with other elements in the body over time.
What does courage mean? You can't program it. -Hugo Pratt
Whose parents are going to do this? (4.00 / 1) (#9)
by 3than on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 01:00:57 PM EST

Hmm. I don't see this becoming mandatory. In fact, I think that most people have better sense than that. A few parents might have their kids immunized-but most won't. I know my parents sure wouldn't have-they know about drugs. I think most people will still want their kids to have the same experiences they had.
And remember Neuromancer; there's always something that the screen doesn't catch. There will always be some drug to do, with lead time before the authorities know how to stop it. Especially if kids are vaccinated at birth. C'mon-they might be vaccinated against cocaine, but there's always amphetamine, dexedrine, methamphetamine, MDMA, psylocibin, LSD, PCP and others...and those are only uppers. I don't think anyone believes they can stop people from getting fucked up.
But I'm glad that it's available-if I, say hypothetically, were to get myself hooked on coke, hypothetically, it would be useful to be able to have those receptors turned off...of course, it would also royally suck, but hey. As long as people are in control of the use of these technologies, everything will be great.
Will that happen? I don't know. I find it disturbing that people are so willing to give up the 'right' not to be tested. That is completely invasive, and people accept that all the time. But I doubt that people will give themselves up to be vaccinated as easily-getting tested doesn't remove your ability to get high ever again on your drug of choice. What if there are deals like this: if you fail, you can take the vaccine and be compliant with drug policy. That would be pretty ambiguous, but it continues to cede areas of people's lives that were once private.
This technoloy is dangerous. Don't forget it. If people keep their eyes open, we might profit from it. If we go to sleep, we'll lose out...and keep blazing while you can.

Re: Whose parents are going to do this? (none / 0) (#28)
by hypatia on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 07:37:14 PM EST

C'mon-they might be vaccinated against cocaine, but there's always amphetamine, dexedrine, methamphetamine, MDMA, psylocibin, LSD, PCP and others...and those are only uppers.

It'll be like performance enhancing drug use in elite sport - just as there's always one drug ahead of the testers (or at least that's the impression the Australian media is giving us in the Sydney 2000 leadup), there'll always be one drug ahead of the vaccinators, especially since then they have to get evryone back for another dose. It's hard enough getting people to keep their vacinations against disease up to date, what about something they want to take?

And besides, there's always Snow Crash...

[ Parent ]

All of the side effects without the high (4.50 / 2) (#10)
by Snomed on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 01:08:41 PM EST

Well if Billy snorts and shoots up with his pals he can expect to get a damaged nasal septum, HIV, and scarred down veins -- all without the benefit of getting high in the process. Sounds like a bad deal to me.

Seriously, if this works, it would be great. Except that there are legitimate reasons for using narcotics. I was sure glad they gave me narcotics when I broke my leg.

Currently there is no way to get the masses of drug addicts clean, even if one or two do manage to do it, here or there. It's a horrible situation and individual addicts, communities, and the larger society all pay a high price for drug addiction. So I'm for it, if they can find a way to make it possible for immune individuals to respond to narcotics for legitimate reasons.
------------------

Legitimate uses for narcotics (none / 0) (#33)
by marlowe on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 10:28:03 PM EST

Yeah, it could get messy if morphine no longer works and we haven't got a substitute. But they wouldn't have vaccines for local anaesthetics, would they?

What we need is a really good local anaesthetic for severe pain. That would solve an awful lot of problems.

--- I got bored with my old tagline, but I havent thought up a new one yet ---
-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
Re: Legitimate uses for narcotics (none / 0) (#45)
by DavidTC on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 09:57:13 PM EST

Hrm...good point. Heroin and morphine are exactly the same in the body. Heroin, IIRC, simply breaks down into morphine soon after you inject it.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]
Re: All of the side effects without the high (none / 0) (#35)
by rusty on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 12:45:35 AM EST

Well if Billy snorts and shoots up with his pals he can expect to get a damaged nasal septum, HIV, and scarred down veins -- all without the benefit of getting high in the process. Sounds like a bad deal to me.

I never thought I'd see the day, but they finally came up with something worse than non-alcoholic beer. At least all that gives you is a big ol' gut.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

How would this impact "legitimate" medic (3.00 / 1) (#11)
by Anonymous Hero on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 01:09:35 PM EST

Opiates are used for pain managment. Cocaine can be used during sugical procedures. Could these vaccines risk my bodies reaction during medical use of "harmful" drugs? Will the antibodies be able to tell if I'm trying to get off? Is getting off the problem? If we could cure tolerance and addiction, why drop the mind-altering effects? Should all happiness be hard-fought or should it be available in a bottle?

Needs to be administered on a voluntary basis ONLY (3.00 / 1) (#12)
by iCEBaLM on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 01:10:16 PM EST

It's the same as any other vacination, the government can't make you get shots if it's against your religion and/or would go against your conscience of being "pure" in the eyes of god, atleast here in Canada thats the way it is. I am deathly afraid of needles, and have gotten out of superfluous measles shots because of these laws. I can't see how they can force these shots onto anyone. I could see a huge revolt if they tried.

-- iCEBaLM

Would these affect ability to experience pleasure? (3.00 / 1) (#13)
by mahlen on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 01:27:30 PM EST

What fascinating research. But these vaccines bring up some nasty points:

- Some of the drugs being considered bad (e.g., cocaine) have medical uses (including dentistry). So what happens when you've made beneficial drugs useless?
- What happens when drug laws change (as there seems to be a fair amount of pressure to do, given the high costs and dubious gains jailing pot smokers has)? What are the legal implications of removing a source of pleasure from one's life? I suspect I could sue bigtime for damages, just like if you took away my sense of taste.
- Since many drugs (e.g., heroin) work by being closely related to naturally existing brain chemicals, would these vaccines inadvertantly make people less capable of feeling pleasure from things like food, sex, movies and programming :)? What are the social implications of that??

The article did make me pine a bit for my college years, though. Bong hit, anyone?

mahlen

CALIFORNIA: From Latin 'calor', meaning "heat" (as in English 'calorie' or
Spanish 'caliente'); and 'fornia', for "sexual intercourse" or "fornication."
Hence: Tierra de California, "the land of hot sex."
--Ed Moran, Covina, California

Re: Would these affect ability to experience pleas (none / 0) (#27)
by Nick Ives on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 07:28:36 PM EST

would these vaccines inadvertantly make people less capable of feeling pleasure from things like food, sex, movies and programming :)?
Why of course. Dont forget that they making great progress towards eliminating the orgasm, soon all human pleasure shall be removed!

--
Nick

[ Parent ]
Man, I hope they have this stuff for Diet Coke soo (3.00 / 1) (#14)
by Eponymous, Showered on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 01:42:57 PM EST

I need to stop drinking this crap. sign me up!

THC (2.00 / 1) (#15)
by PresJPolk on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 01:52:25 PM EST

If only they had one for THC..

addiction is more than physiology (3.50 / 2) (#17)
by Anonymous 242 on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 02:08:12 PM EST

In my brief readings of articles on addictive substances, it pops up again and again that most addicts have problems with an addictive psychology as well as being physiologically addicted to a given substance. I read about field trials of the Cocaine vaccine a while ago and one of the questions raised was that hard core addicts are likely to just turn from crack to heroin or some other substance just as bad.

As with all drug treatments, this will only work when the addict wants to change.

Now, if they would just put something out that offered immunity to iocaine powder....



Let's look at the list (4.00 / 1) (#18)
by stx23 on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 02:20:22 PM EST

Immunity to cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), methamphetamine and even nicotine may well be possible -- and may well be required by law -- for future generations.
Notice the absence of cannabis & LSD? I would argue that you can have perhaps mind expanding experiences with these, and the dependency issues, in particular cannabis, are perhaps more to do with the delivery mechanism than to do with the drug itself. I'm not advocating that anyone should try these, but that they are not necessarily something that should be categorised similarly to the above. In my dim and distant past, I have coded while heavily under the influenence of LSD(I had an Eureka moment while listening to Underworld - Pearl's Girl), and reading back over the code it surprised me not in the clarity of the code, but of the logical leaps and bounds I had implemented that I wouldn't normally. To finish, I would think that before we attempt to inhibit the effects of drugs, we should draw the line between creative enhancements and heavy addictions.
The revolution will not be webcast.
So show us the code. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by marlowe on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 09:27:14 PM EST

It's bound to be interesting, but is it good code?

--- I got bored with my old tagline, but I havent thought up a new one yet ---
-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
Code visibiltiy. (none / 0) (#37)
by Inoshiro on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 01:46:01 AM EST

I agree with marlowe. I'd like to be able to see the code. I tend to "meditate" on code while working, and think about the problems I have to figure out while falling asleep. I either awake with an answer, or come up with one while staring inside myself. Comparing the coding styles would be fascinating :-)



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Utter bullshit (1.50 / 2) (#21)
by DJBongHit on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 02:45:51 PM EST

Addiction is not a function of "can I get ahold of coke and get high?" Addiction is a function of upbringing and genetics - if somebody is genetically or psychologically predisposed to addictive behavior, they will get addicted to something - be it cocaine, heroin, alcohol, caffeine (sp?), nicotine, sex, fingernail biting, pencil chewing, whatever. This is just another example of people treating the symptoms of a problem instead of the root of the problem (just like the post-Columbine bullshit.)

And then what happens when drug laws change? Suddenly everybody but me can go out and get stoned. That sucks.

BTW Dammit - my DSL's down, this story would be great for Smokedot, but I have to wait for goddamn Bell Atlantic to come fix it. I hope that will happen sometime between now and 2192.

~DJBongHit

--
GNU GPL: Free as in herpes.

Re: Utter bullshit (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Hero on Sat Jun 24, 2000 at 09:40:52 PM EST

Much addiction is the product of upbringing and genetics, but some substances are physically addictive to everyone, no matter the predisposition. Cocaine and heroin are these types of substances.

[ Parent ]
Hmm.... (1.50 / 2) (#22)
by burruss on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 02:49:03 PM EST

Well I suppose if it is going to be available like Zyban, then good. If people want to take it and lose their addictions, then let them. And because addictions are strongly mental, then their willingness to take the drug will help them quit. But forcing someone to take it, probably won't have much affect. I just ran across an article talking about the cancer curing qualities of THC, kinda interesting... www.lasvegasweekly.com/departments/06_15_00/news_in_a_haze.html

Re: Hmm.... (none / 0) (#24)
by Potsy on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 05:34:33 PM EST

Holy crap! I had not heard about the Madrid study. That's amazing!

I think one of the barriers to research like this is that pharmecutical companies do not like the idea of a freely available wonder drug like marijuana. They can't control (and thus make money off) something that people can grow in their closets. I wouldn't be surprised if lobbying on the part of pharmecutical companies was one of the reasons the original Virginia study was suppressed.

[ Parent ]

Anti-Drug Vaccines aren't easy as pie... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by crashcane on Wed Jun 21, 2000 at 06:20:16 PM EST

The reason is that the active component of most drugs is a very small molecule, and because of its size, usually does not trigger the immune system (B cells, helper T cells), to make antibody(that's why we don't develop immunity to drugs naturally. To get the immune system to recognize these small molecules, they chemically hook, say , cocaine to a big, immunogenic molecule, like cholera toxin.

The immune system can 'see' the cholera toxin, and recognizes it as foreign, then produces Antibody against all parts of the the molecule, including the cocaine molecule (more complicated than this). With booster shots, eventually, the Antibody level could be brought high.

The problem is that the vaccine is not self-sustaining....the cocaine can be bound be already present antibody, but probably can't induce the production of MORE antibody (or it isn't very efficient).

Another problem is that, since no more anti-body is made, all the addict has to do is take more and more cocaine, until all the antibody are used up, and then they can get high again.


I think this is mostly correct, unless Immunology has changed in the past 6 months (which it most likely has)

B.

Re: Anti-Drug Vaccines aren't easy as pie... (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Hero on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 07:28:28 AM EST

Your immunology is incorrect in at least one respect: the antibody response can persist even in the absence of the antigen stimulus. There are specific cells (follicular dendritic cells) which trap antigen complexes in your lymph nodes and present them to maturing B cells in order to maintain antibody production.

Furthermore, don't be too certain that a dose of the drug won't induce further antibody formation. Once the vaccine's been given, the immune system is hypersensitive to that particular molecule. If it's seen again, it can trigger a response. The most common example of this is poison ivy. The toxin is a small molecule that binds to skin proteins; your body sees the protein-toxin complex and becomes sensitized to all aspects of it. If, in future, you get the toxin bound to different proteins, those proteins will be attacked just as quickly. (It's not exactly the same, since cocaine doesn't immediately bind to any proteins, but it's similar.)


[ Parent ]
Could be excellent (4.00 / 1) (#38)
by Anonymous Hero on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 02:12:17 AM EST

The idea behind anti-drug laws is that people try the
stuff, get addicted and their life is fucked. Now, that
leads to some problems:
1. Most people don't get addicted, and they get pissed
off that they're being incarcerated for something that is
harmless to anyone and enjoyable to them.
2. These people have to pay alot more than they would
if it was legal.
3. Huge criminal structures are being formed for
trafficking. 4. Huge amounts of money is spent on
fighting these structures, as well as users.
5. Aside for financial point of view, alot of people's
lives are being destroyed by all this.
6. And of course, there's also people who do get addicted
to something and their medical bills are being payed by
the rest of us.

So, if this vaccine works, we could hopefully stop all
anti- drug laws, idea being that if anyone gets addicted
he will just go and take the vaccine.

Of course, in the REAL WORLD, they will mess up somehow
and we'll be worse off than ever.

Couldn't this start a "drugs arms race"? (3.00 / 2) (#41)
by Toojays on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 07:11:30 AM EST

If governments or corporations start making it manditory to take these vaccines, it wouldn't be long before the players at the top of the narcotics suppy chain start manufacturing new drugs which get around the vaccines, like pharmeceuitical hacking I guess.

cool, but... (4.30 / 3) (#43)
by Anonymous Hero on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 09:04:55 AM EST

like somebody else posted earlier:

1) many drugs work with naturally existing chemicals in the brain, that make us feel good. so if one was to create a vaccine i'm not sure how it would do its business w/o affecting these chemicals. So you're off the drugs, but now you can't experience joy. is that a way to live?

2) addiction is a combination of chemical/genetic factors and psychological factors. because of this a person who is psychologically predisposed to addiction will just find a different drug.

Only users lose drugs (1.00 / 1) (#44)
by Anonymous Hero on Thu Jun 22, 2000 at 06:15:26 PM EST

This research is utterly useless: If we needed to be immune to these substances on a hardware level, evolution would have invented something. All this reminds me of the darkest middle ages: Then, they burned 'witches', today their lifes are wrecked and the last $ sqeezed out. Why? The problem with addiction/overdosing is the same as with the people who open ILOVEYOU attachments: They mess with their system without understanding. OTOH, it must be pretty boring to admin a system on wich one may not allowed to run the tools one finds appropriate. I fear some heroin addicts don't know that their stuff isn't traditionally shot IV in purities below 50%, but smoked. And people become 90 YO doing this every day. Just a matter of prize.. Some may not understand that sweating dehydrates them, even if their thirst is a little suppressed by MDMA. <sound of me swollowing rant> The problem is (again): People lusing tools. Societies tending to dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. The solution: Make people their own admins.

Evil (2.00 / 1) (#48)
by Anonymous Hero on Fri Jun 23, 2000 at 12:34:11 PM EST

This is very sick and evil. Next are they going to ban fat because it is "bad". How about nicotine immunity? Are they going to start implanting people with "moral" chips which report back unAmerican activities?

I can see how research like this might be useful for problems like drug-addicted newborns or something. But to enforce this on otherwise normal people without consent is just a terrible precedent and slippery slope.

Everybody Can't Get Stoned! | 51 comments (49 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!