Vaccines for cocaine and nicotine have already been tested in humans and news of the nicotine vaccine, NicVAX, is growing in popularity. Just imagine, one day, along with their tetanus and chicken pock shots, your children and their children will be injected with vaccines to prevent nicotine, heroin, and cocaine use. This addiction-prevention vaccination, if ever fully developed, would be a threat to the next generation’s constitutional rights. Though it seems like an outlandish statement, I strongly believe it is my constitutional right to be addicted to whatever I please, whether it be nicotine, caffeine, or the like.
The ‘vaccine’ works like this: “Normally the body does not make antibodies that target drugs because drug molecules are too small. They need to be small so that they can move easily from the blood to where they work in the brain.
With a standard immune response, other cells chew up bound antibodies, and whatever they are hanging onto. This does not happen with vaccines for drugs; the antibodies just stay latched to the drug molecules. But now the drug molecule is much bigger since it has an antibody stuck to it. So big, that the bound drug can't get into the brain to do any harm. Neither can it interact with anything else in the body.” Jeffrey Helm
There are many problems one must also take into account. Will people be allergic to this drug on drugs? Will the antibodies from the ‘vaccine’ cause antigen-antibody complex? Kidney problems? Who knows!
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
It all comes back to the parents...
Many parents nowadays do not want to teach their kids right from wrong...and now many parents just want to shelter their kids from every kind of evil.
I don't smoke, but if someone wants to, that is not my business.
I agree with you, it is unconstiutional if it were mandatory.
any word on whether or not this vaccine is mandator?
Hail The PitGodess!
For a second there I thought it would let the drug take action, but suppress the physically addictive properties. I was going to be all for it. Abuse and junkiedom gone in a single generation... no reason to keep drugs illegal... the worst drug use negative completely removed... ah, paradise.
But as a way to completely destroy the effect of drugs, total bullshit. People have a constitutional right o but whatever they want in their bodies for whatever reason they want.
Also, in the case of heroin (which I assume they are working on) in seems to me that the vaccine would at least partially affect things like morphine and codeine. They are pretty closely related chemicalwise, and if you do a bunch of heroin you have a tolerance to morphine as well. Most major anasthetics are opiates, or even more dangerous. I guess we could always approve PCP and Ketamine for human usage.
The reason these chemicals work is because they fit into brain receptors, so they have at least a section that resembles the "key" to the recptor "lock." It seems to me that this would allow the vaccine to grab a brain chemical by accident sometimes too. After all, the reason the key section works is because it is the most reactive site on the molecule. I guess if their testing it I am wrong, or at least it is minimal, but it seems a bit biologically iffy to me.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
You have no constitutional right to addiction. You have a right to free speech, which is maybe how you're getting confused here, but even if you were to argue that you can legally be addicted to cigarettes or alcohol, you can't argue that you have a right to be addicted to illegal drugs. They're illegal for a reason. And besides, even if you weren't addicted, you could still use them.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
We have a right to our bodies. It seems the most basic right to me: the ability to control our bodies and minds. Without that most of the rest of our "rights" don't mean a whole lot.
Legality, in theory, does not affect rights in the least. They just make it more difficult to excercise them. When Blacks campaigned for Civil Rights much of what they did was illegal, but it didn't mean they didn't have the right to do it.
THis falls more under the right to privacy and a private life more than under free speech. THis is a sort of implied right that a lot of people take very seriously. It is a combination of (mostly) the first and fourth amendments and various other ideas presented in our founding documents.
THis vaccine destroys the effect of the drug. It doesn't just remove the addictive properties. You can snort as much cocain as you like and you won't get high because this vaccine makes it so that the drug can't reach the sites in the brain it reacts with.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
I was not to sure about how I felt but I believe that they cannot and should not make someone take a vaccine like this if they do not want it. Why is it that the laws and our constitution keep changing?How is someone supposed to feel knowing that everything they stand for can be taken away from them just like that. I agree with an earlier post if someone else wants to smoke and what not that is their business and their body so they can do whatever they want.
I don't understand what the diffence between this vaccine and any other is. They all have risks. Drugs are a health threat. The Constitution says states can do whatever they have to to keep their inhabitants safe. I don't understand what is unconstitutional about it.
Other vaccines protect from diseases that nobody wants and have only detrimental effects. Those diseases are also communicable, they can be passed on.
These vaccines don't allow people to do something they want to. There are people who use cocain and nicotine recreationally and don't have issues. Determining early in childhood that you will not be able to benefit from the drugs you choose is not the gov't's choice.
We have the choice to use drugs. At worst they are a health issue, not a legal issue. And really the health issues are pretty much part of the risk of doing them. Some people accept that risk, and as long they don't hurt or endanger others directly they should be allowed.
Every drug should be treated like alcohol. You can consume it at home and in designated areas, and you can be arrested if you drive or appear intoxicated in public. If people can choose to use alcohol they should be able to choose any other drug. We wouldn't accept an alcohol vaccine being mandatory for the next generation, would we?
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
So this is pretty crazy that they want people to take a vaccine and that they want to make it ok when drugs and everything is illegal?why do they have to keep changing the way our society is governed just leave it like it is.Everyone should have a choice.
Nobody in America has the choice to use drugs without legal recourse unless those drugs are alcohol, tobacco or prescribed by a physician. We don't have a legal choice now, and they want to make it so we don't even have a biological choice.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
So why is it that we can't even make a choice about our own body?Its coming to the point where we really have to do everything that someone tells. It outrageous to be honest and i feel sorry for youngers kids that are going to deal with crazy things like this.
We all have the right to control what goes into our bodies. FACT. I'd also like to thank Dr.Gonzo for clarifying my point while I was away this weekend. Cheers.
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ada-castellon