A vaccine for addiction; a route to legalization?

[Sinue_v2]

I was watching a PBS special on Prohibition tonight and I couldn't help but draw parallels between the dry movement and the current policies (and ramifications) of the "War on Drugs". Namely, deregulated (and more dangerous) products, increased violence - especially gang violence and organized crime, and routes of treatment being closed/ineffective. In many ways, the only reason why alcohol prohibition was repealed (while other drugs remain illegal) is due to it's popularity. Many accept the consequences of prohibition for less popular substances simply because they are more minute in comparison (on the societal level) - or have been mitigated elsewhere, such as poorer communities and less prosperous nations. Perhaps mitigated isn't the right word... but the direct effects of these policies are at least far more detached from the cause. Opium production in Afghanistan funding terrorism, kidnappings and coups in Central/South America that disrupt trade and commodities, or (perhaps most noticable) cartel/government bloodbaths in Mexico which spill over our southern borders.

And of course, there is the disturbing apathy in many people handwaved aside by social darwinist-like attitudes of "Fuck the junkies, we're better off without them".

But what if there was a way to not just cure addiction after it's happened... but to prevent it from ever taking hold in the first place, regardless of drug usage. It's only been in last 20 years that we've really started being able to peer inside a working brain and see direct evidence of correlates in activity between not just behavior, but in treatment methods as well. We're starting to decouple the idea of addiction as some "overpowering innate force of nature", or some purely psychological phenomena, which must be avoided by absence from a behavior/substance... and starting to see the real biochemical mechanisms which underlay it. While we're still quite a ways off from being able to decouple addiction from behavior/substance... some estimates (according to the NYT interviews at a recent MIT conference on the subject (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/magazine/25addiction.html?pagewanted=all)) suggest that in 5-15 years, we may start to see real strides in the area.

In the meantime, a stopgap measure for combating some addictions has appeared. A vaccine.

Source: Journal Nature - Molecular Therapy (2011) 19 3, 612–619 (http://www.nature.com/mt/journal/v19/n3/abs/mt2010280a.html)

A vaccine for cocaine abuse has been developed in preclinical trials. Normally, the chemical components of cocaine in your blood are too small for your bodies immune system to detect as a threat... allowing them to reach the brain and cross the blood brain barrier. This new immunotherapy introduces non-infectious viral proteins into the blood which bind with the cocaine molecules. Once bound, the immune system can detect and purge them from the body before they can reach the brain. So even if a junkie falls off the wagon, he will be unable to get high. If phase I-III trials pan out, and the vaccine made cheap and easily accessable, it could allow a safety net for users to step back from the point of no return at the first signs of addiction (which is often already too late) - promoting responsible use, rather than abuse. Even in abuse situations, it allows for cost-effective and manageable treatment options.

(obviously the treatment isn't going to work on many behavioral addictions, like sex or gambling... and some substances haven't shown compatibility with this method, such as alcohol and THC.)

So the question I pose is... assuming this immunotherapy against addiction pans out and works for most of the harder drugs (heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines), would you be in favor of decrimilization/regulation - or would you still oppose the legalization of narcotics due to other factors (overdose, public intoxication/DUI, organ damage)?

[McLaughlin]

I'd still be against legalization. An argument could be made for marijuana (although I can't say I would support that either), but the stronger narcotics take a serious toll on your body, on top of the assured increase in accidents/violence due to intoxication.

Some may say that these drugs are no different than alcohol, but I would suggest that that's a better argument for the criminalization of alcohol than it is for the decriminalization of most narcotics.

[Split]

I'd still be against legalization. An argument could be made for marijuana (although I can't say I would support that either), but the stronger narcotics take a serious toll on your body, on top of the assured increase in accidents/violence due to intoxication.

Some may say that these drugs are no different than alcohol, but I would suggest that that's a better argument for the criminalization of alcohol than it is for the decriminalization of most narcotics.Legalization (of marijuana, if not all drugs) with age limits and taxes would be a huge boon in a time of economic crisis for our country (or my country, or the U.S., or whatever - I know plenty of PSO-Worlders are from elsewhere), and it would decrease if not eliminate the unimaginably horrific violence perpetrated by warring Mexican drug cartels (they force prisoners to fight each other to the death with blunt instruments or to go into a town and indiscriminately kill people until they're finally put down by law enforcement).

Also, what could you possibly have against weed? I don't understand this for the same reason I don't understand people who are against gay marriage, even while not being a (heavy) marijuana smoker or homosexual, myself. The only explanation I can think of is indoctrination (by conservative anti-drug programs in school systems and the Catholic church, respectively). Sure, it's unhealthy, but so is binge drinking, and guess what? That's completely legal in 90% of the world, even though it is way less safe to be drunk than high. How often do you hear of someone dying in a "stoned driving accident?" Even cigarettes and dip are less healthy, and they're pretty legal too.

Even aside from all that, things should never be illegal just because they're "unhealthy." If that was the case, we'd be buying McDonald's on the fucking black market instead of on every street corner. Sure, you're an idiot if you drink the chemicals mom keeps under the sink, but it's not illegal to do. Drugs are a lifestyle choice like anything else, and if their legalization increases the number of addicted persons/related deaths, it will only be by a small margin, even without this vaccine that Sinue is telling us about (which sounds pretty damn cool by the way; doesn't exactly make me wanna go out and experiment with crystal meth, but it's still an impressive innovation).

In El Barrio (Spanish for "The District", the slang name for East Harlem, NY), where uneducated and in some cases completely illiterate Puerto Rican immigrants are making vast sums of money as de facto CEOs of crack rings, and neither the police nor the government are doing anything about it, because they can't. It is as entrenched in their society as breathing, and every kid in those projects grows up running drugs for them. You should read In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio by world-renowned anthropologist Philippe Bourgois (who, by the way, suggests decriminalization of drugs as a very important way to fix the FUBAR situation there, particularly their acute prison overflow problem) it may disabuse you of some of your views here.

My point in citing this is that this problem is not solvable by police crackdowns. The War On Drugs, lest we forget, was something proposed by President Nixon! NIXON!!! He was quite possibly one of the worst presidents in our country's history, the only one that was, for all intents and purposes, successfully impeached (he resigned before it could happen, knowing its certainty). Anyone knows a War On Drugs is totally futile - or maybe we should declare a War On Drinking next? We all remember how that turned out when we last tried it. Drugs in our country are immovably common, and their illegal import and production is extremely profitable, so why not harness that revenue stream for ourselves? There is almost no possibility of anything but good coming out of it, for both the U.S. and the entire world.

EDIT: due to what it brought my post count to, this may have to be my last post, ever.

[Keilyn]

I oppose the legalization for several reasons

1) The critical damage of drugs is always higher on the young. Immuno-treatment is not going to heal someone that is too young and underdeveloped. The greatest fear of drugs is how rapidly they spread.

2) Its a drain of resources to produce something that in overuse will affect people greatly just so the same people decide to "develop" and "sell" a vaccine. This has happened before...both times the manufacturer of the drug and cure had not been prosecuted...however in China when an FDA official tried to corrupt people he was PUBLICLY EXECUTED. In the United States its "A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic" and profits mean for promotion.

http://naturalnews.com/Cartoons/China-FDA_600.jpg

3) Americans brand every struggle a war regardless how severe or unresponsive a problem is.....

[Sinue_v2]

but the stronger narcotics take a serious toll on your body, on top of the assured increase in accidents/violence due to intoxication.

I'm not so sure there would be a prolonged increase in the incidents of DUI following decriminalization. While I don't doubt there may be a spike in incidents for up to a decade afterwards, I don't think that trend can long maintain. After all, people are driving under the influence of these substances right now. At least with a vaccination option available, those caught in violation of the law by driving under the influence can be subjected to mandatory vaccination to ensure that the perpetrator physiologically cannot become a repeat offender. If you want to keep getting high, don't drive under the influence.

Towards the end of the PBS special, there was a bit of an aside describing a non-intuitive result of repealing the 18th amendment. Alcohol became highly regulated, and as a result, it's far more difficult to get a drink today than it was during prohibition. Without regulation under the law, speakeasys were free to sell unsafe and copious amounts of alcohol to anyone and at all times of the day. Afterwards, alcohol production would fall under the jurisdiction of the ATF and later also the FDA - creating a safer product, and distributors were restricted to whom they could sell, under what condition, and at what times... else their liquor license could be revoked. The law is lax enough that it ruins black market trade, while strict enough to still reduce consumption by at least a non-marginal amount.

This also applies to point one of Keilyn's post.


Its a drain of resources to produce something that in overuse will affect people greatly just so the same people decide to "develop" and "sell" a vaccine.

While it would be foolish to allow any producer of a substance to also patent and sell the vaccine to their substance, I can't see there not being regulations put in place to prevent such occurrence. Further, I don't see many parent companies wanting to develop a vaccine that would make you immune to the effects of their product. Phillip Morris & RJ Reynolds have no interest in developing a competitive product to Nicoderm, and have even in the past been belligerent towards Glaxosmith Klein despite their product only having a meager 5% success rate. This has led to a recent incitement of RJR by GSK over their smokeless tobacco supplements (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/rodr0069/myblog/2011/02/new-contender-in-nicotine-replacement.html), which is similar to Nicorette but is being marketed as a supplement/replacement. The problem is, GSK's product was subjected to rigorous FDA testing and approval methods, while RJR's suppliments have supposedly not been. GSK is claiming that RJR is trying to slide in a competitive product specifically to undermine their own product, while not having to show that it is either effective or safe. A smokescreen to cut them out while simultaneously sabotaging the efforts of their consumers to quit.

I highly doubt you'll see many current major pharmaceutical companies start going into the business of recreational methamphetamine production... even those who are currently in the business of medicinal methamphetamine production (like Ovation Pharmaceuticals who make Desoxyn). It'll be small startup companies developing competing brands, similar to tobacco and alcohol production... and even they may not flourish initially in an environment with heavy regulation, strong negative public perception, and a ready vaccine.


Americans brand every struggle a war regardless how severe or unresponsive a problem is.....

We are a bit of a bunch of drama queens, aren't we?


marijuana should be legalized all other drugs should be banned... marijuana is the only drug after which you are in your senses all other drugs you can do anything when under there influence

You probably shouldn't speak to that which you don't have much knowledge of. While Tetrahydrocannabinol displays properties of a stimulant, it's depressant and hallucinogenic effects are far more pronounced. Further, it's an analgesic (pain killer). It deadens and alters sensory and emotional perception. If you want a high that leaves you in control of all your faculties, you're better off supporting a drug like cocaine and amphetamines which are potent stimulants that heighten concentration and sensory perception. (although you are more likely to engage in high risk behaviors, such as speeding, and the long-term damage caused by neural toxicity is whole other story). On this, I do speak from experience, as in my younger (and stupider) days - I have driven home from my friends and families places both under the influence of Marijuana and Cocaine - and cocaine had never produced the kind of tracers, distortion of time/distance perception, and visual distortions that marijuana did.

Further, from assessments by to the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency on the effects of various drugs on motor vehicle operation:

Marijuana (http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm): Low doses of THC moderately impair cognitive and psychomotor tasks associated with driving, while severe driving impairment is observed with high doses, chronic use and in combination with low doses of alcohol The more difficult and unpredictable the task, the more likely marijuana will impair performance.

Cocaine (http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cocain.htm): Single low doses of cocaine may improve mental and motor performance in persons who are fatigued or sleep deprived, however, cocaine does not necessarily enhance the performance of otherwise normal individuals. Cocaine may enhance performance of simple tasks but not complex, divided-attention tasks such as driving. Most laboratory studies have been limited by the low single doses of cocaine administered to subjects. At these low doses, most studies showed performance enhancement in attentional abilities but no effect on cognitive abilities. Significant deleterious effects are expected after higher doses, chronic ingestion, and during the crash or withdrawal phase.

Meth (http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/methamphetamine.htm): At lower dose, amphetamines have few effects on cognitive functioning and may result in an enhancement of some psychomotor tasks, but risk-taking increases at higher doses and responses become inappropriate. Drug withdrawal could also lead to the impairment of psychomotor skills required for safe driving.

I don't intend to argue that Marijuana is worse for you than either of the harder drugs I've mentioned, that's absurd, and if I'm picking on it - remember that it's only within the context of impairment to sensory and cognitive functions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNPm5cG85c&feature=channel_video_title

Pay particular attention to "Myth #3: Being high on pot doesn't make you dangerous behind the wheel", and open the video in Youtube and check the video description to links for the research papers cited in the video.

For instance: NCBI: Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14725950)

[spoiler-box]However, most culpability surveys have established cannabis use among crashed drivers by determining the presence of an inactive metabolite of THC in blood or urine that can be detected for days after smoking and can only be taken as evidence for past use of cannabis. Surveys that established recent use of cannabis by directly measuring THC in blood showed that THC positives, particularly at higher doses, are about three to seven times more likely to be responsible for their crash as compared to drivers that had not used drugs or alcohol.[/spoiler-box]

[ShinMaruku]

You know the US could take some pointers from Europe. One of the countries (I think maybe a part of Spain not sure) they gave out heroin for free to people in a government facility, the drug use dropped massively due to drugs being uncool and easy to access.

[NoiseHERO]

You know the US could take some pointers from Europe. One of the countries (I think maybe a part of Spain not sure) they gave out heroin for free to people in a government facility, the drug use dropped massively due to drugs being uncool and easy to access.

...

I hate people...

[Outrider]

You know the US could take some pointers from Europe. One of the countries (I think maybe a part of Spain not sure) they gave out heroin for free to people in a government facility, the drug use dropped massively due to drugs being uncool and easy to access.

I'm not aware of that program, but similar programs where they hand out free needles (to prevent the spread of disease) have seen an increase in users going into rehab and trying to kick their addiction.