Cocaine Vaccine In the Works

martyros writes "Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine are performing clinical trials of a vaccine that teaches the immune system to attack cocaine, preventing it from giving a high. The vaccine is made by attaching inactivated cocaine molecules to the outside of inactivated cholera proteins. When the immune system attacks the cholera proteins, it also 'learns' the cocaine molecules as well. The result is that the immune system 'recognizes the potent naked drug when it's ingested. The antibodies bind to the cocaine and prevent it from reaching the brain, where it normally would generate the highs that are so addictive.'" An earlier story from The Star notes that human trials for vaccines against both cocaine and nicotine are well under way.

Analogs

[Harmonious Botch]

I hope this wundervacine will not attach to some of the body's natural painkillers.

Re:Analogs

[pilgrim23]

Is it cocaine specific or does it effect response to a whole class of alkaloids? I would truely hate to be in the dentist chair with drill ready only to find, rather quickly, how well this vacine potentially could work.

Re:Analogs

[Masaq]

Happily (and thankfully) we don't use a lot of pharmacologically similar compounds in medicine (or dentistry) these days. Even the medical/dental use of cocaine is rather rare these days as safer medications, or combinations of medications, can be used for similar effects. Despite their similar names, most of the "local anesthetics" that one would use in the dentist's chair (lidocaine, benzocaine, etc) have quite different chemical structure than cocaine. Cocaine has effect on both sodium channels (blocking depolarization and nerve conduction thus providing local anesthesia) as well as dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake (more responsible for its CNS effects). Lidocaine and related compounds only block fast sodium channels. Thus, it's unlikely that this vaccine is going to cause serious dental pain problems.

Re:Analogs

[pilgrim23]

I can attest to the efficacy of cocaine in toothache; At one time I was suffering "adverse economic determinism" -I was flat broke out of work. At that time I ended up with the mother of all toothaches. Pain on the transcendental level.
    I also did not have a health plan, dental plan, funny card, HMO, fill out this form, do not loose your #2 pencil, and all the other facets of modern medicine.

  I do not use drugs, am not interested at all in recreational drugs. A friend of that time though was, and sold me some cocaine. I placed it directly on the tooth and BLESSED RELIEF! It worked absolutely better then the over the counter nostrums. I do not know what experience users enjoy, but, that day, I enjoyed lucid thought free of pain and that made the experience well worthwhile. Incidentally, the street purchase price of that drug was far far less then it would cost to see a doctor, get a 'script, then buy the script without the above paperwork goodness. also whatever the Doc said to use probably would have been about as effective as the nostrums.

Re:Analogs

[Anonymous Coward]

I fucking hope this thing works for users who inject it... because snorting coke isn't enough for long term users.

As long as it is voluntary and not compulsory. It's great there may be more tools for people who are seeking help for their problems. I don't believe in vaccines personally. I think from the abortion issue there was a slogan "Keep your laws off my body". That's all I worry about. I don't care what people ingest or get high off of and addicted too even if it is totally self destructive. IMO it's not my right to regulate them. But we've seen time and time again how some people think they have a right to force their belief or way of life onto other's for their own good. Also the connection between large corporations and the revolving door between them, their money, government, and the people who decide law and policy. (Like how people in the FDA play musical chairs with big pharma in major conflicts of interest). That in the interest of finding new markets and increasing profits that the pharmaceutical corps may be successful in creating a need for this, or enough fear to justify "need to force it on children/whoever just-in-case". As long as it remains optional then great for the people who want to be the lab rats and give it a try.

Re:

[x_terminat_or_3]

I agree with your ``It`s my body and I fuck it up if I want to'' slogan, only from the point of view of the government, the reason they ban certain substances is that abuse of it leads to either a) illegal behavior because of the cost to keep you in ``business'', b) generates a significant increase in medical care due to after (side) effects of the abuse, c) a+b

Or D

[oncehour]

It conflicts with the business interests of a politician's donors.

Re:Or D

[cayenne8]

"It conflicts with the business interests of a politician's donors."

Speaking of..man, this vaccine will really screw up the RIAA, the MIAA...and the rest of hollywood!!

I mean, if you are injected with this...then snorting lines off a hooker's ass, will mean you essentially are paying WAY too much.............

to smell a hookers ass.

Re:Analogs

[cayenne8]

"I agree with your ``It`s my body and I fuck it up if I want to'' slogan, only from the point of view of the government, the reason they ban certain substances is that abuse of it leads to either a) illegal behavior because of the cost to keep you in ``business'', b) generates a significant increase in medical care due to after (side) effects of the abuse, c) a+b"

The thing is...if you de-criminalized drugs, you'd pretty much cut out "a", in that prices would drop as would profits currently being gained by criminal organizations. Remember prohibition on alcohol in the US? It prompted the rise of the gangs/mafia. Once it was over, well, I certainly don't see many people doing gangland violence over booze these days. Alcohol is just a drug like the others currently banned. It is a toxin that affects the brain.

If we cut out the crime aspect of drugs, we'd save a TON of money in tax dollars each year supporting DEA, and the overcrowded prison system. We could concentrate a small portion of that money to help programs for addicts. Heck, like liquor...why not tax legal pot sales?

Also, don't forget, it wasn't that long ago that any and ALL drugs were perfectly legal in the US. It was not the horrible effects of them that caused them to be banned either....most of them were banned in order to be able to use that to target ethnic groups in the US. Chinese - opiates, Blacks - Cocaine, Mexicans - Pot.

Frankly, I'm still wondering where in the Constitution it gives the Feds. the right to say what drugs are illegal. At least when they tried to do it for alcohol, they did a constitutional amendment. No such thing has been done for "scheduling" of current chemicals (thanks Nixon).

Re:Analogs

[MachineShedFred]

Frankly, I'm still wondering where in the Constitution it gives the Feds. the right to say what drugs are illegal.

The legality of the drug restrictions is actually based upon the constitutional privilege of the government to collect taxes. The original act that started it all was the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act in 1914. Technically, unless you were licensed, you were evading taxes and thus jailable.

So really, the drugs are not illegal, but not paying your license taxes is. However, the government doesn't license anyone so you really can't get your license. Interesting, no?

Re:Analogs

[colmore]

This argument is only valid if criminalization creates a large scale decline in usage. If the effect is only slight, then the many associated problems with criminalization are too great.

Every law, currently enforced or not, is a right taken from the individual and given to the police. This shouldn't be done except in cases of overwhelming necessity. It would be a great day when the laws of the land were few enough to list by memory.

Re:

[darjen]

The idea of making drugs like coke illegal is that they provide a major public health crisis.

Wasn't that the same reasoning that the prohibitionists used in the 1920s?

I don't see legal cocaine as causing any more of a health crisis than alcoholism.

[citation needed]

[harl]

I second that. Put up or shut up.

Re:Analogs

[calyphus]

making drugs like coke illegal is that they provide a major public health crisis

Hook, line and sinker...gobble down that propagranda. Study some history. U.S. drug laws originate in racism disguised as public health policy.

Re:

[Xtravar]

At least stimulants heighten your driving abilities...

Re:Analogs

[jombeewoof]

...There is a tiny bit of concern that it will be marginally "easier" to access at the street corner, but it is ALREADY quite easy...

I would imagine that if drugs were decriminalized, it would be MUCH more difficult for children to get their hands on.
Test it out yourself.
Give any 14 year old in America $30, tell them to come back with either alcohol or illegal drugs whichever is easier to get.
Guaranteed, they will bring back drugs 99% of the time.
I've seen it in action hundreds of times over. It is much easier for children to get drugs than it is for them to get booze.

I'm not saying it is impossible or even difficult to get booze, but it sure is easier to pick up something that is not regulated than it is to get something that is regulated.

Re:

[MrCopilot]

Test it out yourself. Give any 14 year old in America $30, tell them to come back with either alcohol or illegal drugs whichever is easier to get. Guaranteed, they will bring back drugs 99% of the time. I've seen it in action hundreds of times over. It is much easier for children to get drugs than it is for them to get booze.

Hey man, go out and get your own drugs. Relying on 14yr olds, Bogus, man, bogus.

I mean, I just can't have teenagers over here all the time. The neihbors man, the neihbors.

Re:Analogs

[jombeewoof]

I would place a heavy bet on the prison system being just as full if we legalized all drugs...some people are just leeches and will find some other way to earn a dishonest living.

But those who are in prison for simple drug offenses, like possession of small amounts of controlled substances would not be there.
That is a HUGE amount of people. The worst thing about that is, when they get out of prison they are in a much worse state than when they went in. Nobody will hire an ex-con. Not for anything other than shit work.

Re:Analogs

[jhobbs]

According to the Justice Dept., of the 1.5 million inmates in the U.S.:

        * Drug Offenses 59.6%
        * Robbery 9.8%
        * Property Offenses 5.5%
        * Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 6.8%
        * Violent Offenses 2.7%
        * Firearms, Explosives, Arson 8.6%
        * White Collar 1.0%
        * Immigration 2.8%
        * Courts or Corrections 0.8%
        * National Security 0.1%
        * Continuing Criminal Enterprise 0.8%
        * Miscellaneous 1.5%

Re:

[COMON$]

Actually I came from a civ department. My neighbors being Computer Forensics and Latents. But that being said, it wasn't the cops that got me hammering on society. Because as you put it, we see the dredges of society run through there. What pushed me over the edge is my friends working retail at department stores. People, not even criminals, abusing any system they can get their hands on to save a couple bucks, verbally and physically. I know a lot of people who have spent jail time for possession that

Re:

[jhobbs]

Read up on your history. Arizona started using pot to target immigrant workers during the depression. ("They are taking American jobs.") The same politcal pressures moved on to Washington where the stamp tax act was passed.

Re:Analogs

[CastrTroy]

Well then why do we need lengthy prison sentences for drug use. Just make it so that drug related health problems are not covered. Then for those who commit other crimes while on drugs, well, we got laws against other crimes anyway. This would make it so that people who can handle casual drug use not be punished for other people inabilities to handle their drug use.

Re:Analogs

[calyphus]

Making the substances illegal inflates the costs associated with their use, increases side effects, and actually promotes experimentation if not long-term use. The argument for banning psychoactive substances has much less to do with actually protecting society (a valid reason) than a prudish restriction of individual freedom. Prohibition creates more problems while solving none.

Re:Analogs

[Gospodin]

I don't believe in vaccines personally.

What does this mean exactly? You don't believe they exist? You don't believe they work?

Re:Mods on coke REALLY THIS TIME

[afxgrin]

That's because there's people who would rather see people who inject drugs die than see them receive any sort of help.

Sometimes the simple act of injecting is a cry for help. Which can be very frustrating to those standing around watching shit unfold... because everyone feels helpless, and usually it has to do with an ex-significant other who is trying to get attention.

If this vaccine, and vaccines like this are available, then those that are "crying help" will have no other option than to decide to take this vaccine. They asked for the help - well we'll fucking give it to them. And then they can stop threatening to off-themselves through overdose if their ex-significant other does leave themselves. At least they can make the choice to live or die completely sober.

Re:

[Johnny5000]

Taking away coke addiction won't do a darn thing for 99.9999% of all coke users. If they don't want off it? then either they refuse to take it, or are given it without consent and can legitimately claim abuse and sue. Either way it won't stop the problem that caused them to want it in the first place.

If the government can force people onto Antabuse for alcohol-related crimes, I'm sure they'll find a way to force the cocaine vaccine upon users as well.

Re:

[LrdDimwit]

Some vaccines -- you take it once, you're protected forever. Others wear off eventually. I'm not sure if this is due to the illness evolving, or whether the immune system 'forgets' certain antibodies over time.

If this vaccine is permanent, expect to see it eventually being pushed into vaccination cocktails given to kids. Totally avoids the consent issue because the parents give consent, not the child. Whether this is a good idea or not, I couldn't say, but sooner or later someone at the DEA is gonna t

Re:

[flu1d]

Many of the anesthetics found in hospitals today are based on cocaine now (also opiates and I'm sure they're working on that too), if given this 'vaccine' you'd better not have any kind of an accident.

Re:

[Znork]

"you'd better not have any kind of an accident."

Ah, dont worry, muscle relaxants will still work. Rather like lethal injection, except you get to live to tell the story.

Re:Analogs

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure the local anesthetic effects of cocaine or procaine (which is actually more potent in that respect, but has more potential for allergic reactions in sensitive areas which is why cocaine is sometimes used) would be significantly countered by the vaccine. Local anesthetics act directly on the nerves, very quickly on application at the site. It takes significant time for an immune system response.

But IANAD :-)

Re:

[lysergic.acid]

the -caine suffix is simply used for any drug with properties of a local anesthetic. however, novacaine, lidocaine, cocaine, etc. are not actually chemically related or remotely similar in molecular structure to each other, so there shouldn't be a problem with this vaccine interfering with the other *caine anesthetics.

Possibly useful, but...

[unchiujar]

Would you vaccinate your child ?

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[Daimanta]

Ofcourse I won't. I wouldn't deny them the wonderful experience of highly addicting and dangerous drugs.

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[somersault]

I agree that this sounds like a great thing, though I hope they don't follow this line of reasoning too far. It shouldn't be something for the parents to decide, otherwise you may get parents that decide they don't want their children to experience any kind of rush when doing dangerous sports, or decide that they block some naturally occurring highs because they don't want little eating lots of sweets, or getting knocked up. That's when the world starts to get creepy!

Re:

[gambolt]

Right. They came up with a vaccine for sex too. It's called female circumcision.

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[cayenne8]

"Right. They came up with a vaccine for sex too. It's called female circumcision."

Actually, I think for women it is called "wedding cake".

:-)

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Once they discover that they're immune to cocaine, they'll move pretty quickly onto ...crack

Hey genius, what do you think the active ingredient in crack is? I'll give you a hint, it's not the baking soda.

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[WaltBusterkeys]

It doesn't seem like the real market is in vaccinating children -- it's in people who are voluntarily trying to quit use of cocaine through rehab and therapy. If I had a monkey on my back, was trying to quit, and knew that I could relapse at any moment I'd be quite happy to get pharmacological help in quitting. It's the same as heroin addicts who are in rehab and want methadone or the new drugs that block the action of street drugs.

In that case, it's great. You can argue about parents vaccinating their kids, but it's not clear that the vaccine would last long enough nor be priced right for it to be a routine part of kid therapy. But it could be a huge help for those who want to quit and fear relapse into addiction.*

*-You can argue whether cocaine is highly physically addictive or just slightly physically addictive, but there's no denying that there are plenty of people who are (at least) psychologically addicted to powder or rock.

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[jackharrer]

No, but happily my CEO.

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[kieran]

Would you vaccinate your child ?

Or your employees? Or your signed artists?

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[MightyYar]

I would if I caught her doing cocaine.

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[Total_Wimp]

Would you vaccinate your child ?

I doubt it would matter much. There's a lot of evidence that drug abusers will simply switch drugs when their drug of choice becomes unavailable.

It's a real comfort to know that meth, oxy and alcohol abuse will still be available to our children after we save them from the scourge of cocaine.

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[ArcherB]

There's a lot of evidence that drug abusers will simply switch drugs when their drug of choice becomes unavailable.

Really? Link please. According to the second TFA [thestar.com] listed, that has not been the case:

One of the concerns with a cocaine vaccine is that once inoculated against a cocaine high, determined users will seek other drugs. But Haney's subjects did not do that.

"On the outside, they were using less cocaine. They just stopped. None of them switched to another drug of abuse."

Re:

[Alpha830RulZ]

I don't have a link, but I do have a cite, sort of. My mother ran a halfway house program in Oregon for 10 years or so, providing treatment to cocaine and other hard drug abusers. The facility was in a small town in Eastern Oregon, a long way from most of the users supply lines. When people fell out of the program, as they often did, they would trot down to the Safeway, steal a gallon of wine, and get drunk. It was accepted wisdom in the clinic that abusers had a drug of choice, and would substitute if

Re:

[Bryan Ischo]

You are overgeneralizing to the point of making any discussions on the topic worthless.

Also this statement is flat out wrong:

"Addictive behavior with anything is a desire to insulate yourself against actual or perceived problems."

I guess you don't have any experience with addiction because while this can be a factor, it's not 100% of the reason for addictions. Take nicotine addiction as an example. Exactly what actual or perceived problem are nicotine addicts seeking to insulate themselves from? Maybe ki

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[Smidge204]

A bit more from the article:

At Columbia, in 2003, Haney tested a cocaine vaccine on 10 people who had no plans to quit using the drug.

After a course of four vaccines injected over a 12-week period, half of the people produced sufficient levels of cocaine antibodies and reported a substantial decrease, up to a 70 per cent drop, in their dependence.

One of the concerns with a cocaine vaccine is that once inoculated against a cocaine high, determined users will seek other drugs. But Haney's subjects did not do that.

"On the outside, they were using less cocaine. They just stopped. None of them switched to another drug of abuse."

Emphasis mine.
=Smidge=

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[Torvaun]

How about "There's a study that's only available to cocaine users. You get paid $1000, and we keep supplying the cocaine for the period of the study. If the other drug we're injecting you with works, there's a chance that you'll become immune to the effects of cocaine."

I think most of the cocaine users I know would leap at a chance to sign a piece of paper that had the above written on it. Free coke, and they get money too? That's worth the chance that they might not be able to get high from cocaine anymore.

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Is this the same government that banned cocaine because of the fear that African-Americans would take it and rape white women? Or the same government that banned marijuana in a racist move against Mexicans, and banned opium in a similiar move against Asians? Try watching "Hooked: The Drug Years," which comes on the History Channel on occasion. Very informative.

Corrected title

[tacokill]

For Tivo users, the actual names is "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and how they got that way". It is an ongoing series.

I agree with the parent, however. Very very informative about the history of our drug war.

Re:

[phantomfive]

Oh come on, can't you think of anything more controversial and inflamatory than that? Everyone caught using cocaine will be required to take this! And it's just the beginning! Soon EVERYTHING that feels good will have a vaccine! No more mary jane! And we will all be required to take it!! The end of SEX! The government is ruining everything!! PRIVACY is threatened!! All is lost!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!! WHO IS THINKING OF THE CHILDREN?????????????

Re:Possibly useful, but...

[Seumas]

You'll be getting the vaccination yourself as soon as your car and life insurance carrier requires you to submit to it or face double the fees. And once your employer demands it for employment. And once it's required for citizenship. And once you are placed on a "cause for suspicion" list simply for not being vaccinated.

Re:

[damburger]

I can easily picture that many of the parents in favour of vaccinating their children against cocaine would happily feed them Ritalin if they misbehaved, which does pretty much the same damn thing.

Not worthless

[crow]

It's being developed for use in drug rehab programs. For people who want to quit, but are having difficulty, or have quit, but might relapse, this could be incredibly helpful. Of course, most of the discussion is around the potential to use this as a preventative measure, which is a very different issue.

Great idea!

[Funkcikle]

Injecting yourself with "inactive" cocaine AND cholera! What could possibly go wrong?

I'd like some anti-freeze to drink afterwards, please.

We inject ourselves with botulism toxin

[Lucas123]

So it'll be no surprise to hear of people using this stuff.

Re:

[MightyYar]

Both are treatable, though. It's not like they are injecting you with AIDS and dimethylmercury.

Oblig Orwell

[Adambomb]

Next Up on the party's list: The Orgasm.

Ob. Beer / Simpsons

[djdavetrouble]

Homer: Beer...The cause of, and solution to all of life's problems.

Re:Oblig Orwell

[spun]

The orgasm releases neurotransmitters that are similar to cocaine. Perhaps those vaccinated against cocaine would never have orgasms, or reduced orgasms. In fact, dopamine is critical for a lot of enjoyment. Maybe this will spawn a 'deadheading' procedure. Piss off the wrong person or government and you will never enjoy anything ever again. You wouldn't even want revenge, there would be no joy in it.

On the other hand, a sperm vaccine would be a nice alternative to having your tubes tied. Of course, there's the nightmare scenario where this treatment latches onto a live bit of cholera or whatever and spreads, neutering all humans.

Oblig Futurama

[Adambomb]

Choleraspermbot: Hey baby, wanna neuter all humans?

Re:Oblig Orwell

[jandrese]

From what I understand though, the immune system is locked out of the brain proper thanks to the blood brain barrier, so this drug shouldn't have any effect on naturally occurring opiates. My high school anatomy class never got into where the opiates are generated when someone has an orgasm (that would have made it far too interesting) but I'm guessing it's in the brain directly and not in the sex organs (where they would have to filter through the bloodstream before getting to the brain). Given how orgasms tend to be immediately gratifying, I'm guessing the production is local.

YesYesYesYes YesYesYesYesYesYes

[GodfatherofSoul]

ZOMG I'msoexcitedtohearaboutthis I'vebeenwaiting suchalongtimeforsomething tohelpmekickthiscrazycravingand theallnightravingand theallnightdancingandtheclubs withthecrappytechnomusic ZOMGisthatablacksquirrel whenisOprahcomingonmyheartispounding wherecanIbugythisvaccine!

Alternative to drug testing?

[crow]

How would this work as an alternative to drug testing? If the vaccines for various drugs were easily obtained (say, 10 years from now), then could potential employers, private schools, and such require the vaccines instead of requiring testing as they do now? Would this be better or worse?

Re:

[Jonboy X]

In the US, I don't think your employer can legally make you take any drug as a condition of employment.

Re:Alternative to drug testing?

[QuantumRiff]

Yeah, they can. Hospital workers especially have to have been vaccinated for TB, among other things..

Too many legitimate drugs are abused, however.

[Radon360]

An interesting idea, but if you were able to produce a vaccine that would nullify the effects of the majority of drugs that are abused, you're likely to wipe out the effectiveness of many commonly prescribed painkillers in the process. Take Vicodin for example. It's known to be abused and mildly addictive. Now although the vast majority of people aren't hooked on it, would it be worth it to render this drug ineffective to the masses just because of the few junkies that are downing this medication on a reg

Yay!

[jez9999]

Ah goody. Another blow landed in the Puritans' War On Fun. Soon, we'll all be living as their god intended, with no frivolous distractions at all! What could be more satisfying?

Re:

[operagost]

What makes you think "puritans" are behind this?

Re:

[EllisDees]

>you are also not free to drive 120 mph on the highway, bceause you put the lives of people other than yourself in jeopardy

Yes, but if you own your own racetrack, you are perfectly free to do so.

>likewise, users of highly addictive substances risk turning themselves into wards of the state that my taxes must feed and clothe

Since this never happens to the vast majority of the users of any drug, why not apply that standard to everything else that has the same probability of making someone into a ward of

While I do see

[bleh-of-the-huns]

a use for this, as court mandated immunizations of drug addicts who go in and out of the criminal system on a regular basis. I would major issues if the gov was to require this in all people, similar to other immunizations that you get when your a child.

Re:

[EasyTarget]

Unfortunately it won't be the Government, it will be your employer.. (with the help, of course, of a government program)

As for getting the kids 'treated' that's easy; our corporate overlords just insist that in the future they will not employ anyone who was not 'treated' near birth. After all, what sort of parent would possibly refuse? only 'bad' ones huh?

Give me the sales pitch.

[caluml]

I've never tried cocaine. Should I?

Re:

[Pojut]

Coke is ok...you gotta watch out for getting crap, though. Crappy (i.e. really cut) coke is REALLY crappy. As a drug, coke is decent, but it lasts for a very short time...minute for minute, it's extremely expensive (and, in my opinion, it's effects do not warrent the high price of entry.)

For the price of an eight-ball, you could get enough shrooms for yourself and a few of your friends...much better experience. You have the opportunity to learn things by taking substances like shrooms, weed, salvia, etc.

Re:

[EllisDees]

No, it's not that fun. Even when it's really good, it's still a giant waste of money. It lasts about 15-20 minutes and then you just want to do more, but can't really say why. Overall, there are far better drugs out there unless you just like wasting money.

Gibson called it...

[lwhalen]

Wasn't this a subplot of Neuromancer or something, where the main character was forcibly taken away from his various addictions by having his liver modified to not process the various chemicals?

we've always heard the legalization lobby

[circletimessquare]

talk about treating highly addictive drugs and their addiction as a disease, and not a crime

what say them to this? interesting revealing of the colors here

aside: my belief is that marijuana, lsd, anything nonaddictive should be legal, but highly addictive drugs like coke, meth, heroin should be illegal

Re:

[Daimanta]

Alcohol is addictive.

Cocaine on the other hand is not.

You do the math.

Great, so now they'll just be snorting Adderall!

[stevejsmith]

Oh, great. Cocaine prohibition produced crack cocaine and meth, crackdowns on ingredients to make ecstacy produced PMA, heroin prohibition produces all sorts of gross things, etc., etc. Cocaine is actually one of the safer stimulants out there (compared to its main rivals, crack and meth, which emerged due to cocaine's astronomical price thanks to prohibition). This insane drug whack-a-mole game is producing even more deadly and impure drugs. While we could be ingesting small and known quantities of pure marijuana, MDMA, cocaine, opiates, shrooms, and LSD, we're instead ingesting unknown quantities of who-knows-what. Most drug deaths are caused by adulterants, not the pure drug itself.

A Social Problem

[geekmansworld]

It's an intriguing scientific idea... but there are undertones of social control which are somewhat unsettling. Would children face mandatory vaccination? Or would we merely target individuals who are beyond hope of recovering from addiction?

In the end, it's irrelevant anyway. It's the same type of thinking as trying to make a disc format which is "uncrackable". People will simply switch to another drug: there's plenty of them.

If you really want to kill the drugs, address the social problems and mental heal

coca tea?

[Joe the Lesser]

Hmm, would this drug attack strictly the dangerous refined cocaine or non-dangers like relaxing coca tea, quite popular in Peru and other Souther American countries, brewed from the leaves of the plant that can be refined to cocaine.

And what about coca-cola...if users become allergic to it then I guess we finally would know the secret recipe. ;-)

Question

[rehtonAesoohC]

Are they giving Coke addicts free Cocaine while they perfect their formulas?

Junkies, get it while you can!

And a week later...

[fahrbot-bot]

And in the not-too-distant future, a week after the governments of the world force vaccinate everyone against cocaine (so the terrorists don't "win"), some scientist will discover a way to use cocaine to cure cancer...

Think ill of me if you will, but you know governments think like this and Murphy's Law loves irony... Oh how we are penny wise, and pound foolish.

Better not make one for caffeine!

[Peter Cooper]

If they make one for caffeine, the whole of the open source movement is down the tubes!

Not that sure about it.

[teslar]

Here we have a vaccine which prevents you from getting high on cocaine. My first thought was "Interesting". My second was "Who would actually want it?" If I'm not a coke user, I won't need it. If I am a coke user, I won't want it. So TFA says it's for people who try to give up:

"At some point, most users will give in to temptation and relapse, but those for whom the vaccine is effective won't get high and will lose interest."

Well, fair enough, but I'm not sure it will do them any good.

From what I understand about drug addiction and attempts to kick the habit, you won't just "lose interest", you'll be going through living hell for quite a while - your body is looking for something you're not giving it, it's going to be pretty mad at you. This is why people relapse - they remember the shiny happy times, ignore that bad bits about those times and it all looks so much better than what they're in at the moment, so they go back to their drug.

If you use this vaccine, then that becomes impossible, you burn that bridge. But that doesn't remove the desire to be back on drugs, it just removes your favourite one from the list of possibilities. There's still plenty of others around and I think it's pretty safe to say that people who were going to relapse anyway will do so with or without the vaccine - the only thing that will change is the drug they'll use. So that'll be a statistic to look for: What percentage of people trying to give up Cocaine on this vaccine will end up on another drug? Compare this to a control group of people not on vaccine ending up going back to cocaine.

I honestly can't see any positive use for this

[damburger]

I'm deadly serious.

Used as an involuntary jab to fight the idiotic 'war on drugs' it is a clear violation of civil and cognitive liberty (I'm using that phrase more and more these days, not something I'm happy about). Used as part of a rehab programme, it kills the drug use without addressing the underlying weakness of character that created the addict. They are likely to fuck themselves up in some other way.

There isn't always, and shouldn't always be, a quick fix.

Re:I honestly can't see any positive use for this

[goldspider]

Used as an involuntary jab to fight the idiotic 'war on drugs' it is a clear violation of civil and cognitive liberty

What the hell are you talking about? How is the availability of a vaccine a violation of anyone's rights?

Used as part of a rehab programme, it kills the drug use without addressing the underlying weakness of character that created the addict.

Or it could finally get an addicted person clean, after which he/she has no desire to put him/her self back in that state of dependency.

I'm no fan of the "War on Drugs", but there is some really dumb hostility towards this development.

The nicotine vaccine is the hard one

[Animats]

The anti-smoking vaccine, NicVax [corporate-ir.net], is in phase 2B clinical testing, and appears to work. Sort of: "High antibody responders (top 30%) continued to show statistically significant abstinence at nine months: 9-Month continuous abstinence rate: NicVAX=20% (12/61, p=0.0076) vs. Placebo=6% (6/100)" That's not impressive, yet it's better than most anti-smoking programs.

Nicotine addiction is the toughest one to break. Programs for getting people off cocaine are about 40% successful. Programs for getting people off smoking are about 10-20% successful. Also, addicts tend to "age out" of cocaine and heroin addiction; after age 40, most of them eventually give it up. Not nicotine; people smoke their way to the grave.

One problem with a vaccine approach is that encourage overdoses, to overcome the antibodies. For nicotine, this is less of a problem, because smoking has a limited intake rate. But for cocaine, it's a real issue.

It's encouraging, though, that no side effects of this vaccine have been detected so far vs. the placebo.

The real promise for this vaccine is as a preventative measure. The average age for a new smoker is 13. [state.il.us] Only 10% start after age 18. So if this works, a school inoculation program might be the way to prevent smoking.

Re:

[LWATCDR]

I hate smoking as much as anybody but an in school vaccination program for behavior modification?
Just seems wrong to me. Maybe if my kid starts and wants to stop and is having problems but as a preventative measure?
I would have to say no to that.

Chantix Works Fine (i have firsthand experience!)

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

There's no need for this. Not when a whole *class* of new drugs are coming out around nicotine anyway.

Chantix got me off of ten years of smoking in two months, experientially, not just for while i was on it, but apparently *reversed* the entire psychological and physical process from those years.

Every other time i tried to quit i'd have to avoid bars and lounges so i didn't come in contact with ANY smoke at all. After chantix therapy, I don't have to avoid anything, *i just don't want to smoke*.

I'll leave it to you (i'm already aware) of exactly why chantix has such a powerful effect. Given, i would never never never.. ...never never never take a "vaccine" that has a life long effect for anything other then a pathogen or bent protein. For a basic neurotransmitter mimic? youve GOT to be kidding me, scares the shit out of me. End of story

This seems useless to me.

[Puls4r]

What exactly is making people immune to certain drugs going to accomplish? New drugs are being created for this purpose (to get high) on a regular basis. Immunizing against one will simply lead to a rise in another, and the drug companies will always be 5 steps behind.

This vaccine seems like a way for the drug companies to increase profits - imagine what will happen if it's proven safe and then mandated by the U.S. or State governments. Guess who ends up paying for these wonder-drugs that are going to be

Suboxone

[lansirill]

This sounds similar in use, I have absolutely no clue about the pharmacology involved, to Suboxone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suboxone [wikipedia.org] and antabuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antabuse [wikipedia.org]. This is fairly second hand knowledge, my fiancee is a drug and alcohol counselor, but I thought I'd share.

Do not over dramatize the issue...

[LordZardoz]

I expected some responses to this topic to be against the notion of the vaccine on the basis of 'OMG Next they come for anything else that is fun'. But the number of those responses surprises me.

Now, I am sure there are many people on this site who (gasp!) smoke marijuanna. And I am sure there are people here who like to cap their weekends here with hookers and blow. And I am sure they also have such many wonderful stories as "I put a half kilo up my nose every week and I am a fully productive member of society". To all of those people, I say the following:

Get a clue.

For one, I highly doubt westernized society would be quick to start to inflict any form of medical procedure on someone who does not wish it. We let plenty of idiots choose not to vaccinate their children against measles and the like. I am sure plenty of nutjobs out there would like to see an anti-cocaine vaccine be made manditory, but I do not think it will happen.

For another, I am also sure there are plenty of people who would like to end their addictions, but find themsleves unable to. I do not think that there are many people out there who would wake up one day and say "Wow, I really wish I was still addicted to cocaine."

I agree, however, that there is danger in this vaccine in that it can also affect a lot of anesthetic's used for medical purposes. That danger should be very carefully looked into.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:

[yndrd1984]

For one, I highly doubt westernized society would be quick to start to inflict any form of medical procedure on someone who does not wish it.

Right, because in modern, western countries (say 1970s US) we'd never castrate 'mental defectives', pointlessly cut out healthy appendixes and tonsils, or circumcise children based on cultural myths and bogus medicine. Oh, wait - that was legal in the US in 1970, and the second two were quite common.

We let plenty of idiots choose not to vaccinate their children a

LD50

[HPNpilot]

If I understand this correctly, this will prevent cocaine users from getting high. But how does it affect the LD50 (dosage sufficient to kill 50% of the population)?

A cocaine user decides to get high after being "immunized." He snorts a few lines. Huh. Nothing. So he snorts more and more... at some point I am willing to wager he will suffer cardiac arrest or some other life-threatening problem on his quest towards getting high. If the LD50 is not much changed, this may occur pretty easily.

Also, cocaine has a very rapid onset. I am thinking it wouldn't take much to overwhelm the slower immune system response.

This is an interesting experiment as it is always worthwhile to better understand the immune system, but I think this would be a Real Bad Idea to actually implement. Unless the objective is to kill all cocaine users.

Re:

[rush22]

If you read the article, it says antibodies bind themselves to the cocaine. It does not say that the antibodies block cocaine receptors in the brain, or change the brain in any way. It's not a neurological drug they are talking about, it is a vaccine.

With a cocaine vaccine, the cocaine antibodies will bind themselves to the cocaine molecules. The cocaine is thus rendered harmless--harmless to the brain, heart, or other organs. That's the way antibodies work as far as I know. The antibodies will bind to the

wait, what?

[Duncan Blackthorne]

..human trials for vaccines against both cocaine and nicotine are well under way.

Do they really think that a "vaccine" against nicotine is going to help people? If they're already addicted to nicotine for years and years, aren't they going to continue smoking and either make themselves really sick (as their immune systems attempt to fight off the nicotine) or just keep smoking away?

Oppressive governments and religions.

[Lethyos]

Both would prefer no other pleasures exist to compete with their interests, as suggested by George Orwell [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

I'm betting Phillip Morris will make the first and last purchase of this wonderful product. :)

Are you kidding? The single entity making the most money off of every pack of cigs sold is the govt. The sacrosanct S-chip program is paid for by cigarette taxes, the last thing the govt. wants is for people to suddenly quit smoking.

Re:

[HandsOnFire]

Ever see Brain Candy by kids in the hall? In the movie, a happy pill gets invented and becomes the newest craze. No side effects, and it works by making you relive your happiest experience. Eventually, people get addicted and become happy, brain-dead zombies. Why bother to do anything if you're always happy?

Re:I wouldn't do it.

[Pojut]

I realize that half of what I'm about to say doesn't have much to do with what you actually wrote in your post, but your post seems like a good place to write this response, seeing as you have a somewhat skewed view on what a drug is or is not.

What do you think painkillers are? NOT drugs? Tell me, how is it that cannabis or shrooms (which grow ENTIRELY without human intervention) are considered drugs, and yet you wouldn't consider something manufacturered by a human in a laboratory to be a drug?

Pain killers are drugs. DXM is a drug. Viagra is a drug. Anti-depressents are drugs. Novacaine is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. Alcohol is a drug. Hell, even caffeine is a drug. You can't honestly sit there and be ok with something made in a lab and not call it a drug, but be against something that grows naturally, has less side effects, and call it a drug. That's just insane.

There is one thing you should realize...there is a big difference between a drug USER and a drug ABUSER. Be a user. Don't be an abuser.