Vaccines against drug effects

If you had any understanding of how vaccines work you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.

It's a pity we can't vaccinate against stupidity.

For some reason I thought you were smarter than this.

You can't have read many of his posts.

He's the sort of person who has an invention, but when you ask you'll find it's just an idea with no understanding whatsoever about how to make it work.

By definition yes they would be against it - if one is against being vaccinated then yes they would be against any vaccine.

With CRISPR and the generally high rate of genetic-engineering advancement, there will be all sorts of clever inventions like this in decades to come.

It might not be possible to directly vaccinate against chemicals, but there will be some metabolic pathway that can be altered to prevent the drugs from taking effect, or a simultaneous deterrent effect can be triggered, such as nausea, which would deter usage.

Not necessarily, since many anti-vaxxers are against vaccines because they see them as preventing the immune system from being exercised.

Theoretically, you could also say that people should go through a process of fighting addiction naturally in order to develop resistance to it, but how many people want to risk it?

Well, it might contain thimerosal, after all.

That is only one reason someone may be against vaccines - there are a slew of other reasons. However, the definition of anti-vaxxers is being against vaccines whatever the reason may be.

I could list some - but I know you are capable of doing a search - I suggest looking at the CDC for probably the best information on why people do not vaccinate.

It might not be a vaccine in the traditional sense, but rather some kind of genetic programming that triggers nausea or other negative experiences in response to the chemicals in recreational drugs.

If you felt sick or felt sadness caused by the chemicals in recreational drugs, you would not want to use them and thus the addictive effects would be neutralized, or rather deterred.

I think this dips too far into too much control over another human being. What would be next forcing drugs on your children so they don’t stay out too late, hang with the wrong friends or get pregnant ?

It might be better to simply parent your child

Couldn't you say the same thing about all vaccines?

No it is far different. Many if, not most of the vaccines are to prevent deadly diseases. The side effects in most cases far outweigh what the disease would cause.

That is far different than giving a drug to your child that would only be necessary if the engaged in a behavior that could be harmful. If the child does not use drugs because a parent effectively "parents" a child so they do not use these drugs then the you are giving something to a child with side effects that is completely unnecessary.

You cannot provide parenting to avoid getting a deadly disease but you can parent to avoid the use of drugs and other unsafe behaviors.

Addiction is a disease. It can be deadly and otherwise harmful to addicts and their communities.


Why would you give a child a HepB vaccine or HPV vaccine when you can just prevent them from engaging in behaviors that expose them to those viruses?


The question is whether parents will want to use vaccines to avoid the risk of their children ending up addicted to recreational drugs as adults.

I guarantee that once such vaccines are available, the government will be recommending them just as they do other vaccinations.

I can tell you like to argue for the sake of argument - any reasonable person can understand the differences here so I know it is just dumb for me to spell it out but I will.

Addiction is a disease that is avoidable - you do not have to start taking drugs if you teach your children not to take drugs it can be avoided. If you walk by someone who is taking drugs you do not immediately get hooked. Addiction is not viral or bacterial.

You have no choice to avoid other deadly diseases without a vaccine unless you live in a bubble. If you walk by someone with a virus in most cases you will not know and can catch unknowingly.

I was on the subway once and some bonehead sneezed on my head --- I had no choice I did not reach out and grab his sneeze and put it on my head like I would have to reach out and actually put a drug in my system - drugs do not travel in the air to attack you. You need to actually be a participant to be a part of it. So this sneeze could have had all of a million sort of deadly viruses attacking me - fortunately I was well vaccinated against many deadly diseases and survived.

There is a difference between government recommended vaccines and those required. If a vaccine is not required as a parent I ask questions as I prefer (and I am far from anti - vaccine) to find out the history of the vaccines, side effects, etc. before determining the pros and cons. I do not randomly have my child vaccinated without knowing the impacts. But I also understand certain benefits.

To me personally this sort of vaccine is unnecessary if you teach your child otherwise.

The HepB vaccine or HPV vaccine is even a bit different than this "anti-drug" use vaccine because it is normal and healthy part of life to have sex. It is not a normal or healthy part of life to take drugs that can be addictive and deadly.

It used to be recommended that people get an HIV test at least 6-months before engaging in unprotected intercourse with a partner. Still, people would have protected sex before that, which is a little crazy if you assume that your partner is carrying HIV until proven otherwise by a test.

The 'normalcy' and 'healthy part of life' aspects of having sex are subjective. It used to be normal and healthy to abstain and/or remain celibate except within marriage and/or as a means of conceiving pregnancy. Eating is also a 'normal and healthy'part of life' but that makes it more difficult to deal with food addictions, sugar addiction, overeating, and all the health risks that come with that. Some people get dangerous GI surgeries in hopes of overcoming their appetite with all the health risks that come with that.

I don't know how popular plastic surgery is these days, but it seemed like for a while it was the go-to remedy for low self-esteem and/or social acceptance based on looks. Why would parents allow their children to get surgery to 'fit in' when they could just teach them that social ridicule/shunning/etc. are childish and should just be ignored? Idk, but if people are willing to resort to plastic surgery to be more popular, why wouldn't they take vaccines to avoid the risk of their children ending up as drug addicts?

Yes, these are all different kinds of 'diseases' with different causes, pathogenic and/or social-psychological and/or psycho-physiological; but pharmaceutical interventions have become commonplace (probably overly common actually) and biological/genetic engineering is becoming more conflated with pharmaceutical chemistry.

Obviously pharmaceutical drugs, including recreation drugs, have to interface with the biological cells of the body in order to work. The body can also get help from various vitamins and natural herbs/homeopathy/etc. and those interactions will also be better understood as nano-research continues to improve.

If you think about it, vaccination evolved as part of Pasteur's research into microbiology and its role in pharmacology. They are connected sciences. It will not be surprising if vaccine-like preventative medicine is developed for not only immunizing children/people against the prospect of drug addiction, but also other risks, such as cancer, alzheimers, etc.

People who are against criminalization of recreational drugs often argue that drug use is a health issue, not a moral one; so it should make them happy to see vaccines and other medical interventions/cures being developed for recreational drug use to prevent criminalization. Of course there is a whole industry that wants to keep drug addiction as legal and optional as possible in order to make money off it (and tax it), but the question is how exploitative that is considering addiction is a disease. I.e. how wrong is it to exploit disease to make money when a cure is available?

I don't think anyone serious ever recommended this.