July 25, 2004
WINNING THE DRUG WAR (via Tom Morin):
Children to get jabs against drug addiction: Ministers consider vaccination scheme. Heroin, cocaine and nicotine targeted (Sophie Goodchild and Steve Bloomfield, 25 July 2004, Independent)
A radical scheme to vaccinate children against future drug addiction is being considered by ministers, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.Under the plans, doctors would immunise children at risk of becoming smokers or drug users with an injection. The scheme could operate in a similar way to the current nationwide measles, mumps and rubella vaccination programme.
Childhood immunisation would provide adults with protection from the euphoria that is experienced by users, making drugs such as heroin and cocaine pointless to take. Such vaccinations are being developed by pharmaceutical companies and are due to hit the market within two years.
After all, drugs do more damage than chicken pox.
Posted by Orrin Judd at July 25, 2004 10:59 PM
"[P]rovide adults with protection from the euphoria that is experienced by users"
Sounds like the most horrifying thing I have ever heard...I like feeling euphoric, myself.
Posted by: brian at July 25, 2004 11:43 PMSince it's just chemicals in the brain, presumably it would prevent people from feeling natural euphoria as well.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 26, 2004 12:01 AMI'm with Harry on this one.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at July 26, 2004 2:04 AMI can hardly wait for the excuses for not including alcohol.
Posted by: Peter B at July 26, 2004 7:49 AMI am sure this is all B.S., but if it can convince at least another 5 percent of kids to abstain from drug use, the benefits are incalculable, especially if one of your kids is in that 5 percent.
Posted by: Vince at July 26, 2004 6:23 PMVince:
I have to demur. Kids with drug problems, daughters who head down the wrong road with disastrous consequence, spouses killed by drunk drivers, bullies in school, extreme sports promoters who are casual about safety, incompetent parents... the list is endless and presented to us by the media in alarmist detail every day. Each problem, if turned over to government, supports a huge bureaucracy of "experts" with pseudo-degrees and ever-expanding, self-justifying programs. Together they add up to state dependency.
At what point to we blow the whistle and say it is up to the individual and his family and we will risk the consequences. I know conservatives can be weird and paleothithic on this issue (florridation), but how many afflictions do you want to be protected against? Where is the dividing line? I remind you we've seen postings this week on government efforts to teach parents how to teach their kids skipping.
When my kids were born, they were all whisked away to be given innoculations against diseases I had never heard of. Fine, public health is a legitimate state activity. But surely innoculating kids against self-selecting vices and conditions is philosophically objectionnable. Your argument: "If only one child...." is ultimately statist.
Posted by: Peter B at July 26, 2004 9:30 PMThe "skipping" post was about UK gov't efforts to urge parents to teach their kids how to play physically active games, not a mandate for such to happen.
Similarly, providing parents with the opportunity to keep their kids from getting high in certain ways seems like a mildly positive action, as long as it's optional.
Although I share Harry's concerns, I also share oj's faith that, in the end, we'll be able to block the effects of only cocaine or methanphetamines, (for example), and still let innoculees get "natural" highs from endorphins.
However, it still might be useless; humans have been coming up with ways to intoxicate themselves for at least 8,000 years.
How does one prevent a kid from huffing ?