TA-CD works by making the immune system associate cocaine molecules with a substance that is easily recognized as an invader. Inactivated cocaine is bonded to inactivated cholera and injected into the bloodstream. For months after the vaccination, cocaine is destroyed before it reaches the brain. Cocaine can still be consumed, but it will not cause a high. While it might be biologically possible for addicts to take enough to overwhelm their antibodies, this is unlikely. For starters, that amount of cocaine is unaffordable to anyone but the wealthiest users.This is of course wonderful news for recovering addicts and addicts who want to be recovering.
The linked article raises a couple of concerns about what will happen to people chasing the high when they can't get it from cocaine. Such concerns, although valid, are fairly minor when compared to the good such a vaccine could achieve.
The real concerns, as I see it, are likely to be moral. Should this come about there will almost certainly be discussion at some point as to just how 'voluntary' this treatment should be. This moral issue will only grow as more vaccines are available for other drugs which can cause instant aggressiveness. Should we force criminal addicts (who steal and possibly injure people to obtain money for a fix) to get vaccinated as part of their punishment, or should it be the entire punishment. What about everyday Joe's who come up positive in a random drugs test at work? (OK, so we don't have those over here, but I know it's an issue in some countries).
In short, where should we draw the line?
It may be argued that similar drugs for alcohol have never been forced on anybody, although strictly speaking the usual anti-alcohol drugs are not vaccines. They simply cause the taker to become extremely sick if they consume the slightest amount of alcohol.
There is also the fact that alcohol tax accounts for a fair portion of most governments' annual budgets. As long as it is seen as a revenue stream it is likely to remain unregulated in this way.
As I see it this will be one more argument for the deregulation of all drugs. Tax them all, ensure a clean supply and use a portion of the income to provide free voluntary vaccinations to those who request it.
4 comments:
Hmmm, I would think that even if a person vountarily gets vaccinated they could become a threat to themselves or others if they choose to try and use again and couldn't get that high. So, how much will the benefit of the vaccine actaully differ from the risk of continued cocaine use?
True, that was one of the comments in the original article and I think I'd agree with their point - that it's a much better situation to be in wondering "what if" somebody overdosed trying to get high than not being able to offer hope to the many people that genuinely want to stop the habit.
Do you think it is realistic to have several proactive systems in place before and after the vaccination. Like a mandatory amount of hours in rehab or counseling to have a professional determine the likeliness of a relapse? Or, after being vaccinated, participate in a mandatory weekly support group in efforts to stifle a possible relapse?
Absolutely!
I don't think vaccination should necessarily be the first stage. It would be best to undergo some kind of psychological evaluation first to ensure the person was a suitable candidate.
And a support network is always an important thing. A vaccination may remove the effects and make taking the drug pointless but the addict still has to cope with the cravings and there should be support for that.
I am a great believer that a healthy mental attitute contributes to physical wellbeing and the 'positive thinking' effect (although I don't like that term - it has too many connotations with garbage self-help books) certainly comes into play. In this case if you believe you can kick the habit then you are much more likely to do so.
Post a Comment