Douche McCallister wrote:

If I were saying "Yay now we can snort coke and not have to worry about the consequences", I would agree with you BUT when the engineering behind this whole concept could lead to multiple facets. If you can prevent the brain from receiving particular malicous chemicals by turning your immune system against it why not.

Like I was saying with the Freddy Kruger comment. If we're going that route, we still shouldn't be worrying about making a method to force people to not do something. Think about it. Now we have to fight the battle of whether this should be mandatory, whether it's even ethical to make this mandatory, what the guidelines are for people having to take it. now we have to pay to have it produced, distributed, prescribed, and administered. We don't have to worry about any of that with our currently established form of education and rehabilitation.

Sure, it's easy to say "cocaine is an illegal substance. what's wrong with making something mandatory if it's good for them, war on drugs, ect." but where does it stop? what's to stop people from then saying "nicotine is bad for you. let's create a mandatory way to stop people from using tobacco."

We could be using all of this time and money for something else.

i'll_bite_your_ear wrote:

and to think that people will now start to do cocaine because of the vaccine is unrealistic. as scientists came up with a vaccine against the cold people weren't going out in winter wearing just t-shirts. most people will be still afraid of the consequences of doing drugs or reasonable enough to not take them.

you already copped out with "let's agree to disagree." Don't start up again just because someone else is gaining momentum. There's a difference between the common cold and the effects of cocaine on the brain. Getting the sniffles isn't addictive. You don't steal cars to buy cold weather, just so you can get sick for a few hours. You don't shoot someone in the face to steal their dymatapp.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

FNJ wrote: What a waste. Why don't we spend our resources on things that matter, like aids and cancer. People don't have to do coke, then they won't need a vaccine. Hell, I've done coke, and I don't want a vaccine! Seriously, work on making antibodies for sicknesses that people can't really control wether they get or not, don't spend time and money trying to galvanize people from something that they should know now to do to begin with. I don't think that you are grasping the gravity of this discovery. Even if you are of the belief that the potential drug rehabilitation properties are a waste or useless, this is still extremely useful as it means that we can trick our immune systems into doing our bidding. Lets say we could, using the same method, create an anti-ricin vaccine. Our soldiers would surely be safer in the battlefield. I'm sure there could be a million more things like this, I'm just too lazy to think of any other examples. i'll_bite_your_ear wrote: and to think that people will now start to do cocaine because of the vaccine is unrealistic. as scientists came up with a vaccine against the cold people weren't going out in winter wearing just t-shirts. most people will be still afraid of the consequences of doing drugs or reasonable enough to not take them. not to mention that the way the vaccine works is that it prevents the chemical from acting on the brain. No Brain interaction=No high, No high=no reason to do the drug sidewaydriver wrote: You know what I'm sick off? All these amazing breakthroughs they're constantly making that only seem to work on mice. Seems like they can cure anything in rats, which would be great if rats were running the damn world. Start curing humans you asshole scientists. Please tell me that you are being facetious and that I'm jsut too socially retarded to get it.

1 - This is a very good point, IF you are using the research as a springboard for things like that. As a cocaine panacea, like it's being spoken of, not so much.

2 - I might have misinterpreted the use of the vaccine originally, not understanding that it killed the purpose of taking the drug to begin with, but that opens up a whole other can of worms anyway.

3 - Yes, sideway's being facetious. That's what's go great about him.

Douche McCallister wrote:

FNJ wrote: 1 - This is a very good point, IF you are using the research as a springboard for things like that. As a cocaine panacea, like it's being spoken of, not so much. 2 - I might have misinterpreted the use of the vaccine originally, not understanding that it killed the purpose of taking the drug to begin with, but that opens up a whole other can of worms anyway. That was basically my point. If you can prevent the brain from recieving cocaine this opens the door to multiple facets. I understand your points but A. I can't even fathom this as being mandatory, B. Just because some people choose to do this to begin with doesn't mean they can effectively or afford to just stop. Some are even born into it. I'm not arguing that it's their choice but if it's available to prevent relapse I'm all for it as well as the breakthroughs that it can lead to.

Well what I'm saying is that it would either be mandatory or be pointless. If it's mandatory, we have the above problems, and if it isn't, we should just stick with proper education and rehabilitation, and concentrate on making drugs for other things. See what I mean?

regardless, slamming a dude with the rolleyes emoticon and sarcasm doesn't explain your reasoning very well. If it did, we wouldn't even have had the discussion that we did. Now that I understand a bit more of what you are saying, though, Cocaine isn't Heroin. People don't die from not doing it, and if they can afford to keep their habit up, or can afford to get this vaccine (which you know won't be cheap), they can afford to check themselves into rehab. I have a friend that only had a DRINKING problem, and he managed to get fucking GOVERNMENT AID, so that he could check into a detox clinic and then get on a rehab schedule.

Douche McCallister wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote: FNJ wrote: we still shouldn't be worrying about making a method to force people to not do something. Think about it. Now we have to fight the battle of whether this should be mandatory, whether it's even ethical to make this mandatory, what the guidelines are for people having to take it. now we have to pay to have it produced, distributed, prescribed, and administered. We don't have to worry about any of that with our currently established form of education and rehabilitation. Sure, it's easy to say "cocaine is an illegal substance. what's wrong with making something mandatory if it's good for them, war on drugs, ect." but where does it stop? what's to stop people from then saying "nicotine is bad for you. let's create a mandatory way to stop people from using tobacco." That is an extremely interesting question. "you like cocaine huh, well NOT ANY MORE!!!". That sounds like it would make a good sci-fi story. I believe that I would do that, but drawing the line between which chemicals are bad enough to warrant this treatment is really difficult. It seems like it would logically be court mandated or possibly part of a rehab clinic. Who knows though maybe he's on to something and it becomes part of our new born immunizations or something.

I'm not trying to sound like Ray Bradbury here.

Realistically, it could be implemented into a current rehabilitation program, especially a court mandated one, but like I said, it's unnecessary to even do that.

Douche McCallister wrote:

Don't post "Hell, I've done coke, and I don't want a vaccine!" and you won't get the roll eyes/sarcasm. You don't embody the cocaine community nor is your opinion on the matter any more influential because of it.

I didn't say it was, but it should have been an indicator of where I'm coming from in the conversation. whereas what YOU said made me think you were just being a dick, what I said should have made me out to be someone who might know a little bit about the subject. I never said that I was the embodiment of the cocaine community, but I would think that my opinion WOULD be a little more influential than some random person who doesn't know anything about anything.

If you didn't have a Marine Biologist present, would you ask a Mechanic his opinion on Marine Biology or a Fisherman?

Maybe I didn't communicate what I was trying to say clearly, and maybe that caused you to misunderstand what I was trying to convey, thinking that I was trying to say something along the lines of "leave coke alone. it's awesome" instead of "I'm sort of educated on the subject, and this is how I feel about it, having been involved in that world." Either way, it's in bad taste. I haven't said anything bad to or about you in the past to warrant such a response, and I'd like to think I'm a bit more than some random retard poster, so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't treat me like one.







At least until I start making posts like "u dun knoe n e thing about drugz so stfu coke is awesome lololol."

Douche McCallister wrote:

Sarcasm wasn't an attack on you, just your statement. I don't need to do coke to know it's not something I want in my body. That's like telling an alcoholic that you've had a drink before and you know what they are going through and you wouldn't want an easy way to beat the addiction and make your life better.

I don't need to be bathed in nuclear radiation to know that it sucks, but someone who HAS been bathed in radiation might have a different perspective than a guy who didn't. I'd rather hear what he has to say.

Having a drink once in a while and actively doing cocaine are two different things. I can play street fighter casually and still understand what tournament level players are talking about better than the average joe button masher who plays infrequently. Sure, I'm not going to EVO, but I still know what a FADC is, or I can explain frame advantage.

And an easy way out is never a good thing. the reason that most people who beat addiction and stay clean manage to do it, is because it was such a big thing to begin with. If you could just take a vaccine and easily be done with it, it would be easier to fall off the wagon again. It's like when stupid high schoolers wrap their car around a telephone pole and their parents just buy them a new one.

Andrew Man wrote:

People can definitely die from cocaine overdose.

From an overdose, you can die from lots of things. I said you wouldn't die from a cocaine withdrawal, though.

Douche McCallister wrote:

It's not falling off the wagon if you can't get back on the wagon. It's a vaccine not a beat the addiction medicine. If you're not addicted to coke how is drinking and not being an alcoholic any different.

This roundabout is getting boring now.

If we're going to use the "vaccine isn't the same as treatment" argument to sidestep the points I've made, I must again point out that it would have to be mandatory to be effective, and when you make it mandatory, you have a lot of red tape bullshit to go through. It's not worth going through all of that when the vaccine isn't even necessary to begin with.