A question of ethics, morals and dilemas?

[*-SARIN-*]

So yesterday i was chatting to a biochemist mate and he's working on vaccines that block nicotine and alcohol - in laymans terms cos it's easier and it's Friday night....

These two separate vaccines stop nicotine attaching to nicotinic receptors and "grab" alcohol molecules before they can hit the central nervous system.  The net result is that the recipient does not attain any pleasure from either substance.  Now as with all vaccines they would be given to the "subject" at birth and the decision ultimately lays with the parents of the subject.  So my question is...

Would you?

[thebishman]

Im probably about to ask a silly question...but i will anyway. If i like alchohol and nicotine..why would i want to take a vaccine to stop it pleasuring my pleasure receptors? Lol

[Deleted]

No not if it had to be given / taken as a child.
If it could be used / taken when they were old enough to make there own choice then so be it, To my mind
its the individuals choice to drink or smoke its not my decision to make.

[thebishman]

Yep...told you...misread the "at birth" bit lol


Answer is no i wouldnt get my kids to have it done

[Bobsbeer]

Interesting question. My first thought was no to both, then thought yes to nicotine. At the moment I can't see a medical use for nicotine or a useful social use, other than for those stupid enough to start smoking and became addicted, such as myself. Would I be berating my parents for doing something that would have stopped me smoking? No, I would be thanking them. I started smoking before I was able to make an informed decision due to my age. So on balance at this time I probably would say yes to a nicotine vaccine. Alcohol is another matter. For a very large proportion of society it is a social drug and enjoyed. Yes for a sizable minority it causes major problems. Would the world be better off without it? Probably yes, but that is a choice I think should be made by the individual rather than parents or state.

[thebishman]

Jan 13, 2017 19:47:40 GMT Bobsbeer said:

Interesting question. My first thought was no to both, then thought yes to nicotine. At the moment I can't see a medical use for nicotine or a useful social use, other than for those stupid enough to start smoking and became addicted, such as myself. Would I be berating my parents for doing something that would have stopped me smoking? No, I would be thanking them. I started smoking before I was able to make an informed decision due to my age. So on balance at this time I probably would say yes to a nicotine vaccine. Alcohol is another matter. For a very large proportion of society it is a social drug and enjoyed. Yes for a sizable minority it causes major problems. Would the world be better off without it? Probably yes, but that is a choice I think should be made by the individual rather than parents or state.

Thats a great and balanced answer bob.

[phtumshk]

The world and its population are dying through all kinds of ill shit and the boffins are working on vaccines for nicotine and alcohol.
My mind is boggled.

[lobeydosser]

Instead of vaccinating their children, it would be easier just to put the baby in an expanding box, filled with cotton wool and shovel the food in one end and shovel the waste out the other end. Keep them in that box for the rest of their lives and protect them from all the ills of this world.

Personally I have never read such a load of bunk in my life. No parent has the right to destroy any part of a persons rights to enjoy what they choose in the future and such a set of "Vaccines" (???) would never be allowed to go into production.

Many people "use" both nicotine and alcohol precisely because it does affect their nervous system, but they do so as adults and that is their rightful choice to make.

[Bobsbeer]

Jan 13, 2017 22:08:24 GMT lobeydosser said:

Many people "use" both nicotine and alcohol precisely because it does affect their nervous system, but they do so as adults and that is their rightful choice to make.

True to an extent, but I had my first cigarette before I became an adult.  I probably had my first taste of alcohol before I became an adult.  The problem is that I was addicted to nicotine via smoking before I became an adult.  I would totally agree with you if I thought I was in the minority by starting smoking as a child.  I was around 10 or 11. Was I able to make an informed choice?  I seriously doubt it.  I made a choice that in my view I should not have been able to make.  The law said I should not have been able to make that decision till I was 16.  Even then I'm sceptical, but by 16 most who are going to smoke are already addicted.  Is that a rightful choice?

[tim]

Jan 13, 2017 19:47:40 GMT Bobsbeer said:

Interesting question. My first thought was no to both, then thought yes to nicotine. At the moment I can't see a medical use for nicotine or a useful social use, other than for those stupid enough to start smoking and became addicted, such as myself. Would I be berating my parents for doing something that would have stopped me smoking? No, I would be thanking them. I started smoking before I was able to make an informed decision due to my age. So on balance at this time I probably would say yes to a nicotine vaccine. Alcohol is another matter. For a very large proportion of society it is a social drug and enjoyed. Yes for a sizable minority it causes major problems. Would the world be better off without it? Probably yes, but that is a choice I think should be made by the individual rather than parents or state.

My parents, aided by the state, deprived me of the chance to experience polio. If it was my choice to have the vaccine, I may have suffered it before I had the knowledge to make an informed choice.

I understand that this is somewhat different, but alcohol is a known killer. As is smoking nicotine.

I'm not arguing with you per se, but I can understand why *-SARIN-* has asked. There are two sides to the coin. And I don't know the answer.

An interesting debate.

[Bobsbeer]

Don't get me wrong tim , I am not saying alcohol is not a scourge on society. In reality if it was invented today I'm sure it would classed as a Grade A drug an banned with as much enthusiasm as is given to heroin. It does cause problems, and not just that seen in all A&E's about this time in the evening in every hospital up and down the land. However if used with respect it can be an enjoyable experience. Most are not addicted, and I stress most, and never will be, no matter how much they consume. Not all go around causing pain and hurt after a few pints. Not all do anything antisocial under the influence of alcohol, but yes some do. Cars are a killer, but should we have a vaccine for car ownership? Chip pans are a killer, but should we have a vaccine for chips? Nicotine ingested via smoking is on a whole different plane. It kills or seriously effects the majority of those who "choose" to use it. Most make that decision as children. To me there is a big difference between alcohol and nicotine.

[tim]

Admittedly alcohol causes more social problems Bobsbeer, but it's debatable whether it kills more people that smoking. I'd imagine they are on a par. If you add in all the non health related deaths from alcohol, ie, driving, falling, violence, accidental stupidity whilst drunk, etc&, I'd say alcohol kills far more people.

Which is why it is an interesting debate. Do we "nanny" everyone, or let Darwin's theory play out?

[lobeydosser]

<<< Nicotine ingested via smoking is on a whole different plane. It kills or seriously effects the majority of those who "choose" to use it. >>>

Not strictly true. It is the tars in the other substances in cigarettes that are the killers.

However, it is generally promoted by such groups as WHO and other well known bodies, that alcohol problems (if not full blown alcoholism) affects 1 in every 5 people in Europe.
As an alcoholic, sober for over 30 years, alcohol problems, facts and figures is one of my hobbies!

Being brought up by parents who had experienced WW2, any illness in their children was cured by a Hot Toddy and only if that failed then the doctor was called. I don't know what age I was, possibly about 3 or 4, when I first tasted whisky, but I am fairly certain that it had no bearing on my later life choice of partaking in it to the max!

Not everyone who drinks develops problems and so a vaccine, given at birth or at any other young age is not likely to be backed by our cash strapped NHS.

Unlike alcohol, anyone who smokes will become addicted to nicotine. But, like being addicted to alcohol, there are ways of getting off bus if you really want to.
It was your choice to start using these things in the first place and it is your choice to get off the bus anytime you choose to do so. Or, in the case of alcoholism, ride it all the way to the Terminus.

As to the use of vaccines for illnesses that we do not choose to have like Polio etc, yes, they have made the world a far far healthier place.
But please, leave our choices alone. Good or bad, they are our choices and no one has the right to act as gawd over how we live our life.

[Bobsbeer]

Jan 13, 2017 23:05:16 GMT tim said:

Admittedly alcohol causes more social problems Bobsbeer , but it's debatable whether it kills more people that smoking. I'd imagine they are on a par. If you add in all the non health related deaths from alcohol, ie, driving, falling, violence, accidental stupidity whilst drunk, etc&, I'd say alcohol kills far more people.

Which is why it is an interesting debate. Do we "nanny" everyone, or let Darwin's theory play out?

On the alcohol front I'm more in the let Darwin's theory play out camp.  True it probably does kill more, and that's why I say if it was invented today we would ban it, or at least try.

[tim]

Jan 13, 2017 23:25:11 GMT Bobsbeer said:

Jan 13, 2017 23:05:16 GMT tim said:

Admittedly alcohol causes more social problems Bobsbeer , but it's debatable whether it kills more people that smoking. I'd imagine they are on a par. If you add in all the non health related deaths from alcohol, ie, driving, falling, violence, accidental stupidity whilst drunk, etc&, I'd say alcohol kills far more people.

Which is why it is an interesting debate. Do we "nanny" everyone, or let Darwin's theory play out?

On the alcohol front I'm more in the let Darwin's theory play out camp.  True it probably does kill more, and that's why I say if it was invented today we would ban it, or at least try.

I tend to agree with you on the alcohol issue. Nicotine however is a natural plant defence system against disease, and I would be worried about the effects of global contamination from humans to fauna to flora and the consequences of such. Like mercury in oceans etc. It may come back to bite us on the backside whilst we gaily tamper with nature.