A question of ethics, morals and dilemas?

[*-SARIN-*]

Jan 14, 2017 7:45:41 GMT striker42 said:

On the subject of silly questions, I have a couple. (ok, three actually)
1. Is the vaccination a one off, once in a lifetime procedure or would it have to be repeated every 3/5/10 years etc. to maintain the desired effect ?
2. Will there be, could there be or is there ever any likelihood somewhere along the line of any detrimental side effects ?
3. The vaccine, by my way of reading things, only prevents the subject from attaining pleasure, it still doesn't guarantee they won't partake in the intake of nicotine or alcohol. Does it ?
On the little information available it would be a no from me.

1.  They are once off vaccinations as far as i'm aware.
2.  Possibly, nothing is perfect and there isn't time in the drug synthesis timeline to do a 20 year trial before the patent runs out.
3.  Correct, the subject can still take both alcohol and nicotine but derives no pleasure from either.  They would not get drunk or addicted to nicotine.

[beedee]

For me, removing choices from other people without their informed consent is wrong, even if you think you know what is best for them. 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions...'

I've made some bad choices - some led to serious fun, some not, but I'm glad I had the freedom to make them.

[lobeydosser]

<<< 3. Correct, the subject can still take both alcohol and nicotine but derives no pleasure from either. They would not get drunk or addicted to nicotine. >>>

Hi @sarining on the answer 3, it is suggesting that being addicted to Nicotine is the same as being addicted to Alcohol.
Alcoholics, for the most part, whilst they may get drunk occasionally, do not set out to get drunk. Getting drunk is a waste of money
People who are addicted to alcohol only take enough to get them to a state where they want to be.
I personally would only have one or two alcoholic drinks in the pub and then drink only soft drinks for the rest of the night.
Ofcourse I had downed a couple before leaving the house and I had a stock waiting for me when I got home, but getting drunk? Never!
Most people I knew never saw me drunk in the 20 years of my hardest drinking.

Being addicted to a substance will affect different people in different ways and each addict will be taking that addictive substance for their own reasons and they will try to control it to their own satisfaction.

I consider myself to be an Alcoholic and that I was totally addicted to Alcohol, yet I attended one AA Meeting, listened to the experience, strength and hopes of those that shared that night and walked out of that meeting feeling as if I had never taken a drink in my life.
And I haven't since. Most AA Members had similar experiences.

No one knows why alcohol can affect some people and not others. No one knows why AA Meetings work as well as they do. Eminent Doctors and Physiatrists have been working for years to figure out why some folks are alcoholics and have still to come up without a smidgen of an answer, so personally I would have little or no faith in any "cure" injection or otherwise when those who have been dealing with the problem on a day to day basis for decades, do not know the answer.

[pipeman01]

I've thought about this for a couple of days now and I think the initial motivation is wrong.

If the objective is to "make the world a better place" then trying to remove a source of pleasure for many is fundamentally wrong.

Their efforts would be far more valuable if focused on developing a similar drug which prevents obesity by removing pleasure associated with certain fats.

[lobeydosser]

If people want to drink, smoke, eat to the point of no return, who are we to stop them from doing so?

Vaccines against diseases are one thing, but vaccines against things that some folks think are wrong are an abomination.

If "researchers" have nothing better to do but look into ways to stop people getting whatever pleasure they wish, then it is high time that these researchers got out and found themselves a proper job.