The Next Fix
Jacob Sullum | July 28, 2004, 11:41am
The Independent reports the British government is considering "a radical scheme to vaccinate children against future drug addiction." A Labour Party M.P. told the paper "there is no reason to think this would not be a starter or beneficial."
Several companies, including the U.K.-based Xenova and the U.S.-based Nabi Biopharmaceuticals, are working on "vaccines" that stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies that bind with drug molecules, making them too large to pass the blood-brain barrier and thereby neutralizing their psychoactive effects. Nabi's nicotine binder, NicVAX, is in Phase II clinical trials and probably will be marketed initially to smokers trying to quit.
But the appeal to parents won't be far behind, and drug warriors are excited about molecule binders for illegal substances. Such "vaccines" could be forced upon drug offenders or, as the Independent suggests, administered to children. While many anxious parents probably could be persuaded to "protect" their kids, the story insinuates that the U.K. could make anti-drug "vaccination" mandatory, saying "the scheme could operate in a similar way to the current nationwide measles, mumps and rubella vaccination program."
The chairman of the House of Commons Health Committee told the Independent "this could have a huge impact on society in terms of preventing damage to others and dealing with addicts." He added that "the ethical perspective does need to be looked at closely"--which would be an unprecedented development in the war on drugs.
Having failed to keep politically incorrect substances out of our bodies, the drug warriors are taking the battle to our bloodstreams. The Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics explored some of the implications in a report published last month.
iMike | July 28, 2004, 7:19am | #
Perhaps we should examine it from a free-market perspective. Assume it indeed is true that it would save the UK taxpayer 12 billion pounds/year in direct enforcement costs and medical treatment if one could inject some elixir that would suddenly eliminate addiction. And also assume Britannia's Benevolently Benighted rulers will prefer the current misguided policies rather than change course.
Why not take steal a few pages from Ronald Bailey's "Reverse Homesteading" concept? Rather than committing political suicide (i.e. cutting the farming class off handouts, or in this case, forcibly "immunizing" children through coercive tactics), focus on positive, voluntary economic pressure.
Through an incentive program, provide a one-time cash payout for hardcore addicts to take the vaccination regime. After all, it's only a tiny minority of users that cause social ills, as with alcohol. Everyone else can handle it, be productive and not a drain on the public. This would avoid the problems of costs for administration and enforcement on a large scale if it were some mandatory public health measure. Also, you'd minimize the problem of liability, as it's not being forced on children who aren't able or old enough to provide informed consent.
Say in our argument the number of hardcore, crime/disease contributing users in Britain number 120,000. If we took the 12 billion pounds and divided it amongst all these addicts, each would receive 100,000 pounds. That would provide a nest egg for them to lead more peaceful lives. Perhaps divide the divided by 2, so the state can retain 50,000 pounds to pay for transitional costs, i.e. outpatient care.
One caveat would be for tobacco. Since it's well known that smokers on the net contribute more to the state than they take out (i.e. tobacco taxes, shorter lifespan so they require less geriatric long-term care and pensions), we should be careful about applying this concept. In fact, for vaccination of nicotine, the government may very well calculate a net loss.
