Immunizations for Cocaine, Tobacco, ect.

[jaguarr]

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen you post something that absurd.
I'm amazed.
Who is suggesting that it should be mandatory? I didn't read the article so I'm not aware of anyone who is trying to make it mandatory.

Next, uh...is Catholicism true, is there an after life, do we have souls, is there a God?
That's up for debate and some believe the answer to those questions, or some of them, are "Yes."...while some believe the naswers are "No."
It's a matter of belief and faith and speculation.

Is Addiction harmful to some people? (ADDICTION, not "DRUGS"....being ADDICTED to drugs)
That's not a matter of debate and speculation.

Have scientists discovered from their research that if there is an alcoholic in the family then this weakness can be passed on genetically?

Absolutely.



Would an addict choosing to try and forestall possible addiction in his child's future be even remotely similar to instituting a new mandatory national religion?



Dude...

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen you take an obvious trolling post so seriously!

jag

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

What a special day.

 

[PLAS]

and here I thought good parenting could prevent those things
but who has time to be a good parent nowadays, lets' just invent something so that we don't have to sit down with our kids and actually have conversations about what is right and what is wrong
if they already use the tv as a surrogate parent

 

[jaguarr]

and here I thought good parenting could prevent those things
but who has time to be a good parent nowadays, lets' just invent something so that we don't have to sit down with our kids and actually have conversations about what is right and what is wrong
if they already use the tv as a surrogate parent

That's what immunization shots are for, PLAS!

jag

 

[PLAS]

That's what immunization shots are for, PLAS!

jag

I've wasted the last 11 years of my life then

 

[jaguarr]

I've wasted the last 11 years of my life then

Apparently. You could have done things the easy way. But, noooo, you've always gotta do things the hard way, don't you?

jag

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Theres still that mental addiction, weed is not addicting but i sometimes feel i NEED to smoke though i know i don't have to or don't really want to.

[YT]yvXRiy2UQ-Q[/YT]

 

[Genesis 1.0]

So the general feel is that it's better to allow children to suffer simply because the parent is incapable of being just that, a parent? The possible number of lives that can be protected from addiction versus simply letting a mother/father and/or father/mother who can't even regulate what they watch be responsible for instilling the whole 'Say No' message is absurd.

If things went the way they're supposed to, then parents would be responsible and actually live up to that responsibility, unfortunately that's not the world we live in. As to the comment made before about other things coming to replace what's being taken out of the equation, so does that mean we just do nothing because someone's going to come up with a new sale? No, you take away the danger of the first set and deal with what comes next afterward since there's nothing you can do about what new form of addictive substance becomes available.

If there was an immunization for AIDS, I highly doubt we'd be having the 'Big Brother' discussion should it be made mandatory.

 

[teseract]

While I have never been addicted to a drug, I do know some who have and I think this statement sums up how they feel about it. Now that they've managed to get away from it they really couldn't be happier.

This is why I'm puzzled by some of the angry responses I saw on the Newsweek comment section.

The angry response comes from the simple fact that you have a natural rigth to get high. It's ****ing assinine to prohibit people from chewing mushrooms or smoking something that grows in nature, it's a man made regulation that takes away one of the most fundamental rights. The right to decide what one does with and to his own body. Now, if said "vaccine" would simply stop the addiction effect no one would complain but it goes even further. It tries to stop the getting high effect and that's an infridgement because no one asked for medication that prevents one from getting high. Besides, we don't really know how this will effect the body as a whole. It might be highly dangerous to tamper with receptors for endorphines and the like.

 

[jaguarr]

So the general feel is that it's better to allow children to suffer simply because the parent is incapable of being just that, a parent? The possible number of lives that can be protected from addiction versus simply letting a mother/father and/or father/mother who can't even regulate what they watch be responsible for instilling the whole 'Say No' message is absurd.

If things went the way they're supposed to, then parents would be responsible and actually live up to that responsibility, unfortunately that's not the world we live in. As to the comment made before about other things coming to replace what's being taken out of the equation, so does that mean we just do nothing because someone's going to come up with a new sale? No, you take away the danger of the first set and deal with what comes next afterward since there's nothing you can do about what new form of addictive substance becomes available.

If there was an immunization for AIDS, I highly doubt we'd be having the 'Big Brother' discussion should it be made mandatory.

It's not you or the government's right to tell me that I HAVE to immunize my kids for anything at all. Ever. Just because there are bad parents doesn't mean you have the right to encroach on those who are good parents.

jag

 

[teseract]

So the general feel is that it's better to allow children to suffer simply because the parent is incapable of being just that, a parent? The possible number of lives that can be protected from addiction versus simply letting a mother/father and/or father/mother who can't even regulate what they watch be responsible for instilling the whole 'Say No' message is absurd.

If things went the way they're supposed to, then parents would be responsible and actually live up to that responsibility, unfortunately that's not the world we live in. As to the comment made before about other things coming to replace what's being taken out of the equation, so does that mean we just do nothing because someone's going to come up with a new sale? No, you take away the danger of the first set and deal with what comes next afterward since there's nothing you can do about what new form of addictive substance becomes available.

If there was an immunization for AIDS, I highly doubt we'd be having the 'Big Brother' discussion should it be made mandatory.

And what about effects? Do you know what could happen if one tempers with chemical reactions in the body on a scale as big as that? Especially in terms of long time effects. There is a very high probability that children could suffer far more serious problems thanks to that vaccine.

As for your AIDS analogy. That is totally wrong. It would be more fitting if an AIDS vaccine would have the unfortunate side effect of chemically castrating you, since this supposed vaccine not only prevents addiction, no, it makes the effect of drugs null and void. if you would throw out an AIDS vaccine with this kind of side effect people would complain too.

A little example:

Here in my country a scientist developed a pregnancy medication called "Contagan". It was said that this medication would make pregnancy easier and safer. You know what would have happened if women would have been mandated by the government to take this stuff? A whole generation of children would have been born without arms or legs.

And there is another danger one migth not have thought of yet. What for example about drugs, that are NEEDED for medical treatment, like Morphium for palative medicine or Curare based anesthetics. What about stuff like Digitalis, which is in a lot of medication for heart disease. What about drugs based on ACC, like Aspirine?