A Stitch in Haste

Remember the controversy when Texas Governor Rick Perry prostituted himself and his office to a pharmaceutical company by ordering compulsory vaccinations for pre-pubescent girls against a disease not communicable in the classroom (which is the only legitimate justification for mandatory inoculation of schoolchildren in the first place)?

Well, if the slope is slippery enough, Perry could go down in history as a rank amateur:

Immunotherapeutic strategies offer another unique approach to relapse prevention. Such strategies are based on the development of vaccines to generate antibodies to the drug that block its entry into the brain and thereby interfere with its effects. Cocaine and nicotine vaccines are already in clinical trials, and [the National Institute on Drug Abuse] has requested proposals to develop a methamphetamine vaccine.

The two all-important words in that passage are "relapse prevention." At this point, the Warriors on Drugs assure us, the idea of a "anti-high vaccine" is strictly intended to apply only to drug abusers.

But here's the problem: If any and all drug use is "drug abuse" -- as the Warriors on Drugs tend to insist -- then why should a vaccine, once developed, be limited to "relapse prevention"? Why not use the inoculation pre-emptively, before the user becomes an addict? Indeed, before he ever becomes a user in the first place? Why not just eliminate the risk in advance?

The government could start by making (via taxpayer money, of course) the "no high" vaccines available for free -- or maybe even paying people to take them. Next could come the only modestly coercive programs: those convicted of drug crimes, for example. Then those convicted of violent crimes. Then any crime.

People on welfare would be next -- surely a "no cocaine" vaccine is a reasonable string to attach to a welfare check?

Next up: the military. They already have restricted liberties (including a general no smoking policy). Just add one more shot to their vaccination regimen in basic training.

Want to immigrate to the U.S.? No problem, and welcome! But first you have to get a "no pot" shot.

"Just say no" is already a requirement for federal student aid -- if you have a drug conviction then you're ineligible. So why not just cut to the chase and replace "Just say no" with "Just roll up your sleeve" as a precondition to receiving a Pell Grant?

Then, finally, along will come the Rick Perrys: Just vaccinate every child against marijuana, cocaine and meth -- and perhaps nicotine or even alcohol -- when they enter kindergarten.

Admittedly, that's a long, steep slope. Let's start back at the top: "Temptation vaccines" (my term) are being researched, or at least contemplated, for the following substances: methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana and nicotine. The government bureaucracy funding these researchers has not indicated any interest in using such vaccines on schoolchildren. Point conceded.

Now the hasty stitches can begin in earnest:

--Nicotine is a legal substance. As shocking and awful as this may seem to some, children have a right to be allowed to grow into adults with the ability to enjoy a cigarette. Personal autonomy, even in the context of smoking, matters.

--Marijuana is a legal substance in some places. A child also has a right to grow into an adult with the ability to enjoy pot in Amsterdam. Personal autonomy, even in the context of Dutch pot, matters.

--Marijuana (and perhaps someday even cocaine or meth) may become legal substances in the future. Reasonable people, in the face of overwhelming evidence, are realizing in greater numbers just how nonsensical and disastrous our War on Drugs, and especially the War on Marijuana, have been.

What if an "alcohol vaccine" had been developed in 1918 and administered to children (or adults for that matter) against their will, only to see Prohibition lifted in 1933? Would Prohibition even have been lifted? ("What's the point? Nobody will want to drink anyway?")

The response of politicians and bureaucrats to the discovery that citizens have differing tastes and preferences should not be to give them the equivalent of an "enjoyment lobotomy." Freedom of choice, even a "bad" choice, is -- or was -- the American way. To constrain personal choice, even a "bad" personal choice, is to constrain the human soul. And the disease of runaway paternalism is a far greater public health threat than any that the government can save us from.

There is nothing wrong, indeed there is a lot quite right, about developing such vaccines (privately) as an option for competent adults. But children deserve the chance to grow up unimpeded and unmolded by the subjective priorities of politicians and bureaucrats (or even parents). We are just starting to understand, and undo, the damage of indoctrination cloaked as public education (not to mention pseudo-education). We are just starting to appreciate the value of a child's untampered intellectual, spiritual, emotional and sexual development.

Is now really the time to start mucking around with their neurochemistry?

(Via Drug Policy Alliance -- which jumps to Doomsday a bit too quickly in my opinion. But their dystopian nightmare is certainly plausible.)

For discussion #1: Compare and contrast (a) a hypothetical program in which parents could choose to vaccinate their minor children against nicotine (i.e., a legal substance), with (b) infant male circumcision.

For discussion #2: Compare and contrast this program with the "chair of torture" from A Clockwork Orange. How about parents sending their minor children against their will to cure-the-gay "reparative therapy" facilities?