Jacob Sullum looks at a not-very impressive result in clinical testing:
A study reported this week in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that an experimental “cocaine vaccine” was mostly ineffective at reducing consumption of the drug. Less than two-fifths of the subjects injected with the vaccine, which is supposed to stimulate production of antibodies that bind to cocaine molecules and prevent them from reaching the brain, had enough of an immune system response to significantly reduce their cocaine use (as measured by urine tests). Even among those subjects, only half cut back on cocaine by 50 percent or more.
[. . .]
Vaccine boosters think the real money lies in an effective anti-nicotine treatment, which they believe would attract “inveterate smokers” who have repeatedly tried to quit with other methods. But as The New York Times notes (in the headline, no less), such a vaccine “does not keep users from wanting the drug.” If all goes well, their cravings are not diminished in the slightest; they just can no longer satisfy them. And that’s assuming the vaccine is fully effective (as opposed to maybe 10 percent effective, like the one in the study); if not, it could actually increase consumption by neutralizing a percentage of each dose. A partially effective nicotine vaccine could be hazardous to smokers’ health if it encouraged them to smoke more so as to achieve the effect to which they’re accustomed. In any case, it’s not clear how appealing the idea of biochemically taking the fun out of smoking will be; the success of such a product hinges on consumers looking for a way to frustrate themselves.
If you take the cynical view, it’s a perfect Puritan drug: take away the benefit without reducing the desire. That way, you see, the sinners would still get all the suffering they’re entitled to without any satisfaction at all. Hell on earth, just the way Puritans like it.
