So VCs spent millions on developing vaccines for people that can’t exercise control and wound up with huge losses? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04vaccine.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=health
Even the lead research chemist in this field admits that a vaccine that cures a cocaine addict, does not prevent him from succumbing to amphetamines, and each would require a separate vaccine. An addicted personality could require new vaccines for every addiction “de jour” they fancy; Twinkies, chocolate, etc. I do not want to absorb such treatment costs in my health care plan.
New York, like many states, requires employers to offer plans that include addiction treatment, mental health treatment, abortion, and a whole host of services that employees may not ever utilize or have expressed a rejection of. My objection to a vaccination for addiction is not just the recidivism rate, indicating a never ending cycle of various inoculations, but that the term “vaccine” is misused to legitimize, equalize, a lack of self-control to a true disease like cancer, or an illness that is an affliction or disability. Addiction cannot be caught or transmitted; so why associated it with a term that prevents epidemics? Drug usage does not strike as cancer, polio, or mumps; it occurs solely because its host wills it to. Any stop gap measure that fails to address the compromised resistance and willpower of addiction, fails, and isn’t worthy of any tax payer or federal support.