backtop

Print 34 comment(s) - last by Mercury17.. on Jan 6 at 8:13 AM
Vaccine stops cocaine from producing addicting high

According to estimates the number of Americans with some sort of substance abuse or dependence is 22.2 million and -- a cost estimated at three times more than the War on Cancer.

Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine have developed a vaccine that is currently in clinical trials that doesn’t fight what most consider to be a real illness or disease like cancer or AIDS. Rather, this vaccine stimulates the inoculated immune system to combat the illegal drug cocaine.

The scientists took cholera proteins and bound inactive cocaine molecules to the surface of the protein. After inoculation the body’s immune system is able to build antibodies against cocaine and blocks the drug from reaching the brain when ingested, thereby preventing it from producing the addicting high.

Dr. Tom Kosten, professor of psychiatry told the Houston Chronicle, “For people who have a desire to stop using, the vaccine should be very useful. At some point, most users will give in to temptation and relapse, but those for whom the vaccine is effective won't get high and will lose interest.”

Some argue that the vaccine would raise ethical issues surrounding who would get inoculated. Others see the vaccine as something everyone should get along with childhood vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella.

The researchers say that if the vaccine proves to be effective and passes its clinical trials leading to FDA approval for widespread use it would lead to more drugs for combating addiction such as vaccines for combating heroine and nicotine addiction. That would mean at some point in the future we could chose to be inoculated against smoking.

Another unique approach to combating a medical problem with medication was reported on earlier this week by DailyTech. Researchers have developed a nasal spray that combats against sleepiness partly funded by DARPA. The medication is being looked at to help keep troops alert and will likely be used to treat the sleep disorder narcolepsy if it gets FDA approval.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Another Side Effect
By othercents on 1/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another Side Effect
By jtesoro on 1/2/2008 9:06:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think the truth is that if someone doesn't get high they will take more and possibly lead to overdosing.

I think without the high, cocaine would be just like any other thing a person is not addicted to. As an example, pick anything you're not addicted to, like apples maybe. You'll eat one or two because it's delicious and/or you're hungry, but you'll stop after a while. Given that cocaine's not even delicious as apples and it's not satisfying hunger or any other thing at all, you'd lose interest pretty quickly.


RE: Another Side Effect
By othercents on 1/3/2008 10:59:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
without the high, cocaine would be just like any other thing a person is not addicted to

Are you sure? And can you be sure that they won't try more? If they do try more how much more are they going to try? How much more can you overdose on?

The reality is that when your addicted to something you will do anything to get the feeling you once had. Steal, kill, lie, take a whole bag of cocaine just for a fix, try something new, etc. Most addicts are saying "one more time". The effects might be the same as an apple, but it still doesn't stop someone from eating a whole bag of apples to get that feeling. Or buying something else.

Other


RE: Another Side Effect
By Yames on 1/3/2008 11:40:45 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously have never been addicted to cocaine, or any other drug. Please don't pretend that you know what's going on inside an addicts head and then generalize it.

Every addict is different and every addiction play differently for those affected.

Not every addict will go looking for something else, otherwise they would already have done so. Most addicts have a drug of choice, but do many other drugs. Take away that drug of choice and you are now in a much better position to recover. This could very well work for many addicts looking for help.


RE: Another Side Effect
By mindless1 on 1/3/2008 9:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
You have probably never been addicted to illicit drugs either.

We can reasonably assume that someone who does coke would just do more if they did't get high (enough, more below-). They'd think it was cut too much, maybe go after the dealer depending on the situation, but generally would just consume more. If that didn't work the typical fallback position would be taking a different drug. One of my best friends and his druggy circle went through this cycle for years, with some of them now abstaining, some using, and some dead. Never was it just a matter of not having their preferred drugs.

Now IF this vaccine is completely effective (which I find unlikely, because they're talking about completely blocking ALL of the dosage with antibodies when it's normally either smoked, snorted, or injected (all very fast paths to the brain so in all likelihood the user would just get less high per dosage) the typical user isn't getting their craving satisfied and will typically find a different drug. It doesn't necessarily matter if the other drug isn't their drug of choice because they are feeling the physical or psychological pain (or both) of withdrawl.

That (and often a simultaneous lack of coping skills) will push the user towards a position of seeking other drugs, not seeking recovery. Addicts have an addictive personality, it isn't just a matter of using one drug without any other factors until they couldn't stop, particularly with stimulant abuse this is the case.

I'm suggesting it may still help, but is not a solution for the problem and as mentioned above I doubt it is entirely effective at preventing the high, at least not right away, I suppose it might be possible that continued use of coke would cause the body to increase antibody production to the point where it became more effective, but even then we're talking about a very short path or amount of time between consumption and effect on the brain.


RE: Another Side Effect
By DigitalFreak on 1/3/2008 3:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does that really happen when someone doesn't get high? They just loose interest? I think the truth is that if someone doesn't get high they will take more and possibly lead to overdosing .


The gene pool needs an occasional cleaning now and then.


Injectable Parenting
By Ringold on 1/2/2008 7:24:42 PM , Rating: 5
Don't want to talk to your kids about smoking?

Don't want to warn them about hard drugs?

Don't want the responsibility of providing a good moral example, monitoring their behavior, and being actively involved?

<Insert Pharma Company> has just the solution for you!!




RE: Injectable Parenting
By Master Kenobi on 1/3/2008 8:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. We have drugs for everything these days.
Parenting.
Concentrating.
Feeling Good.
Feeling Tired.
Feeling Hyper.
Feeling Lonely.
Feeling Crazy.
Can't get it up.
Won't go down.
You name it, we got a drug for it.


This came out of Baylor?
By OxBow on 1/3/2008 10:44:11 AM , Rating: 2
Regardless of the moral/ethical questions raised by this study, the irony of the instution that did the study is to ripe not to pick.

My wife went to Baylor, so if I offend anyone out there, I'm just speaking from the recounting of her experience.

Ultra-Baptist and radical right Baylor is anti-everything fun. The finally allowed dancing about 10 years ago, but it's still not condoned, just tolerated. With that said, in such a repressive environment, the off campus activities tend to the extreme, with alcohol and drug abuse rampant. Such a vacine would be well suited to such an establishment.




RE: This came out of Baylor?
By Mercury17 on 1/6/2008 8:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
This came out of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas which has no association with Baylor University in Waco--at least, not in the last 40 years.


Like Rick James said....
By Vanilla Thunder on 1/3/2008 10:13:46 AM , Rating: 2
Cocaine is a helluva drug!!

Vanilla




We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By wrekd on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By Ringold on 1/3/2008 1:06:41 AM , Rating: 5
First of all, a university made this, not a pharma company -- though they'll be happy to sell it if theres a market, but that's not a given.

Second of all, if you can't see the difference between the social ills caused by cocaine and the good that, say, diabetes medication does, you'd be a tool.

Third, those that rail again free enterprise tend to be those on the political left, exactly the people that think government should help protect us from so many other things in life -- such as the rigor and uncertainty inherent in free enterprise! Oh, but drugs, that's somehow fundamentally different, and government should get their hands off.

Why do we have public funded education? Asides from a means of mass indoctrination, I mean? Because it provides a positive net effect to society by ensuring at least some minimum level of education and job skills throughout the population. Why do we have safety standards on vehicles, and require all to follow them? For the public good. One could debate the methods, but the idea of trying to severely curtail drug abuse provides just the same positive societal benefits as any other government adventure.

If you'd just couched it in terms of one having the right to do whatever to ones body that one pleases, that'd of been one thing and the libertarian in me wouldn't of let me reply, but the random attack on patents and free enterprise was a little bit far afield. If you think about it, corporate interests would probably love to sell these illegal drugs; it'd be a huge business!


By wrekd on 1/3/2008 8:49:56 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps because my initial comment was short, you completely missed my point. But actually when I read your last paragraph it showed that you did understand, you just picked apart my post because I did not cover all the bases and left some avenues of approach.

I chose the term free enterprise because it is now a myth. It no longer exists in the global market. The simple fact that corporate lobbyists even exist, is in itself verification that the "free" in free enterprise has been corrupted.

As far as the social ills go, I have not seen them, and do not care. I am a big boy, and do not need the government to tell me what I can or cannot put in my body and further more I don’t care what others put in theirs. I believe it is a basic concept of human rights that we just have not evolved to yet. Our culture is still subjected to social control mechanisms like religion or government programs like the war on drugs, that do actually want to control how people behave.

If a person infringes on another’s rights then our laws should (and do) punish. This should cover murders, rapes, theft, and the likes and should only be reactive not preventative. Also, laws do not need to protect us from ourselves. The simple fact that alcohol, tobacco, and vicodin are legal (when properly purchased) yet marijuana, mushrooms, and coca extracts (cocaine) is illegal, is a total contradiction. You can't have it both ways...unless corporate interests are getting involved and the government allows it to happen. Which most of us agree has happened.

And if you don’t believe that there are corporate interests behind this University’s discovery, future patent, testing and possible distribution…then you’re turning a blind eye to the little libertarian hidden inside. It must be deep inside.


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By Nik00117 on 1/3/2008 6:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
This "illegal" drug is far from natural. Its not weed here folks it has to be extracted and purified and modified chemically. This does not happen in nature but in labs.

I've researched coke, and how its produced and if you see whats honsetly put into the stuff you'd know that it was anything but natural.


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By Darkskypoet on 1/3/2008 9:45:01 AM , Rating: 5
If it wasn't for the war on drugs, illicit drugs would not be :
a) concentrated to all hell
b) cut with dangerous substances
c) lack any form of quality control whatsoever
d) easier to get then legal drugs for those under age
e) the source of the majority of violent crime in urban centers
f) a demonized counter point to the many (just as harmful) legal meds that are abused daily w/o social stigma

You can argue the societal ills of illicit drug use all you like, however, the drug war has not made them better, and in fact has made the situation much, much, much, worse.

Just say no??? BuFuSh! Yes we'll arm our children with absolutely no knowledge, or reality and then send them off chanting a government marketing slogan.

The fact that we bomb and ravage drug producing countries to attack the supply side of the equation, while exporting cigarettes to these same countries is utterly insane. More people die from cigs then cocaine, crack, and heroin put together. On top of this, the notion that making them illegal has some how slowed their useage is also laughable.

I only hope that this sort of vaccine is THOROUGHLY tested over the long term before injected into our children, and not fast tracked as a 'cure' to cocaine addiction. seriously, how about attacking the diease itself, rather then the symptoms all the bloody time. If people slives weren't so sh*tty, chances are less would utilize drugs as an escape. On top of that, realize that youwill nevr completely eliminate bad behaviour. Period. Accept it, make progressive, and less dangerous policy decisions to deal with such issues, and move on.

The money spent on the war on drugs could easily have paid for millions to get a better education, and better access in the U.S to medical care.

Instead, we send thousands, and thousands of people to jail every year for simple possesion. Unless of course, you are famous, then you simply go on vacation in rehab.

One last comment: A university may have discovered this, but who funded the research? Big pharma? or the gov?


By rdeegvainl on 1/3/2008 10:10:43 AM , Rating: 2
I absolutely agree that this needs to be thoroughly tested before implemented. I hope that it isn't just pushed through cause someone wants some good publicity.

I do think if used correctly along with education it can greatly reduce the societal problems that go with drug addiction. Lower the money needed to rehabilitate, or imprison those selling/using illegal drugs. The DARE program they force down everyones throats IS UTTER CRAP.

But if this works well, and is safe for usage, I think it could be a good thing. DISCLAIMER (DO NOT USE THIS AS A COP OUT TO PROPER PARENTING AND TALKING TO YOUR KIDS ABOUT THE FACTS OF IMPROPER DRUG USE)


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By Yames on 1/3/2008 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree with the your point about the dangers of these drugs. Yes, cigs kill more than coke and heroin, but the latter are far more dangerous.

Have you ever heard of a anyone getting a teen high/addicted to cigarettes to take advantage of them and rape or force them into a life of prostitution. This happens everyday with cocaine and heroin.

I have seen first hand what these drugs do lives; it is not pretty.


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By roadrun777 on 1/3/2008 5:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have to disagree with the your point about the dangers of these drugs. Yes, cigs kill more than coke and heroin, but the latter are far more dangerous. Have you ever heard of a anyone getting a teen high/addicted to cigarettes to take advantage of them and rape or force them into a life of prostitution. This happens everyday with cocaine and heroin. I have seen first hand what these drugs do lives; it is not pretty.


So basically you think no one should have the right to choose what they put into their own body? We are all stupid little monkeys that need people like you to control everything we say, think, and do? Because we don't know whats really good for us?

Just because you know someone who has abused a substance, that makes them feel good, to the point of it ruining their lives doesn't make it all right to take away the "right" of us all to choose for ourselves.

I know people that have loved doughnuts so much that they have killed themselves eating it (I know 2 people that have died from severe obesity). That is the truth. Obesity kills more than any drug every could. And people eat to feel good. I have seen the destruction chocolate doughnuts do first hand, and let me tell you, its REALLY not pretty. Six pack abs, become flab and veins. Breasts that were once perky become floppy pancakes, and the emotional toll it takes on the families is overwhelming.

Therefore, based upon your logic, we should declare war on doughnuts! We should kill doughnut makers and their families, and bomb countries that make delightful pastries without giving us a cut of the profits. Death to chocolate doughnuts! You no longer have the right to choose what you eat, because of the potential for abuse!


By rdeegvainl on 1/4/2008 8:48:04 AM , Rating: 1
well when it comes to highly addictive substances, that change the way you think and makes you feel you need something, yeah, someone needs to step in. And as soon as donuts start changing the way your brain works, and makes people truly addicted, not just those who "LOVE" them, then maybe we should do something about that too. but last i checked there was no donut synonym for things like crack-whore.


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By Yames on 1/4/2008 11:28:36 AM , Rating: 2
There is a huge difference between nicotine and meth/coke/heroin. To even put them on the same playing field is ignorant.

And where did you get that I think everything we put into our bodies needs to be controlled? I was arguing the point stated above. Which mentions nothing about donuts, alcohol, or other illegal drugs, much less anything else. We are talking about VERY dangerous drugs here that have dire affects on society, not just on individuals and families.

Infact one of my hobbies is beer and wine making, and I support NORML. So go put that in your pipe and smoke it.


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By jtemplin on 1/4/2008 1:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the numbers it seems nicotine is way more dangerous than any illicit drug...

Furthermore there has been much research indicating that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine or heroine. The below flowchart represents the findings of one such study:

Dependence among users:

nicotine>heroin>cocaine>alcohol>caffe ine

Source:http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/books/nicotine/4-a...

I think you may want to take a look in the mirror before throwing accusations of ignorance around.

Also to bring LD50s in here is a comparison of intraparatoneal injections:

Cocaine 95.1 mg/kg
Nicotine 9.5 mg/Kg

To be fair a smoked dose is usually slightly less than 1mg, but if you put them on a level playing field, nicotine is far more toxic. Most of the NORML supporters I know are eager to point out the dangers of nicotine which are all too often downplayed compared to illicit drugs. And thats why I wrote this post. Nicotine may not be on the same legal playing field, but if your playing field is dangerous (to health) addictive drug then yes it is. Its hard to compare the societal effects, since nicotine is licit and doesn't engender the subculture, stealing and everything that goes with the illegal drug markets.


By jtemplin on 1/4/2008 1:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
In the beginning I said look at the numbers. I was referring to the annual 400,000+ death toll rendered by cigarettes.


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By Darkskypoet on 1/4/2008 12:18:41 AM , Rating: 3
The only reason those drugs do that, is beacause they are illegal, which drives up the price, which in turn creates a system whereby people become dependent on those who supply them. Or, turn to other criminal activities.

It's the laws in place, not the drugs that do this. As you can easily go to a corner store and buy cigarettes, and in many countries they are dirt cheap, this hasn't arisen as a problem for cigarettes... yet.

However, take a look at other areas where cigarette prices have climbed through the roof. What do you see? corner stores getting robbed for what? Cigarettes. If said price, and exclusivity of suppliers continues to increase, would you see other acts such as those you have depicted? Yes. Unequivocally yes.

Thanks to the endless barrage of the anti-drug movement, people believe the drugs are the issue here, not the system we have created to deal with them. If those addicted had a legal source for the drug, the forced prostitution you speak of would be gone. Further, organized crime (read unregulated corporate purveyors) would lose the majority of its revenue base, and its clout in the illicit world. However, as others have posted, their are too many parts of the present power structure that make money, derive legitimacy, or use it for a fear tool; to make any sort of real changes in the system.

This we are stuck in a system whereby drugs are mad to be far worse then they ever should have been able to become in our society, because we exclusively license only the strongest, most adaptable criminal orgs to control them. We do this through Supply side attacks, and punishing the addicted. In addition, the constant blind pressure as stimuli for the organized agency supplying these drugs simply forces it to utilize its skill, cunning, and almost endless monetary resources to become better and better at what it does. Considering the penalties for drug trafficking are on par with murder in many places, murder then in these orgs becomes more palatable. Much like any corporation, it then becomes a matter of cold hard dollars and cents, not what is good, or right.

Except the only rule for them, is don't get caught. As we refuse to engage and regulate them in any other way. Surprisingly to some readers here, may be that all the drugs ever seized, are simply a drop in the bucket to what makes it to the end user. Further, all the publicized busts simply act as a price increase tool, as it effects perceived supply. (Locally at times actual supply)

But back to your point, the only reason cigarettes are not used in that fashion, is because they are legal, and their supply is properly regulated. I too have seen first hand what all drugs can do to some lives and well it isn't pretty, it sure as hell would be a lot safer, if they were made legally available, with the QC we would expect in any other consumer good.


By Yames on 1/4/2008 11:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
I do agree with some of your points, but you need to take another look at American history when drugs like coke and heroin were not illegal, in particular the effects these had on society.

Simply making these drugs legal will not solve these problems. Sure regulating them make them safer for the user, gives the Gov a way to monitor them, and crushes the black market, but they still come with a long list of societal side effects.

There are other counties esp. in Europe who are doing this today with mixed results.


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By roadrun777 on 1/3/2008 4:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The money spent on the war on drugs could easily have paid for millions to get a better education, and better access in the U.S to medical care. Instead, we send thousands, and thousands of people to jail every year for simple possesion. Unless of course, you are famous, then you simply go on vacation in rehab. One last comment: A university may have discovered this, but who funded the research? Big pharma? or the gov?


Oh my god!!! There is intelligent life after ALL! WOO! and here I thought I was the only intelligent person to walk this world...

Everyone knows its the CIA that control the drugs, and the only people we bomb are people we don't control. It doesn't take a genius to understand its about profits. The reason we have drugs that CAN kill people from overdose is because they aren't legalized and monitored. If they were legal, they would be produced like all other drugs, labeled by grams and potency, and tested to ensure no contamination.

That won't happen because our government makes too much money from illegal drugs and everyone knows the dirty little secret. The way on drugs is a way on "feeling good".

This vaccination DESTROYS receptors in the brain that make you feel good. Now if it were me, I would be saying to myself, why did our creator PUT receptors in our brains to make us feel high and good? So hey! lets make a chemical that destroys our brains ability to feel good, and therefore we win against drug addiction right? Or maybe we take away the natural right of every human being to feel good, but who's counting anyway right? Who cares if those receptors that we destroy never grow back in a human's lifetime, they won't know what they are missing right?


By roadrun777 on 1/3/2008 4:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The way on drugs is a way on "feeling good".


That should have read,
The war on drugs is a war on feeling good.

You can't solve this issue by declaring war on a commodity. It's economics 101. You have suppliers, and you have consumers. Everyone agrees there will always be both. So their latest weapon against the human soul? Destroy man's ability to feel anything "high" at all (they will call it vaccinations against feeling high), then you create a nice slave population that does exactly what you tell them.


By CascadingDarkness on 1/3/2008 5:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This vaccination DESTROYS receptors

What are you smoking; nothing in the article implies anything was destroyed. I think that's why it's being looked at as a break through.

From original article
quote:
the immune system not only makes antibodies to the combination, which is harmless, but also recognizes the potent naked drug when it's ingested. The antibodies bind to the cocaine and prevent it from reaching the brain


Sounds like you're pushing your own opinion and changing the facts to support it. Unless you've got more detailed data about this "Destruction to receptors."


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By roadrun777 on 1/3/2008 5:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
Hello! I have read the medical white paper. These antibodies, DO cross the blood brain barrier and they also bind to NATURALLY occurring chemicals in the brain that mimic what cocaine does. It therefore also blocks and destroys naturally occurring chemicals. There is a reason why there are receptors in the brain; because our brains naturally make chemicals that act and look just like cocaine in our brains. Normally those chemicals are produced locally in the brain and never cross the blood brain barrier. That is why they don't show up in drug tests despite the fact that people are naturally high on cocaine like chemicals.

I think you are the one smoking something.
Go back, get an a degree in pharmacy, then accuse me of being stupid, otherwise stow it monkey boy. You have got a lot of learning to do.


By CascadingDarkness on 1/4/2008 2:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
No need to be overly defensive. Your first post should have included a link to said medical paper (if available) or at least mentioned you got facts from another source.

I'd prefer that much more than words being shoved in my mouth
quote:
then accuse me of being stupid

Didn't do that. I was more implying you might be making stuff up since you didn't mention anything about another paper, and were just making stuff up.

For someone who implies they have a pharmacy degree you might want to take the high road and go for informing the general public, along providing sources to back it up. This is the internet; I don't believe squat without proof.

That usually works better than general name calling and making things personal.


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By jtemplin on 1/4/2008 2:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
Your on the right track, but don't forget that while cocaine stimulates dopaminergic pathways in the brain this result is not achieved because cocaine simply mimics dopamine. Cocaine acts as a dopamine transport antagonist. The result is that dopamine stays in the synaptic cleft longer. This is the same idea as a SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor).

Dopamine re-uptake is blocked by the action of cocaine, which lends the drug its pleasurable effects as it stimulates more EPSPs by hanging around longer. More EPSPs = more APs which = more pleasure in dopaminergic pathways. It is entirely possible that this vaccine can selectively tag cocaine molecules and not bind with endogenous dopamine transport proteins. Without this specificity what you are suggesting would happen. I doubt this is the case, and according to the following abstract ANOTHER vaccine which was created years ago, had a clinical trial showing no serious ill-effects.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR...

A search of google for "TA-CD" returns a wealth of information and news reports on cocaine vaccines which have apparently been around since at least 2002. Another important note is that these cocaine vaccines are specifically targeted to people ALREADY addicted, as a tool to help them abstain. This is not a lifelong innoculation that would be administered to school-children. The antibodies last about nine-months, so this is not a permanent thing. I think the word vaccine has people thinking of polio vaccine, or something given to all of society to rid us of a known devastating defect.


By geddarkstorm on 1/4/2008 3:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
This is not to say that antibodies are exceedingly specific, even up to the ability to recognize different enantiomers and stereochemistries of otherwise completely identical molecules. An antibody that's monoclonal to cocaine should only ever recognize cocaine and nothing else no matter how similar; and obviously studies would pick this up. Come on, this is Biology 101.

Anyways, great post jtemplin; good to see someone is up on their facts.


By JonnyBlaze on 1/3/2008 11:40:29 AM , Rating: 2
It has to be extracted. Thats it.

The only mods made is adding the HCL (salt) component so it absorbs. When its first extracted you have cocaine base (crack)


By roadrun777 on 1/3/2008 5:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me nik, but did you get dropped on your head?

Cocaine comes from a leaf!!! And you can get high just by chewing the leaf!!! It has been a tradition for thousands of years!!! How do you think we even knew about the cocaine plant? They have been using it in remedies since before man could even write, please go back and research some more.

Start with erowid, the study of the complex relationship of man and plants.

Anyone know why CocaCola was called that? (becuase it used to have cocaine in it! DAAA) Geesh, our schools are churning out cookie cutter baboons who have no idea of real history.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Related Articles












botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki