I can imagine such a thing being a double-edged sword, in that it blocks the analgesic effects of the drug as well as the high. Doubly so if this one is a success and they make similar versions targeting other addictive painkillers.
I can imagine people taking the vaccine proactively (the normal way people think about vaccines, after all) from the perspective of, "I don't want to become an addict, I better take this!" and then later regretting their choice when their options are limited in terms of pain management.
However, if you limit the vaccine to people in recovery, then the harm reduction itself is blunted because the initial adverse event (addiction) has already happened, and this would only affect secondary harms (relapse).
I guess it's better to have more tools in the toolbox, at least, but I'm a bit concerned that these tools might be used injudiciously once they exist.
If we limit it to people who are using non-prescription drugs, without judgement, this will be the Game Changer they describe. First Heroin, but now cocaine, and even black market cannabis, are being tainted with fentanyl. For that set of people, stopping an accidental poisoning is much more important than potential complications with pain medication later.
This seems utterly insane to me as a solution compared to just making it possible (without facing extreme criminal penalties) to buy what you think you are buying. I haven't checked but I would guess that the number of fentanyl deaths for people who buy cannabis from legal businesses don't typically get product that is contaminated.
> even black market cannabis, are being tainted with fentanyl
I've heard claims like this for decades, it was and probably still is a frequent claim made by cops and teachers giving DARE presentations in American public schools. It doesn't make much sense and never did, why would weed dealers be giving people more drugs than they actually paid for?
It sounds like a cope excuse people come up with on the spot when they don't want to admit what drugs they were actually taking. Ask an alcoholic after a car accident how many drinks they had: "I only had one beer, I don't know how this could have happened!" Ask a fent-head after the OD what happened: "I don't know, I only smoked a little weed!" Yeah right.
inb4 "dealers do it to get people addicted"; it's weed, it sells itself.
I can imagine people taking the vaccine proactively (the normal way people think about vaccines, after all) from the perspective of, "I don't want to become an addict, I better take this!" and then later regretting their choice when their options are limited in terms of pain management.
However, if you limit the vaccine to people in recovery, then the harm reduction itself is blunted because the initial adverse event (addiction) has already happened, and this would only affect secondary harms (relapse).
I guess it's better to have more tools in the toolbox, at least, but I'm a bit concerned that these tools might be used injudiciously once they exist.