Are marijuana patches addictive?

[chhitiz]

how come i never heard of marijuana patches?
is it too addictive?

 

[russ_watters]

Probably because they don't exist...but I'm not sure I understand the question properly.

 

[fileen]

My professor in my Neuroscience course described addiction to marajuana as a psychological one rather than a physical one. While chronic users often have some withdrawl symptoms for the first few days, they are not nearly as severe as those for nicotine withdrawl or alcohol withdrawl. I can't remember the exact symptoms but I was led to believe that marajuana is not craved by the body, but rather the mind. Although I am sure this is equally as distracting, I imagine a patch would not work to stem the cravings, since it is not so much the chemical, but the whole situation that is being craved.
On a more personal note, I smoked pot every day for two years in high school and just straight up quit one day. I've never had the desire to smoke marajuana since the day I stopped. I stopped for depression, and had wonderfully positive results. I did not have any withdrawl symptoms or cravings.

 

[chhitiz]

Probably because they don't exist...but I'm not sure I understand the question properly.

i want to know why they don't exist. it seems it is because "the body" doesn't get as addicted as in case of cigarettes.

 

[russ_watters]

I suspect they don't exist because they'd be illegal. I'm still not sure I understand the question...

...Are you saying that if the idea is technically feasible, they should exist? Why would they exist?

 

[mgb_phys]

...Are you saying that if the idea is technically feasible, they should exist? Why would they exist?

Possible for things like MS, Glaucoma, chemotherapy where weed has a beneficial clinical effect. By having it as a patch you could ensure the dose and since the patient wouldn't get high there is a proper Calvinist medical approach.

 

[russ_watters]

Possible for things like MS, Glaucoma, chemotherapy where weed has a beneficial clinical effect.

It isn't legal for such a use.

By having it as a patch you could ensure the dose and since the patient wouldn't get high...

That's an oxymoron.

 

[turbo]

It isn't legal for such a use.

It is legal for such uses in Maine and several other states.

 

[chhitiz]

I suspect they don't exist because they'd be illegal. I'm still not sure I understand the question...

...Are you saying that if the idea is technically feasible, they should exist? Why would they exist?

for all the reasons mentioned above. what i am asking is if it is technically feasible to make marijuana patches like nicotine ones, why aren't they there?

 

[turbo]

for all the reasons mentioned above. what i am asking is if it is technically feasible to make marijuana patches like nicotine ones, why aren't they there?

Perhaps because of the delivery method. It may be that the active ingredients aren't absorbed readily through the skin like nicotine.

 

[mgb_phys]

It isn't legal for such a use.

It might be more acceptable for medical use if it was seen as a drug delivery system, rather than simply an excuse to smoke pot.
You give heroin to chemo patients, but since you give it in hospital in carefully controlled doses nobody regards it as a 'drug' problem

That's an oxymoron.

You could control the dose of THC such that the anti-emetic effect works without it being hallucinogenic.

 

[turbo]

It is legal to grow and smoke pot for certain medical conditions in this state. Marinol is available as a highly-regulated prescription drug, but it is not as effective in some cases as smoking.

 

[negitron]

It is legal to grow and smoke pot for certain medical conditions in this state

Note, however, that is still a violation of federal law and you can still be arrested and prosecuted at that level even in states where it is decriminalized or legal for medical purposes.

 

[fileen]

Nicotine patches are used to help a person quit smoking. Are there other types of patches used to administer drugs to treat disease? I just assumed that since marajuana does not have the same withdrawl symptoms and people generally don't crave it after quitting there's no need for a patch.
The legal implications of a patch would be pretty huge. Just trying to regulate who can get a hold of it would be difficult. Youd have high school children stealing them from their grandparents and buying them on the street. I think that being high is part of the reason it is used medically. I was under the impression it was used to make people hungry and reduce pain.

 

[mgb_phys]

Are there other types of patches used to administer drugs to treat disease?

You can use patches for many things that you need to release a slow dose over days-weeks.
Contraceptive patches, hormone replacement therapy etc.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note, however, that is still a violation of federal law and you can still be arrested and prosecuted at that level even in states where it is decriminalized or legal for medical purposes.

That is a States' rights issue and has settled down some. I know that here in Oregon, we threw the Feds out [same for the issue of assisted suicide]. It looks like California is about to legalize pot altogether; parts of California already have. Mendocino county [in California] was in the news lately: They legalized pot for general use, and now something like 80% of the county's revenues are from pot sales.

 

[turbo]

That is a States rights issue and has settled down some. I know that here in Oregon, we threw the Feds out [same for the issue of assisted suicide]. It looks like California is about to legalize pot altogether; parts of California already have. Mendocino county [in California] was in the news lately: They legalized pot and now something like 80% of the county's revenues are from pot sales.

For many years, the GOP has championed the rights of states to set their own laws in opposition to federal standards. This is one area that is not popular with many of the "states rights" folks, though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

for many years, the gop has championed the rights of states to set their own laws in opposition to federal standards. This is one area that is not popular with many of the "states rights" folks, though.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

......
qed

 

[chhitiz]

Nicotine patches are used to help a person quit smoking. Are there other types of patches used to administer drugs to treat disease? I just assumed that since marajuana does not have the same withdrawl symptoms and people generally don't crave it after quitting there's no need for a patch.
The legal implications of a patch would be pretty huge. Just trying to regulate who can get a hold of it would be difficult. Youd have high school children stealing them from their grandparents and buying them on the street. I think that being high is part of the reason it is used medically. I was under the impression it was used to make people hungry and reduce pain.

no i don't think so. as turbo1 said we can control the dose of THC. so probably it doesn't get absorbed as readily as nicotine. or perhaps the body doesn't have such strong withdrawal symptoms that 'THC patches' were ever required. which is it?
ps- can we please not bother about the social and legal issues here?

 

[fileen]

no i don't think so. as turbo1 said we can control the dose of THC. so probably it doesn't get absorbed as readily as nicotine. or perhaps the body doesn't have such strong withdrawal symptoms that 'THC patches' were ever required. which is it?
ps- can we please not bother about the social and legal issues here?

Im assuming you are suggesting that this patch would be for people who wanted to quit? Or are you suggesting it as an alternative drug therapy for cancer patients? Either way the social and legal implications probably have a lot to do with why a pharmaceutical company would stay away from the idea. One does not have to smoke marajuana, its easily ingested and works rather well that way, so designing a patch so people don't have to smoke it is irrelevant. People can quit marajuana whenever they want, if they really want to. A patch would not help someone who doesn't really want to quit. I don't know about the laws surrounding the use of it for medical reasons in Canada, but most of the people I know think of it as a bit of a joke. I understand that it is sometimes a very effective therapy, but I don't think its a common one. I could be wrong, but I am under the impression that pharmaceutical companies design and provide drugs that sell. Any risk of expensive legal battles or the drug not being sold would probably deter them from bothering with it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just wanted to cite this story found today at our new partner site, PhysOrg.com

Researchers on Sunday said they had pinpointed the biochemical pathway by which cannabis causes memory loss in mice

http://www.physorg.com/news168440808.html

 

[turbo]

I could be wrong, but I am under the impression that pharmaceutical companies design and provide drugs that sell. Any risk of expensive legal battles or the drug not being sold would probably deter them from bothering with it.

There's the rub. A drug company can't patent a common plant. Their patents would have to cover things like the extraction processes, the method of encapsulation of the active ingredients, proprietary methods of providing controlled-release of those ingredients from the patch, etc.

Drug companies make money from drugs that nobody else is allowed to make for years. It would probably be easy to reverse-engineer a THC patch (if they actually worked, that is) and get around any patents. There has to be a huge profit incentive to get Pharma's R&D cranked up on a project, and that might be iffy in this case.

 

[russ_watters]

......
qed

Does that argument work in front of the USSC?

 

[russ_watters]

ps- can we please not bother about the social and legal issues here?

Well this is why I'm having so much trouble with this thread. You're asking a question that probably has a legal answer, not a medical one: companies probably haven't developed this because it wouldn't make any sense for them to develop something they can't sell!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does that argument work in front of the USSC?

Does the Constitution work in front of the SC? Every time - eventually.

Pot is being sold and grown for medical use. Pot is being grown for personal use. Assisted suicides are done discretely. It's a done deal. This is simply not a Federal issue. The attempt by the Federal government to overextend its reach is not a justification for violating the Constitution. If it crosses State lines, that is another matter. That is obviously a problem for a company that wants to distribute something like pot patches. It would have to be Federally approved first.

The Governer of Oregon also told Rummy to take a hike when he [Rummy] tried to take away our air defenses. Also, note that in California, the Governer is talking about legalizing pot [statewide] without any concern about Federal interference.