OT-ish: Why No Medical MJ Cards?
If [a Michigan student athlete] had [a] medical MJ card, and tested positive, would they still [get] suspended? I'l hang up and listen and will apologize in advance if this has been covered.
Mod edit: Took the names down, reframed it as a general question. I know what the internet says about the suspensions in question, but without an admission from either player or word from the staff it seems to be in better taste to offer the question as a general one. JGB.
January 18th, 2013 at 10:39 AM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 10:43 AM ^
And he wouldn't, I'm not sure it isn't moot. But even if they got a personal doctor to endorse this for some reason, it's still against the rules.
Even if you have to go for surgery, if you're in drug treatment they expect you to let the doctors know that you are an addict and try and get non-addictive medicine if at all possible. So I don't think this would fly.
Wouldn't it be a scam in any case? What was the point of this again...?
January 18th, 2013 at 11:14 AM ^
have to prescribe it? I'm sure players have a choice on if they want to use UM staff doctors or their own personal one.
However, since pot is against University and NCAA rules, federal and/ or state law are not relevant.
January 18th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^
The SCOTUS upheld a golf cart as a reasonable accommodation for a pro golfer. Therefore, I think there is a pretty good argument that a court would uphold medical marijuana as a reasonable accommodation for a football player. Would be a very interesting case.
January 18th, 2013 at 2:08 PM ^
for a teenage athlete would really stand up to medical scrutiny? There are cases that could be one for someone with an established disease. But 99% of a 20 year old getting a card is a scam that most people wouldn't want looked into too closely. No more a case going to the surpreme court. And who's going to take up that case?
You could get a psychologist that gives explanation why a guy breaks other team rules that are far more common, and I don't see anyone rushing to take a team and coach to court.
January 18th, 2013 at 2:33 PM ^
Yeah, I agree this type of lawsuit would be pretty unlikely to actually occur--and hopefully if it does, it will involve some other team besides Michigan. But stranger things have happened.
I am not a physician so I really have no idea what sort of medical condition a 20-year-old athlete might have that could legitimately support the issuance of a medical marijuna license. But if the player really could show those facts, then the legal argument is pretty difficutl to dismiss lightly.
January 18th, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^
But there are probably as many cases of top college athletes who need it as there are of world class golfers who need a golf cart to play. It only takes one, but the vast majority who are getting it (in that age category, not blanket) are scamming. Where the amount of people who say "boy I'd rather have to ride in a golf cart than walk the course" is probably nonexistent.
January 18th, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^
Even for old folks, the legitimate uses for medical weed are few and far between. It's not much of a pain reliever (especiallyu compared to opiates) but man, if you're stoned, the pain somehow doesn't matter as much!!
What say the other M.D's on here? Personally, I have never written a script for medical weed and I doubt that I ever will!
January 18th, 2013 at 1:31 PM ^
Ya but why wouldn't you just use free top notch healthcare? Especially if they don't have private insurance?
January 18th, 2013 at 10:43 AM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 11:23 AM ^
Medical marijuana can be prescibed for anxiety, among other things. Plenty of football players (e.g. Ricky Williams) have had social anxiety disorder or related issues.
January 18th, 2013 at 12:22 PM ^
Yes. Even with a medical condition, you are not able to utilize NCAA specified pharmaceuticals or therapies and still be eligible to compete. This policy is often confronted by physicians treating asthmatic athletes, as many effective therapies are banned by NCAA and international athletic agencies as they are steroidal in nature, provide a stimulant or increased lung function. They need to find something else to control the condition, that may be less effective, or the athletes realize they are not eligible to compete at some levels.
January 18th, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^
That is interesting. Presumably the basis for the restrictions on those drugs is that they are performance-enahancing drugs and thus could provide a competitive advantage to the athlete. But the same considerations would not seem applicable to marijuana, which if anything would seem to impair performance.
January 18th, 2013 at 1:35 PM ^
I'm not sure what you're responding t. All he's saying is that having a medical condition that you're using MM for wouldn't mean that you shouldn't be cleared to play football. Basically, not everyone who uses MM is a cancer patient or has glaucoma. Now whether UT/NCAA should allow Ricky Williams to use it for his medical condition is a different story.
January 18th, 2013 at 12:27 PM ^
And so can a whole host of thoroughly legal pharmaceuticals. Whether or not they're safer or more effective than pot is another question, but any doctor who has a student-athlete under his/her care who prescribed pot for anxiety would be an idiot.
January 18th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^
Yeah, that makes about as much sense as prescribing pot to cure insatiable hunger.
January 18th, 2013 at 2:36 PM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^
Especially when compared to standard treatments such as benzos, SSRI's and cognitive behavioral therapy.
January 18th, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^
dumb answer. see below for thought out answers.
January 18th, 2013 at 1:29 PM ^
I run marathons.
I have an MMJ card.
I also play soccer and hockey, as well as going out kayaking whenever I can.
No, I'm not kidding.
January 18th, 2013 at 10:31 PM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 10:32 PM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 10:45 AM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 10:48 AM ^
There are medical reasons for taking steroids and HGH as well. The coaches and the NCAA would not allow them to play if they were prescribed those. Just because they have a doctor validate it (albeit questionably), doesn't excuse them from punishment for doing it.
January 18th, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^
Just because something is LEGAL doesn't mean it's not a violation of team rules.
Curfew violations and missing team meetings remain decidedly permissible under Michigan law, but they will still land you in serious hot water with the coaches.
January 18th, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^
You stoned, bro?
January 18th, 2013 at 10:52 AM ^
They're part of an organization that doesn't allow use of that stuff. The organization can reprimand members as they see fit. You can abide by the law but still get in trouble with a group or organization you're a part of.
Example: There is no law against cutting the lunch line, but you could get in trouble by the teachers for doing so.
January 18th, 2013 at 10:57 AM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 11:13 AM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 12:06 PM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^
Agreed. And I'd guess Coach Hoke has the same attitude.
Further explanation (based entirely on speculation): While I'd guess he doesn't have a "one beer and you're suspended" kind of policy, especially if you're of-age; I get the impression that Hoke nevertheless isn't one to tolerate much underage partying/drinking in excess, etc. The difference is that pot has the social stigma and legal issue here whereas alcohol does not; hence what I'd guess to be Hoke's slightly raised tolerance for alcohol.*
*Pun intended.
January 18th, 2013 at 2:05 PM ^
Then alcohol should be illegal for everybody. But it's not. So the standards aren't the same.
Driving before you're 16 isn't the same as doing something no one is permitted to do. (Though an equivalent escapes me at the moment without overblowing it).
January 18th, 2013 at 12:07 PM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^
We are talking about weed, not drugs.
January 18th, 2013 at 11:01 AM ^
there was a thread topic started back after CO and WA legalized pot about the impact on sports, some of the discussion is on NCAA rules and how even in states where it is legal it is still a violation of the NCAA bylaws governing student athletes.
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/otish-legal-change-impact-sports-co-wa
So, even if they had it prescribed by a Dr, it's still an NCAA rules violation, on top of a team rules violation.
January 18th, 2013 at 11:12 AM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^
the NCAA does test randomly, although the odds of individual selection are ridiculously low. The way their testing procedure has been described for me, it's basically three different hats: the NCAA draws a school name, draws a sport name and draws a percentage of scholarship athletes from that sport to be tested (during that season).
They don't seem to mess around when they do test (supervised pee in a cup within twelve hours of notification, I believe), but the odds of the NCAA testing an individual athlete in season are very low, and nonexistant when not in season or at championship events.
January 18th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^
and it looks like it varies by school. This NCAA PDF has a lot of information on testing procedures, but it's also vague in a way that allows some flexibility for individual athletic departments.
I asked again about the twelve hours thing, and I had remembered correctly. The athlete I was thinking of got a phone call around dinner time saying she had to show up early for weights the next morning because the NCAA had ordered a drug test. It looks like M has different procedures than EMU, which is different than MSU, ect, which makes sense since that's the way they usually frame their policies.
January 18th, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^
Interesting. Did you know when it was the university and when it was the NCAA? Or is it the same guys administering both?
January 18th, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
The legality of the substance has nothing to do with suspensions. It's a violation of team and NCAA rules.
January 18th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^
I can just imagine the entire bench zoned out and eating bags of cheetos.
January 18th, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^
As many have pointed-out, a university or a football team can make its own rules regarding drug use, and can sanction players who violate those rules irrespective of whether the same conduct would violate any criminal laws.
That said, both UM and its football program would be subject to numerous anti-discrimination laws at the state, federal, and local level. Those laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. One of the ways that protection manifests itself is by requiring "reasonable accommodations" in an organization's "rules, policies, practices, or services" that may be necessary to afford equal access by a person with a disability.
If a UM player had a mental or physical condition that qualified him for a medical marijuana license, then potentially UM would run afoul of its reasonable accommodation duties by failing to exempt that player from the policy. UM would have to show that the requested exemption would cause an undue financial or administrative burden, or else would fundamenally alter the football program. I think UM could potentially make the "undue administrative burden" showing, but that is murky.
However, the issue is severely complicated by the fact that the federal Controlled Substances Act preempts state and local marijuana decriminalization laws. It is difficult to predict whether or how that form of preemption would affect the final outcome, were such a case to be litigated.
January 18th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
i was looking at this through a due process lens and anti-discrimination. i agree the litigation on this issue, especially in WA or CO, would be interesting. negs gonna neg i guess.
January 18th, 2013 at 1:31 PM ^
January 18th, 2013 at 2:58 PM ^
and schedule 1 on the state list. It's not a 'disability' issue needing accomodation because there are other medications which can do the same or similar and the type of medication one takes isn't implicated by the ADA. While the MMA law was passed by many who wanted to help the truly sick (cancer, MS, epilepsy, etc.) it is being abused by the Rodney Dangerfields of the world and making a mockery of it. There are indeed medical uses for MJ and it's been available via prescription (Marinol) forever. Then it comes down to a discussion whether to legalize MJ for recreational use or not, and that'd be way OT for this board.
January 18th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^
I agree that a substantial portion--and probably a majority, or even a decided majority--of medical marijuana licenses are issued with a wink and a nod to people who really just want to use marijuana recreationally. Be that as it may, there are some cases where the medical use is genuine. If the person seeking an accommodation doesn't really have a medical need for it, then I agree they are not entitled to the accommodation--but that's because the facts don't justify it, not for the legal reason (i.e., that marijuana is prohibited at the federal level).
If a person genuinely has a disabilty and treats it with marijuana, then a policy that excludes that person from participating in an athletic program at a publicly-funded university would deny that person equal access (by reason of the disabillity). That person absolutely would be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. The only question, as I mentioned above, is whether exempting the person from the "no marijuna use" policy would be "reasonable." And that depends on whether it would undly burden the university or fundamentally change the nature of the atheltic program.
Allowing football players to use pot would not fundamentally alter the game of football. But, I think it would probably cause an undue administrative burden on the program because use is prohibited by NCAA bylaws. Pot use might render a player ineligible for certain competitions, for instance, and it may not be possible or practical to obtain similar waivers from the NCAA. Or, the player's use might force the school to take unweildy safety measures to monitor the player's use so that he is not high while practing or playing. However, I would not be surprised if someone could come up with some plausible counterarguments on this point.
Another argument suggesting that allowing a college athlete to use pot causes an undue burden is that college teams routinely travel to other states, few of which permit marijuana use--even medically. And a player wouldn't be allowed to take marijuana on an airplane or anything like that. So that is where I think the relevance of the federal prohibition on marijuana really becomes relevant. But I don't agree the mere fact that marijuana is prohibited under the CSA is dispositive. (That's why medical marijuana patients can argue effectively for reasonable accommodations with respect to housing, employment, etc.).