“He was on the other side of the court, screaming: ‘Good shot, Kev!’” Durant said, shaking his head in delight. “I’m thinking, this guy’s an All-American type of teammate right there.”
Very timely topic.
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...?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Ya but why wouldn't you just use free top notch healthcare? Especially if they don't have private insurance?
If they had a condition necessitating use of medicinal marijuana, I highly doubt they would have been medically cleared to play football.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, that makes about as much sense as prescribing pot to cure insatiable hunger.
Especially when compared to standard treatments such as benzos, SSRI's and cognitive behavioral therapy.
dumb answer. see below for thought out answers.
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.
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.
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.
You stoned, bro?
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.
Here's a wild idea: How about not doing drugs and be a responsible teammate. Use that extra stoner time for working out, hitting the books etc.
I realize my views on the drug are certainly unpopular around A2, but I think wearing the Winged helmet is more important than drugs.
Totally agree. You can have whatever view you want on marijuana, but if you're a student athlete you should be working at one of those two titles as much as you can, which should leave little time for that stuff. It's respect: your teammates are expecting you to work, doing otherwise while they work hard is disrespectful.
then alcohol use should be kept to the same standard.
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.*
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).
Should a student athlete who is 21+ be restricted from having a few beers? They all find time for that and as long as you handle your business, and be responsible with how you use your drug of choice, it shouldn't matter. If either get in the way of the student part or the athlete part, then of course he or she should be punished.
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.
So, even if they had it prescribed by a Dr, it's still an NCAA rules violation, on top of a team rules violation.
It's banned by the NCAA, but it only tests at championship events, which means, I believe, that FBS players are never tested by the NCAA, since there's no sanctioned championship.
I think the NCAA leaves all enforcement up to the home institutions as well, but I may be wrong about that. I do know that the NCAA recommends a year ban for the first positive pot test, which no place that I know follows (probably BYU would).
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.
I was drug tested, either by the school or the NCAA roughly a dozen times in 5 years. I never had 12 hours to submit the sample (either hair or urine). It was more like, "come up to the stadium right now we need to see you immediately" or the trainer would sidle up next to you at practice and say, "as soon as practice ends (which was usually in like 10 min) come with me right away immediate drug test." And yes they watched you urinate and if it was hair they cut the hair themselves. Usually armpit. I believe they tested for weed during the year but I could be wrong.
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.
Interesting. Did you know when it was the university and when it was the NCAA? Or is it the same guys administering both?
The legality of the substance has nothing to do with suspensions. It's a violation of team and NCAA rules.
I can just imagine the entire bench zoned out and eating bags of cheetos.
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.
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.
Marijuana is still classified as a schedule 1 drug. That means the U.S. government considers it very illegal to distribute as well as use weed, regardless of what certain states say. Since the U.S. is a federal constitutional republic where laws it creates take precedence over state/local ones, and because the NCAA is a national entity, all schools that are under the NCAA must abide by these federal laws/rules above all. That means if you are a student athlete, card or no card, marijuana is bad, mmmkay?
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.
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.).
Wondered the same thing