{"id":658,"date":"2019-12-13T13:05:59","date_gmt":"2019-12-13T18:05:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.vanderbilt.edu\/marijuanalaw\/?p=658"},"modified":"2020-02-14T16:37:25","modified_gmt":"2020-02-14T21:37:25","slug":"may-competitive-athletes-use-marijuana","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/my.vanderbilt.edu\/marijuanalaw\/2019\/12\/may-competitive-athletes-use-marijuana\/","title":{"rendered":"May Competitive Athletes Use Marijuana?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The question posed by the title of this post is inspired by news that Major League Baseball (MLB) will no longer test or sanction players for using marijuana. The change is one of several the league and its Players Association recently agreed to make to their 2006 Joint Drug Program (JDP). The joint announcement of the change can be found here<\/a>. The full JDP (pre-changes) can be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The JDP stipulates that \u201call Players shall be prohibited from using, possessing, [or] selling\u00a0. . . any Drug of Abuse, Performance Enhancing Substance, Stimulant, DHEA, Diuretic and\/or Masking Agent (collectively referred to as ‘Prohibited Substances’).\u201d JDP, p. 8. Until the recently announced change to the Program, \u201cNatural Cannabinoids (e.g., THC, Hashish and Marijuana)\u201d were considered \u201cDrugs of Abuse.\u201d Id.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, although the change to the MLB’s policy is notable, I think it\u2019s important to note that the MLB\u2019s policy toward all Drugs of Abuse (and especially marijuana) was already quite forgiving even before the change. For one thing, the JDP allows for testing of Drugs of Abuse only when there is \u201creasonable cause to believe that a Player has, in the previous 12- month period, engaged in the use, possession, sale or distribution of a Drug of Abuse.\u201d Id. at p. 18. By contrast, players\u00a0can be regularly and randomly tested (without cause) for other Prohibited Substances, like Performance Enhancing Drugs.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, even if a player tests positive for a Drug of Abuse \u2013 again, until now, including\u00a0marijuana \u2013 the JDP simply calls for the player to be evaluated for a Treatment Program.\u00a0Id. at p. 26. And if the player is required to undergo a Treatment Program that causes him to miss any games or practices, he\u00a0gets to keep his full salary (at least for the first 30 days).\u00a0Id. at p. 28.<\/p>\n

Lastly, even though a player\u00a0can be suspended for violating a Treatment Program for
\nOTHER Drugs of Abuse (say, cocaine), the JDP did not allow for suspension for violating marijuana Treatment Programs. Id. at p. 26. Instead, the JDP specified that such a player \u201cshall be subject to fines, which shall be progressive and which shall not exceed $35,000 for any particular violation.\u201d Id. A player would face more severe disciplined — meted out by the Commissioner — only if he demonstrated \u201cflagrant disregard for his [marijuana] Treatment Program.\u201d\u00a0Id. By comparison, violating Treatment Programs for other Drugs of Abuse results in more severe sanctions, including a 25 game suspension for the first violation and a minimum 1 year suspension for the fourth sanction. Id. at pp. 39-40.<\/p>\n

Still, the changes wrought by the latest agreement help reconcile\u00a0MLB drug policy with increasingly popular state marijuana reforms and the federal legalization of hemp. According to this ABA piece<\/a>, for example, 87 professional sports teams are now located in states that authorize\u00a0some use of marijuana. However, it should be noted that the MLB\u2019s new policy does not really care about the content of state (or even federal) law: professional baseball players can no longer be tested or penalized by the league for using marijuana or hemp derived CBD products, regardless of whether such use is permitted by law. (I suppose they\u00a0could be still be disciplined for misbehavior related to the use of marijuana, in the same way that they can be disciplined for misbehavior related to the use of alcohol.)<\/p>\n

The book briefly\u00a0discusses\u00a0the special issues faced by professional athletes on pages 664-665 n.3. In particular, the book notes how collective bargaining agreements between athletes and their sporting leagues might bar the athletes from using marijuana, even when such use is allowed by state law (and even when state law otherwise bars imposition of employment sanctions for marijuana use).<\/p>\n

For interested readers, here are a few recent articles concerning the regulation of marijuana use by athletes:<\/p>\n