An Interesting Twist in the Medical Marijuana Debate
Nick Diaz is a mixed-martial arts fighter. He is arguably one of the top five fighters in the sport. When he isn’t training to fight he runs triathlons. His cardio is considered the best in the business and his trademark is to simply break the will of his opponents inside the cage with a pace they can’t match. He has held multiple championships and beaten some of the top fighters in the world.
Nick also smokes marijuana.
Diaz once famously said, “People say that marijuana is going to hurt my career. On the contrary, my fight career is getting in the way of my marijuana smoking.” One could argue this was an incorrect statement since Nick recently tested positive for marijuana in Nevada after a fight on February 4th. This is the second failed drug test for Diaz (the first was in 2007). He is likely facing a one-year suspension in the prime of his career and stands to lose millions in missed fight opportunities.
The Diaz saga raises some interesting questions with regards to medical marijuana and cross-state laws. Diaz has a license to use marijuana in California where he lives. He uses it for managing anxiety problems and because he believes it enhances his training. For the past five years he has managed to clean out his system prior to fights and pass all required tests. His social aversion issues are well-documented and he has been criticized in the past for avoiding interviews and for skipping press conferences. For his last fight the UFC sent a camera team to his training camp for three weeks to record footage they could use to hype the fight. Diaz’s manager said that this added pressure caused him to smoke marijuana closer to the fight than normal.
No one disagrees about the danger of fighters going into the cage high. The debate lies in the assessment by many that marijuana is a performance-enhancing drug when used during training. Because of the unique properties of the sativa strain, medical marijuana actually allows fighters to focus more. In a sport where fighters have to be skilled in multiple fighting disciplines, this seems a valuable tool for those that use it. Diaz certainly believes this which is why he is such a vocal user.For the same reason Adderall is also a banned substance despite the fact that is can be legally prescribed across the country.
The legal issue as of today is clear: Whatever the laws in California, Nevada views marijuana as a banned substance and if you want to fight in Las Vegas, you have to test clean. For this reason Diaz will probably get the maximum suspension. What questions the issue raises revolve around whether or not other states should honor marijuana as a medicinal drug in testing. No one is advocating that citizens should be able to walk or drive around non-medical marijuana states high (that would imply recent marijuana use in that state) but to penalize someone for legal marijuana use in another state seems to be an overreach. It’s an interesting question and hopefully one that will gain some public attention due to Diaz’s popularity as a fighter and the Nevada State Athletic Commission’s position as the most powerful organization of its kind in the country.
Let me get three points out of the way first:
Okay. Now, in spite of all that:
I’m not dialing back from my first three points. But as described here, Mr. Diaz is exhibiting the behavior and psychological patterns of an addict. While the susceptability of a human being to substance addiction is not a particularly strong argument for the criminalization and other irrational public policies adopted with regards to control of that substance, it certainly does not add luster to the efforts of those who would steer things in a more productive direction.
I view the situation described in this post as highly analagous to a person who becomes addicted to prescription painkillers. There is a legitimate medical need for the substance, but the use has exceeded the therapeutic need and the behavior has now caused profound negative consequences. Addiction treatment and alternative means of addressing the still-existing medical are what is called for.
An alcoholic would have been a terrible poster boy for the repeal of Prohibition. Similarly, if you (like me) are an advocate of the decriminalization and ultimate legalization of marijuana, you should consider that Mr. Diaz’s apparent addiction makes him a terrible poster boy for that cause. I wish Mr. Diaz well, and I hope for the sake of the political efforts to rationalize marijuana policy that he gets his treatment effectively and discreetly.Report
“But as described here, Mr. Diaz is exhibiting the behavior and psychological patterns of an addict.”
I agree 100%. I’ve heard addiction defined as ‘continued use even when faced with adverse consequences’.Report
I should have called social anxiety disorder a “psychiatric” issue as it relates to brain chemistry rather than cognitive process. Apologies.Report
I don’t think you are correct in describing him as an addict. It sounds more like he has a (legal) prescription for the substance. He does NOT have a legal prescription for the other substances he could use, and from the other news reports, they too are tested for and he cannot use them (Adderall) in the boxing league.
In other words, he has a psychological condition (social anxiety disorder), diagnosed by a medical professional, he has medication which has been prescribed and presumably works best for his condition, the other medications he could take are also proscribed and tested for.
He’s being put between a rock and a hard place. Either he medicates for his condition, or he suffers. To insist that someone with a medical condition is an “addict” for medicating for it is to push the limits of the definition of addiction to meaninglessness.
With regard to the statement you quote, I see it as a comment that he is not allowed to take his prescribed medication prior to the fights. In other words, the unreasonable bounds of the league body <b>interfere with his physician-prescribed medication schedule</B>. Is this not an equally accurate depiction of the argument?Report
David,
As Burt points out, there are other LEGAL drugs available to treat his problem. Using a banned substance and crossing his fingers is when the addictive behavior seems to rear its ugly head.Report
I would tend to suspect that the MMA would place a premium on its fighters having very clear minds when they step into the octagon. And there’s no dispute that marijuana interferes with one’s mental state, which is after all the point of using it recreationally. So I don’t feel comfortable conceding that MMA’s rule is unreasonable.
I also don’t feel comfortable conceding that Diaz is between a rock and a hard place. One suspects that, as in the case of PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (2001) 532 U.S. 661, a genuine disability can and should be met with a reasonable accomodation, perhaps but maybe not necessarily a waiver of the substance use rules. (No, I have not invested any thought in the issue of what kind of accomodation other than a substance-use waiver might be.) But permitting someone to use a substance banned from use by both Federal and state law, even if the substance is legal in another state, is very unlikely to be a “reasonable” accomodation.
As for Diaz’ status as an addict, of course neither of us can state that with certainty. That diagnosis would be between Diaz and his physicians. I said he “…is exhibiting the behavior and psychological patterns of an addict,” and called him an “apparent addict” (emphases added). I opined from there about the political impact of this situation on the larger effort to normalize marijuana policy.Report
“I would tend to suspect that the MMA would place a premium on its fighters having very clear minds when they step into the octagon.”
I would tend to suspect that fighters using narcotic drugs before a fight would be a self-limiting problem.
And you’re assuming that “social disorder” is an actual problem for him, and not just the excuse he uses to buy marijuana. It’s pretty much a given that anyone in a marijuana “dispensary” is an entirely healthy person who found a doctor that was willing to diagnose them with “back pain” (of course, the examination costs $300 and the doctor doesn’t take insurance.)Report
I admit that I have similar sorts of preconceptions about users of marijuana dispensaries and doubts regarding the proliferation of new-sounding psychiatric conditions to describe old-fashioned personality flaws.
But assuming that these are true would not be addressing the issue from a position of charity. Let us take Mr. Diaz at face value when he states he suffers from this psychiatric condition and further take him at face value when he states that medication with marijuana is an effective treatment for it. Doesn’t affect my position at all.Report
Mike, a very interesting post. I just want to address one point.
What questions the issue raises revolve around whether or not other states should honor marijuana as a medicinal drug in testing.
Burt partly answered this in noting that there are other treatments for anxiety disorder, but there’s also a relevant analogy, asthma medications. Asthma is a life-threatening medical condition that is treatable by medication (to state the obvious), and a number of elite athletes suffer from exercise-induced asthma. But asthma medications work by opening up the airways, so that the sufferer can breathe in more oxygen. That can be used for non-medicinal purposes, too, to enhance performance. Consequently, most asthma medications are banned by the International Olympic Committee. Steroids are also used to treat asthma (I normally require about one steroid treatment a year), to reduce the inflammation of the airways, but of course steroids are also a performance enhancer, and also banned.
So I’m very sympathetic with the fighter–just as I am with asthmatic athletes–and fully agree with Burt’s first three points. But there’s precedent here, so I really think–at least as a practical matter-that the question you raise is easily answered.Report
I know that it’s kind of nit-picky, but the steroids used to treat asthma are quite different than the steroids used to enhance athletic performance.
The first are analogues of adrenal hormones (cortisone, adreneline), and the latter are analogues of testosterone.Report
Good nitpick; it’s something I didn’t know. Do you know if the asthma treatment steroids are different enough that they’re allowed by, for example, the IOC? I was assuming they’re not, but perhaps I’m wrong.Report
I would assume the the simple anti-imflammatory steroids (e.g. prednisone) would be allowed, since in the short term they do nothing with athletic performance, but in the long term diminish it. But very often, rules–once a regime is put in place–no longer need logical rationales to continue existing (I think you’re libertarian, or at least libertarian-ish, so I presume you’d agree with this).
So, simple answer: I don’t know. But, being an infuriating pedant, that won’t keep me from speculating…Report
*grin*Report
IIRC the problem with prednisone is that it trips the test, which is not precise enough to distinguish between one steroid and another.
So, (again, IIRC), you can’t use medical steroids any more than performance-enhancing steroids and it’s not because they’re medical, it’s because the test flags them both, and thus it would be impossible to catch someone who was using performance-enhancing steroids without including the medical ones in the banned list.
Thus concludeth the waving of the hands.Report
Remember the Ross Rebagliati kerfuffle at the olympics?
From what I recall, he tested positive for an amount consistent with sitting near someone who was smoking it. When asked “why did you test positive?”, he answered something to the effect of “I sat near someone who was smoking it”. They took his gold medal away anyway.
That said, I’d be interested in knowing why they don’t do periodic drug testing throughout training for all of these substances. I mean, it’s not okay if the guy uses steroids just during September and October and, by February, whatever remnants they leave are out of his system.
If a football player talked about doing steroids all summer, got to the drug test place in September, winked at the camera, and came up negative… we’d all know what was up. If it’s illegal for use because it gives too much of an advantage to fighters who would otherwise get bored training, then why not test them while they’re training?Report
People have discussed year-round testing for UFC fighters but there are a lot of challenges. The fighters tend to be very transient. They move around from gym to gym, looking for sparring partners, etc. They are also spread all over the country. The only thing that would probably work is bi-annual meetings in Las Vegas (they already do one per year now). The fighters are not tested now at the yearly summit but they could start requiring it. Adding this to pre-fight testing would get most of them tested 5-6 times per year.Report
The short answer is that drug testing in most sports is a joke. Pro cycling, which I follow closely, has had many major stars sanctioned (the glaring and disappointing exception continues to be Lance Armstrong), in large part because they are more serious about testing. They test OOC (out of competition) as well as during races, and the penalties are relatively draconian (generally two years). This means the riders have to keep the testers constantly informed about their whereabouts, which has led to a lot of complaints, but there really doesn’t seem to be an alternative.
Anyone who follows doping in sports knows that it’s pretty much endemic in all the major pro sports in the U.S.–MLB, NFL,NBA, MMA, boxing, etc–because the organizations that run or pretend to run these sports don’t want to do anything to stop the money train. Even pro cyclists, who are tested far more frequently, know how to dope to avoid positives. For every positive test there are probably ten false negatives.Report
Marijuana is DEFINITELY a performance-enhancing drug. When I was in high school, I played baseball very seriously. I was a pitcher for one of the best high school baseball teams in the nation. This was an incredibly nerve-wracking experience. Depending on my mood, I could pitch really well or have some serious control problems or even break down entirely and just scream inside.
It was around this time that I started experimenting with marijuana (for social reasons, nothing to do with baseball). I noticed a HUGE improvement in my pitching performance. One day after getting monstrously high the night before, I struck out nine batters in a row. Just effortlessly. This obviously couldn’t continue forever (or else I’d be in the big leagues now), but for a short time during my senior year in high school I was the best pitcher in the state.
In college I thought the same rule might apply to other stuff, like writing papers. It didn’t, at least for me. Everything I wrote while high on marijuana read like complete crap the next day!Report
Presumably, you then stopped or at least controlled your use of the stuff to avoid a decline in your academic performance. This is not the behavior of an addict; it is the opposite.
I’m sure nine strikeouts in a row was a gigantic thrill all on its own, even if you weren’t baked.Report
I thought Dock Ellis was dead!Report
DD, that video was seven kinds of awesome. Thanks for the link.Report
Second thatReport
So let’s get down to the questions posed: “What questions the issue raises revolve around whether or not other states should honor marijuana as a medicinal drug in testing.” Simple. I’m cool with the folks in each state to deciding. It’s their state. Additionally, the governing body for this sport can also make that decision-but I think it already has.
“…but to penalize someone for legal marijuana use in another state seems to be an overreach.” Pff. He’s not being penalized for weed use in another state. He’s being penalized for testing positive for weed prior to a fight in Nevada. He chose to cross the state line. He chose to smoke weed inside the time needed to fully metabolize the product and test clean. He knew the rules. He took a risk and it bit him in the ass.Report
Also, if the NSAC decided that cough syrup was a drug you weren’t allowed to use, then guess what, you couldn’t drink cough syrup prior to a fight. Now, one may or may not think it’s a correct decision to use pot before a fight, but dem’s the rules. Follow them or find a job with a fighting organization that does stuff in non-commission states.Report
I tend to agree with Damon’s view, that this is a State issue.
But the “dem’s the rules” thing made me think of something related, regarding broad statements of principles as a means of regulatory structure.
I don’t see how that could be adjudicated. Any statement of principles is going to be whittled down to an enumerated list when it comes decision time.
I think there’s a greater issue here of the form of what we know as “rules” and the manner in which those rules are used to arrive at decisions.
Then again, if the sole purpose of the rules is to protect from liability, an enumerated list would do just fine.Report