We were contacted on the good ol’ Instagram account with a story that really got us here at Campus Essentials Thinking. A story involving sports, marijuana, and a college student in the state of Colorado. We will first tell you the background of the story and why it got us thinking!
The story is about college football player Treyous Jarrells. Jarrells was a running back that signed with CSU because of Colorado’s legalization of marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes, and according to him he was high in all but one game he played in across two seasons.
View full story and video here written by The Coloradoan here: Marijuana and Sports
Reading this story; we were hit with thoughts that we never had before. With state laws being different from state to state and marijuana being legal in a handful of those states, how does this role play into college and athletics in general. How do these different laws effect things like NCAA rules and regulations, what schools differentiate from right and wrong, and how does it affect society as a whole. Jarrells’ had every legal right in the state of Colorado to use medical marijuana, especially since it was benefiting him in a way no other medicines could. From a personal standpoint, we truly respect the decision of this star collegiate athlete. Saying no to prescribed pills and doing what he truly felt was right for him. For Treyous Jarrells to leave the sport he loved so much that he allowed it to beat his body down over the years to smoke marijuana without repercussions (especially from the NCAA) may sound crazy to many of you. But look at his standpoint, the sport that caused him so much pain led him to leaving what he loved because of the medicine he took. Which brings us to our next point and also the double edge sword. As a national collegiate association how do you differentiate between school to school and what is legal and illegal in those states they reside? Even though Treyous Jarrells had every legal right to use Marijuana as his medicine in the state of colorado; as an athlete he was still breaking rules set by the NCAA. On the NCAA’s behalf you can’t treat states differently in the association, athletes agree to contracts that basically outline the rules and regulations all athletes have to follow, and if you don’t there will be repercussions. So with this vast ever changing legal systems from state to state what should associations that regulate sports in general do? Should they re-write rules to allow athletes to follow what their state tells them what is legal or not, should they just take marijuana off the ban list because of its popularity in the medical world, or should they just stand by their rule book? No matter what scenario you look at, there will be someone that feels like they are being mistreated or someone saying that the NCAA is telling athletes its fine to use cannibis. Then other thoughts to consider is cannibis actually better for you than pain pills, does it help or hurt you as an athlete, there is so much that can go into it and that is why it is and probably will always be an ever fighting battle in this country. We have people that agree with that marijuana is a better substitute than a lot of medicines and then you have people saying its a gateway drug and if you use marijuana your going to be addicted to meth in months to come. We don’t take sides in this debate, but what we will say is that there are substances we find legal and ethical that do far more damage than marijuana ever has. This story challenges views, regulations, laws, and ethics across our country from what is legal, ethical, and everything in-between. Will the rules change and we will have a bunch of stoned athletes running around a field or will the rules stay the same where people like Jarrells are forced to quit. The question now is where do we go from here. Is it a slippery slope if the usage marijuana in sports leads to pushing the use of steroids and other enhancers? We think time will only tell in the ever long debate of drug usage, but what we will put money on is that there will always be someone complaining about the outcome of thus debates.