Matt Every Suspended Three Months for Marijuana

[iacas]

A few points:

• I'll be the first to say that I don't think marijuana should be illegal across the nation, but that individual businesses, etc. still have the right to determine whether they want their employees using marijuana.
• The best laws or rules are the ones with a clear line. In certain cases the line may feel like it's too far to one side or the other, but if everyone knows where the line is and there's no grey areas, those laws/rules are best. The last thing I'd want is the commissioner or someone trying to determine on a case-by-case basis whether this was suspension-worthy or not.
• I haven't seen anything that indicates that Matt Every applied for a TUE (therapeutic use exemption). If not, why didn't he?
• He's been seeing the same physician since he was five? Pediatricians are prescribing medical marijuana now?
• The PGA Tour is following WADA guidelines, in part, because it helped them get the sport of golf back into the Olympics. The WADA technically classifies marijuana as a PED for now, though with lesser effects than some other more potent PEDs. In golf, one could see how it may be a performance enhancer for some.
• Why didn't Every just go the CBD route? Why go straight up marijuana?

Also, remember this?

This Interview With PGA Golfer Matt Every Is A Train Wreck

[Vinsk]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

He's been seeing the same physician since he was five? Pediatricians are prescribing medical marijuana now?

Family Medicine doctors, such as me, see patients at every age. Many even do obstetrics as well.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Family Medicine doctors, such as me, see patients at every age. Many even do obstetrics as well.

Okay.

[colin007]

CBD=/=THC

My biggest issue is with people who use "whom" when they are trying to sound smart.

[boogielicious]

13 hours ago, colin007 said:

CBD=/=THC

My biggest issue is with people who use "whom" when they are trying to sound smart.

My go to is “thou’st”.

Keep in mind that OTC drugs are also on WADA’s list like pseudoephedrine. Every should have known better.

[MarvChamp]

In denial that it's his own damn fault...Self-centered behavior. Justanopinion. Best, -Marv

[David in FL]

Sounds as if his “mental health condition” is that he’s a stoner…

[mcanadiens]

I was trying to remember why Every's name sounded familiar to me. 

It was his caddie Trey Billardello that shot that 202 in a US Amateur Qualifier earlier this year.

[saevel25]

On 10/20/2019 at 7:26 AM, boogielicious said:

Keep in mind that OTC drugs are also on WADA’s list like pseudoephedrine. Every should have known better.

Yea a slight stimulant... 

He broke the rules. 

I agree with @iacas comments. Especially the CBD route. There are plenty of products out there that have no THC. 

[rehmwa]

Matt owned it and is taking his suspension under the rules.  No issues there.  I have a difficult time with the idea that he took no action to find alternate or get exemption in a game where a big ticket payday could happen literally any time and something like this would derail those opportunities.  Know the rules, know your options.

Seems he issued this mainly because it apparently was communicated as a "drug abuse" issue.  Not simply breaking a rule that requires a suspension.  this is appropriate that he gets it clear so at least "reasonable" people don't escalate a false accusation.

 

(as for the topic - I think it should be legal both recreational and medical, but people that use recreationally are idiots.  Employers should get to decide if they want users in the payroll or not - that's a private contract.  Trickier when it's government employment though. 

Medical use? - CBD is an option, but even not, the stuff can be pharmacised and dose controlled.  The legalization routes are seriously flawed so far today by just opening the floodgates to pacify voters and making statements.

I think the recreational users try to ride the argument with the medical users to ride their coattails - and these are is totally separate discussions and should not be convolved.  it's irrelevant and selfish and not genuine at all to try to ride the medical discussion just to be falsely included by association - they just want any excuse to get their fix. - and that hurts the argument for the medical users - which is a very important and legitimate topic.

[phan52]

28 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

as for the topic - I think it should be legal both recreational and medical, but people that use recreationally are idiots.  Employers should get to decide if they want users in the payroll or not - that's a private contract.  Trickier when it's government employment though.

I think the recreational users try to ride the argument with the medical users to ride their coattails - and these are is totally separate discussions and should not be convolved.  it's irrelevant and selfish and not genuine at all to try to ride the medical discussion just to be falsely included by association - they just want any excuse to get their fix. - and that hurts the argument for the medical users - which is a very important and legitimate topic.

I used to smoke pot recreationally and I used to also drink recreationally. I never needed a "fix' of pot, but i certainly needed my drink at the end of the work day. Then sometimes another, and another . . . 

If I ever took up either one again it would absolutely be pot. It is pretty harmless, IMO. When it becomes legal in my state, I will probably occasionally indulge. 

[rehmwa]

2 hours ago, phan52 said:

I never needed a "fix' of pot, but i certainly

that's a good point.  I phrased that poorly, from what I can tell, it's not that type of addictive.  I simply meant that it appears to me they are climbing on a convenient bandwagon (medical) that should be a totally separate discussion from recreational.  It appears to me to be selfish and opportunistic.  I'd prefer an honest approach that highlights personal freedom and choice in life vs overregulation by the government.  Not - "that guy has glaucoma, THEREFORE, I should be able to smoke weed for the fun of it"

Edited October 21, 2019 by rehmwa

[Double Mocha Man]

6 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I'd prefer an honest approach that highlights personal freedom and choice in life vs overregulation by the government.  Not - "that guy has glaucoma, THEREFORE, I should be able to smoke weed for the fun of it"

But the guy who has the putting yips should always get to smoke... ☺️

[rehmwa]

20 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

But the guy who has the putting yips should always get to smoke... ☺️

there's already enough butts and shells all over the golf course, frankly

[Pretzel]

On 10/19/2019 at 8:35 AM, iacas said:

A few points:

1. I'll be the first to say that I don't think marijuana should be illegal across the nation, but that individual businesses, etc. still have the right to determine whether they want their employees using marijuana.
2. The best laws or rules are the ones with a clear line. In certain cases the line may feel like it's too far to one side or the other, but if everyone knows where the line is and there's no grey areas, those laws/rules are best. The last thing I'd want is the commissioner or someone trying to determine on a case-by-case basis whether this was suspension-worthy or not.
3. I haven't seen anything that indicates that Matt Every applied for a TUE (therapeutic use exemption). If not, why didn't he?
4. He's been seeing the same physician since he was five? Pediatricians are prescribing medical marijuana now?
5. The PGA Tour is following WADA guidelines, in part, because it helped them get the sport of golf back into the Olympics. The WADA technically classifies marijuana as a PED for now, though with lesser effects than some other more potent PEDs. In golf, one could see how it may be a performance enhancer for some.
6. Why didn't Every just go the CBD route? Why go straight up marijuana?

I numbered your points to make them easier to discuss in my post here, with my responses to each being similarly numbered.

1. I fully agree with this, just because something is legal doesn't mean that private organizations should be required to allow employees to do that. It's perfectly legal for someone to get blackout drunk at a company party and jump off a roof, and it should remain perfectly legal for the company to discipline or fire that employee even though their actions weren't illegal.
2. This is also true - once the acceptable limit for the substance is set (even if that limit is 0) it must be applied consistently across the board with anyone exceeding that limit receiving the same punishment. Grey areas will inevitably lead to crowd favorites getting light punishments, if any, and lesser known players receiving unfairly harsh penalties in comparison. It may not start that way, but its undeniable that suspension of crowd favorites like Tiger Woods would hurt revenue and the PGA Commissioner has a responsibility to protect the organization (which includes their financials).
3. My only question on this is whether or not the PGA Tour allows TUEs for medical marijuana. I wouldn't be surprised if they prohibited them simply because of the fact that they are illegal on a federal level (could be seen as the organization endorsing federally illegal activities).
4. This seemed a bit odd to me as well, either he's still seeing his pediatrician or he was somehow seeing a general practitioner since he was five (GP's often don't even take new patients below 16ish, much less actual children that are 5)
5. WADA guidelines do show that marijuana is considered a performance enhancing drug, but honestly I think what is/isn't performance enhancing varies so much on a sport to sport basis that it's difficult to compile a universal list for all sports without overreach. In golf a wide variety can be performance enhancing since it's a game of physique and handling mental pressure, but something like a beta blocker would actively harm those competing in track/field events and anabolic steroids would do nothing or potentially even harm people in events like shotgun sports. I think the primary argument here should just be that the calming effects of cannabinoids can be a competitive advantage.
6. It's a good question, and I would honestly like to see more research in the area of CBD vs CBD+THC. CBD would likely be an easier argument for a TUE because it is legal on the federal level, and if it can achieve the same outcomes it would provide less of a potential for an advantage over medical marijuana (you can't be stoned during your round to relieve pressure when using CBD). Any TUE granted for medical marijuana would almost certainly require an explanation of why CBD alone would be insufficient, such as having research data or a personal trial run of CBD to back up that argument.

[Zekez]

On 10/21/2019 at 12:02 PM, rehmwa said:

Matt owned it and is taking his suspension under the rules.  No issues there.  I have a difficult time with the idea that he took no action to find alternate or get exemption in a game where a big ticket payday could happen literally any time and something like this would derail those opportunities.  Know the rules, know your options.

Seems he issued this mainly because it apparently was communicated as a "drug abuse" issue.  Not simply breaking a rule that requires a suspension.  this is appropriate that he gets it clear so at least "reasonable" people don't escalate a false accusation.

 

(as for the topic - I think it should be legal both recreational and medical, but people that use recreationally are idiots.  Employers should get to decide if they want users in the payroll or not - that's a private contract.  Trickier when it's government employment though. 

Medical use? - CBD is an option, but even not, the stuff can be pharmacised and dose controlled.  The legalization routes are seriously flawed so far today by just opening the floodgates to pacify voters and making statements.

I think the recreational users try to ride the argument with the medical users to ride their coattails - and these are is totally separate discussions and should not be convolved.  it's irrelevant and selfish and not genuine at all to try to ride the medical discussion just to be falsely included by association - they just want any excuse to get their fix. - and that hurts the argument for the medical users - which is a very important and legitimate topic.

I have never even had one hit off of a joint, but what's your beef with using marijuana recreationally?  Stuck in the 1940's are you?  Man get some FACTUAL information about pot before you make this kind of ridiculous statement.

Do you drink alcohol at all?

[Double Mocha Man]

7 minutes ago, Zekez said:

I have never even had one hit off of a joint, but what's your beef with using marijuana recreationally?  Stuck in the 1940's are you?  Man get some FACTUAL information about pot before you make this kind of ridiculous statement.

Do you drink alcohol at all?

 

[Pretzel]

2 hours ago, Zekez said:

I have never even had one hit off of a joint, but what's your beef with using marijuana recreationally?

My primary issue with it, personally, is that it is proven to change the brain chemistry of those who use it during the period in which their brain is still developing. This is all people under the age of 25 or so, which is a group that also includes most people who use marijuana heavily and regularly. The population that uses it the most is the same group that has their physical development altered by its use.

If there were no permanent physical side-effects like that I wouldn't have any reservations at all. Even with those observed results I believe in legalization, but personally I avoid its use because I fall into the category of people whose brain development would be permanently altered. I believe those who decide to blindly believe there are no consequences to marijuana use despite evidence to the contrary are making unwise decisions.

It's your choice if you want to permanently alter the structure of your brain. That doesn't mean it's a smart choice to make.