June 2nd, 2012 at 9:14 PM ^

Well said, within a few years it will be legal anyway, so other than simply an internal punishment it should not be such a big deal.

Correct me if I am wrong, but here in the Kalamazoo area we have heard that in Ann Arbor the punishment for smoking a blunt would only be a Civil Infraction.

If so, the punishment for one of the players smoking weed should not be any different than a punishment Hoke would give out for let's say a speeding ticket.


June 2nd, 2012 at 6:02 PM ^

It should be about the local jurisdiction and what the punishment is their.  Pot is noo big deal.  I'd rather have my players in their dorms smoking J's and eating brownies while playing madden and ordering pizza on a saturday night than out binge drinking.  As we've seen (with Big Will etc.) alcohol and minors lead to bad things.  I'm especially a personal advocate of mixing the two.  It seems to keep one from going overboard on the drunkeness and keeps you from raging and getting in to trouble.


June 2nd, 2012 at 6:09 PM ^

Rabble, rabble, no player at Michigan has ever smoked pot, rabble, rabble.

But seriously, the NCAA has a mandatory one year suspension for pot? That seems outrageously harsh.


June 2nd, 2012 at 6:44 PM ^

I believe Manningham tested positive at the combine, so I would imagine he probably did at Michigan. I don't wanna throw out names, but I know of people who've burned with notable football/basketball players.


June 2nd, 2012 at 6:16 PM ^

I guess your reaction to this depends on whether you think it's about the pot use part or the lenient discipline part.  Being lenient on everything else as well, this shouldn't come as earthshattering news.


June 2nd, 2012 at 8:06 PM ^

You don't need an article to know that. These kids are screwed after they get their sheepskin. Please see all of the reports, current NFL players, and campus news. They blaze that shit up after practice. P.S. they get a boatload of vajay jay too. In Nevada they call them hookers.


June 2nd, 2012 at 9:36 PM ^

  As far as "it is crap they are playing on a different playing field," then yes... that sucks.


  However, seems appropriate to the crime.  I definitely don't support Brandon's "Just Say No" redux with the increased rate of drug testing and stiffer penalties and whatnot.  Especially in A2 where it is just a $50 civil infraction, and medically permissible at the city and state level.  I wonder how many tough anti-weed gentry feel about the 'best football conference' allowing more drug use... I mean, those things are mutually exclusive, right?


June 3rd, 2012 at 8:50 AM ^

I really don't think the use of pot or alchohol should have a penalty for the "standard" student.  However, when even a tenth of a second in reflexes can make the difference between winning and losing, athletes really shouldn't be using anything that can slow their reflexes during the season.  That should be a team matter, though.

The only thing that disturbs me about this report is that the SEC once again demonstrates that the main reason for their success is that they cheat to recruit the best of the best, have them major in "eligibility," and then use the Dantonio/Meyer approach: "If you contribute, you can do whatever you want and we will find a way to keep you on the field."

Rules help to create an even playing field, but only if everyone follows them.  The SEC, like our "friends" in EL and Columbus, are very selective in their approach to enforcement.  So, even though the rule is stupid, it is there and should be enforced the same way the rest of football enforces it.


June 3rd, 2012 at 9:42 AM ^

I'm with you on this in a sense. While I certainly believe that drug policy should be regulated via local jursidictions the NCAA has a right to enforce it's own policy when the student athletes play teams from different geographic areas. If the SEC only played teams from the SEC for example then the I would argue that the SEC policy should be enforced but the teams don't and well then they should follow the rules like all teams in the NCAA.

In a few years it won't matter as pot will be legalized, as it should, the really bad drugs nowadays are the pills. I worked as a volunteer in a rehab last summer and 90% of the kids under 25 were there for pills. Over 25 was alcohol and cocaine. Amazing how upside down we have become as a society.

Louie C

June 3rd, 2012 at 12:47 PM ^

What makes you guys think it will be legal in a few years? It seems that there is an ever growing undercurrent of "straight" people that believe it should be legalized, but it appears that the guv'ment staunchly opposes it. I can only hope. As much I like to do some drunk Mgobloggin', it's been too long since I Indulged in the stickiest of the icky.


June 3rd, 2012 at 8:01 PM ^

the Justice Department has declined to enforce federal laws in medicinal states (people with crops, dispensaries, possibly some just possession issues in CA, MI, ect. are still breaking federal laws, the feds are just declining to prosecute). If the current administration stays intact, or the next AG/President don't go after federal cases, you're talking about another five or six years (at least) before anything is done at a federal level. By that time, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a lot of states making medicinal laws, and from what I've seen in Ann Arbor, that's basically an easy license to smoke.

Alf Urkel

June 3rd, 2012 at 8:39 PM ^

the sec is slimy and grimey. we all know this. pot is not a terrible thing. some of us think this.players sitting around in their apartments, smoking weed, and playing videogames is not a big deal.