NM's High Times in Reynolds, GA

[Deleted]

Jul 14, 2014 11:57:33 GMT -6 steve said:

Jul 14, 2014 11:47:21 GMT -6 Norm said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa...let's not necessarily put the cart before the house. While it may well be that your assumption is accurate, I don't recall having read or heard a single thing to support it. The only times I do anything with weed, Roundup is involved. Now, I do enjoy my beer with some regularity. If I'm pulled over while returning home from some store where I bought beer should I be arrested for DUI simply because it's in my possession inside my truck? Chances are, during that traffic stop, not only would there be a case of beer but there'd also be a firearm in my truck with me. Though I have a DL which shows I'm of legal age to buy the beer and I have a CCP which allows me to carry a weapon, am I now faced with Federal charges? Keep in mind for discussion purposes, I've only purchased the goods, there's zero evidence I've consumed any.

Just seems an odd position to take. But that's just me.

The police officer said he smelled the pot, which would seem to indicate he had been consuming. Crack one of those beers open and your scenario would be more realistic. Have an open container in your vehicle along with the fire arm and see if you aren't given a breath test. You fail and you will be provided a free stay in the local escape proof hotel.

The Cop smelled pot smoke. Nick was by himself. Nick was DUI and he wasn't driving a horse drawn cart. That money-grubbing small town popo did Nick a tremendous favor,but that doesn't lessen what Nick did. It just gives Gus an "out" for lesser punishment if he so chooses too use that out (wink).

Playing the "assumption" card to diffuse from practicality is the same as winking. Save those tactics for the Bammers or UGLY fans. Let's all be straight with each other. I judge other teams by practical world standards and AU gets treated the same.

I sure hope Gus isn't winking like some fans are. Players know a wink when they see one.

[CHB]

Jul 14, 2014 11:17:20 GMT -6 Jet said:

I think MJT is spot on.

He is spot on with having that in his mind because of the not to far gone past. However, I don't get a sense that this is going to turn into a big deal. This isn't spice or worse.

Like it or not I think weed is becoming the new cigarette. It is widely excepted by many different walks of life. I bet many would be shocked to find out some of the people that smoke weed. I'm not condoning it but it has become legal in 2 states.

Still got to follow the rules in place where you are though.

[ehyou]

Looks like Marshall will face consequences. I hope everyone is happy.

espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11214056/auburn-tigers-gus-malzahn-says-nick-marshall-suffer-consequences-marijuana-citation

[Jet]

Well if other people jump off bridges, will Nick Marshall do it too?

[michael]

Hoopie hates winks almost as much as trophies.

[Deleted]

Jul 14, 2014 12:25:55 GMT -6 bubbs said:

Jul 14, 2014 12:09:38 GMT -6 ehyou said:

There's probably a fancy logical fallacy name for this, but all I know is it isn't necessarily true.

Causal Reductionism would seem to fit here.

That might apply if Nick were to claim that he has glaucoma and needed the pot. Nick didn't try to explain (BS) it away, which is probably why the Cop was generous.

Seems to me that folks are trying to reverse CR to try to explain this away for Nick.

[steve]

Jul 14, 2014 12:09:38 GMT -6 ehyou said:

Jul 14, 2014 11:57:33 GMT -6 steve said:

The police officer said he smelled the pot, which would seem to indicate he had been consuming.

There's probably a fancy logical fallacy name for this, but all I know is it isn't necessarily true.

Well, since Nick was alone, unless he had his Doobie Air Freshener hanging from the rear view mirror, I think it fair to say he was consuming. Of course, he may have not inhaled. Can we get Bill Clinton in here for a ruling here?

[bubbs]

Jul 14, 2014 12:35:04 GMT -6 hoopie said:

Jul 14, 2014 12:25:55 GMT -6 bubbs said:

Causal Reductionism would seem to fit here.

That might apply if Nick were to claim that he has glaucoma and needed the pot. Nick didn't try to explain (BS) it away, which is probably why the Cop was generous.

Seems to me that folks are trying to reverse CR to try to explain this away for Nick.

Hoopie, my pops bought a used truck a little over a year ago. He doesn't smoke cigarettes. If you ride in the truck with him, you'd assume he does smoke cigarettes.

You're calling my dad a smoker, Hoopie. You're a liar.

[CHB]

Jul 14, 2014 12:29:04 GMT -6 Jet said:

Well if other people jump off bridges, will Nick Marshall do it too?

Nope and I'm not condoning smoking weed, but many in my generation and the younger generations don't view it the same way as we do. It is no longer taboo.

[steve]

Jul 14, 2014 12:35:04 GMT -6 hoopie said:

Jul 14, 2014 12:25:55 GMT -6 bubbs said:

Causal Reductionism would seem to fit here.

That might apply if Nick were to claim that he has glaucoma and needed the pot. Nick didn't try to explain (BS) it away, which is probably why the Cop was generous.

Seems to me that folks are trying to reverse CR to try to explain this away for Nick.

I do appreciate that Nick seems to have been remorseful and didn't try to lie his way out of it. That is why I consider a 3 game suspension pretty reasonable. Not getting arrested also gets him a bit of bonus points.

But the being remorseful thing only goes so far. Jimmy Swaggart was real remorseful, but only because he got caught.

If Nick Marshall hadn't been caught and just went in Malzahn's office one morning and said, coach, I made a mistake. I smoked a doobie this weekend. I am sorry and it will not happen again. In that case I wouldn't suspend him at all. IF you fess up and are remorseful before you get caught, it is completely different. The only consequence there would be if you made the same mistake again. Yea, you can be remoreseful once, but that is the limit.

[novatiger]

Auburn/Malzhan has a stated policy for 3 strikes. Unless they've changed that policy for everyone, the consequences should be exactly as stated. Varying from stated policy in either direction makes it meaningless and tells the team that punishment will be arbitrary. How can they expect to be treated fairly if Gus ignores policy?

Nick had no strikes. I expect he'll get the first strike punishment with counseling and mandatory drug tests. I doubt he gets a suspension, but it might be that JJ gets the start for the opener with Marshall coming in later.

[steve]

Jul 14, 2014 12:48:23 GMT -6 CHB said:

Jul 14, 2014 12:29:04 GMT -6 Jet said:

Well if other people jump off bridges, will Nick Marshall do it too?

Nope and I'm not condoning smoking weed, but many in my generation and the younger generations don't view it the same way as we do. It is no longer taboo.

It is illegal, so the younger generation's view doesn't matter.

It is also against team rules, so the younger generation's view still doesn't matter.

It may not be taboo, but if you want to play football at Auburn it is.

[steve]

Jul 14, 2014 12:50:49 GMT -6 novatiger said:

Auburn/Malzhan has a stated policy for 3 strikes. Unless they've changed that policy for everyone, the consequences should be exactly as stated. Varying from stated policy in either direction makes it meaningless and tells the team that punishment will be arbitrary. How can they expect to be treated fairly if Gus ignores policy?

Nick had no strikes. I expect he'll get the first strike punishment with counseling and mandatory drug tests. I doubt he gets a suspension, but it might be that JJ gets the start for the opener with Marshall coming in later.

Did Malzahn make the policy? Is it a guideline? Every case is different.

[allend]

Jul 14, 2014 11:28:40 GMT -6 hoopie said:

Jul 14, 2014 11:22:51 GMT -6 bubbs said:

I'm going to go ahead and call it. I think he ends up sitting the opener.

It's the most balanced approach. It's firm without being heavy handed. We should be able to win that game without Nick. On the off chance we do lose, we can still rebound and get in the playoff scenario. It lets Gus see what he really has in JJ. Nick will still have a warm up game before KState.

Does "balanced approach" = "wink - wink"? I say it does. A one game suspension ain't no  hammer.


Sparing the hammer = Chizco.

You gotta stop those three martini lunches Hoop.

1. We don't know he was DUI.
2. We don't know he had smoked it period.
3. Doesn't excuse it, but dope smoking is on the rise especially in certain communities. Being legal in some states isn't exactly discouraging this...
4. He's guilty of stupid...bringing a hammer? Really?

Make him regret his actions. He didn't behave during his free time, maybe his free time needs to be better scheduled in physical activity that he'll remember going forward.

[steve]

Both Mincy and Marshall should get my favorite penalty, indefinite suspension. For Mincy, indefinite would likely be 6 games. For Marshall, indefinite would end up being about 3 games.

As a general rule, I would suspend a player for a game for doing anything that puts the university in a negative light. The actual offense would then add games to that.