Irish basketball starter arrested for pot possession

Notre Dame starting guard Kyle McAlarney was arrested for marijuana possession yesterday, and is sitting out at least today’s game against Stony Brook. “He won’t play today. That’s I think all I’m prepared to say at this point,” said Notre Dame athletic director Kevin White, according to the linked article. “White added that McAlarney’s playing and university enrollment status will be handled by Notre Dame’s student affairs department.”

The ND basketball blog Black and Green thinks “we have seen the last of K-Mac for the year, if not forever.” He quotes duLac:

Possession, use or misuse of any controlled substance, including, but not limited to, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines and depressants, is a serious violation. Students who possess, use or misuse such substances shall be subject to disciplinary suspension or permanent dismissal.

In a later post, he adds:

I really couldn’t care less about search laws or probable cause or actual usage. K-Mac had drugs in his car, and will now face the consequences. Whatever the punishment, and it’s starting to sound more and more like expulsion, Kyle can blame no one but himself. I think he’s a pretty good guy, but there is no excuse for this. …

This must just kill Mike Brey. After a terrific season so far, a loss at his shallowest position at a pivotal point in the season. K-Mac’s impact on this team is beyond the plain assist-turnover ratio. He was the catalyst for the offense, with everyone else feeding off of him. Now, Falls and Carter cannot be themselves if there is no cornerstone holding it together.

(Hat tip: Randy.)

In other basketball news, Gonzaga tries to end its two-game losing streak when it plays Nevada in the “Battle in Seattle” tonight at 6:00 PM EST. GO ZAGS!

15 Responses to “Irish basketball starter arrested for pot possession”

  1. Herbie says:

    Yet another reason to legalize it.

  2. Wobbly H says:

    Goodbye.

    Reslife doesn’t fuck around with pot. Rashon Powers-Neal got the boot for less.

  3. yea says:

    silly drug rules. this seems like another example of how the nd administration (and the government in general) is out of touch with reality.

  4. Timugen says:

    Just because someone doesn’t buy in to your tree-huggin’ hippy, brain-cell-killing, bong-head mentality does not mean they are “out of touch.” Maybe once the bong resin clears from your head you will see the “reality” the rest of the world sees.

  5. Ken says:

    In other basketball news..USC managed to blow an 11 point 2nd half lead to Wash. St. and lost. :(

  6. Patrick says:

    Res Life’s typical response to marijuana is immediate expulsion with the opportunity to reapply after a year. The most likely scenario is that Kyle will be expelled and will enroll immediately at another school where he’ll sit out a year and play next January. He’s already played too much this season to salvage the year of eligibility, so if he transfers, the earliest he could play at a different school for his junior is next January. Should he choose to reapply to Notre Dame and gains acceptance, he could play as early as the start of next season. I seriously doubt that will happen. In all likelihood, his days at ND are over.

    As for Notre Dame being “out of touch with reality”, I encourage anyone harboring this opinion to examine the prevalence of marijuana on Notre Dame’s campus. There is practically no use of the drug on campus. During the ’05/’06 school year there were only 3 pot busts. I would hardly call a “no tolerance” policy for illicit drug use “out of touch with reality” when it successfully curbs the use of illegal substances by students. Rather, Notre Dame’s policy encourages students to make the wise choice by making the consequences more severe. At Denison, if you were caught with pot, you basically got a slap on the wrist. Accordingly, marijuana was commonly abused. Its scent permeated the dorms every night. I had countless acquaintances that used it daily. Having been an AR at Notre Dame for two years, I can honestly say that I have never once smelled marijuana in the dorm. Given that marijuana possession, use, and distribution are illegal, this is a GOOD thing, and the University policy that promotes this absence is anything but “out of touch with reality.”

  7. Condor says:

    It’s great to see that our up-and-coming law school students still regularly commit the fallacy of thinking that correlation implies causation.

  8. yea says:

    pat, do you write up any student who has a sip of alcohol if they are 21? just because the law prefers one (more dangerous and toxic the body) drug over another does not make it morally wrong.

    tim, are you aware that according to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 97.5 million Americans aged 12 or older tried marijuana at least once in their lifetimes? what is this reality that the rest of the world sees that you speak of?
    tim, are you aware that no scientist has been able to prove that mj causes brain cells to die? however tim, alcohol has been proven to kill brain cells. so your brain cell killing comment is not only in poor taste and an uneccesarily personal attack (along with your other ad hom attacks that i will ignore) but actually a false one.

    my opinion is that it is asinine to expell or put a lengthy suspension an otherwise good kid for doing something most college kids so at one point anyway. nds particulary harsh stance on this stuff isn’t in touch with the reality of what goes on in college in my
    opinion. the school’s hesitance to have a more open dialogue about sexual assault in contrast to their draconian mj policy strikes me as close to absurd.

  9. Patrick says:

    Condor,

    Perhaps I have more information which is the basis of my conclusion. Maybe you should be more careful before issuing such condascending remarks. Would you have refrained from being such a dick if I told you that Notre Dame had a marijuana problem on par with your average university before the “no tolerance” policy was instituted and that it immediately evaporated afterward? Get off of your intellectual high horse, you self-righteous prick.

  10. Patrick says:

    yea,

    Please elaborate on your statement that ND is hestitant to engage in “dialogue about sexual assault”. If you’re talking about the broohaha over the Vagina Monologues, please excuse me while I contain my laughter. The University’s problems with the VMs have nothing to do with the issue of sexual assault and everything to do with the play’s unabashed celebration of illicit sexual behavior. The play’s condemnation of sexual assault has nothing to do with the reluctance to tolerate the play. If this is the “hesistance” of which you speak, you should know that you’re making a rather weak straw man’s argument.

  11. Condor says:

    So I’m to blame for not reading the post that you didn’t post (which apparently contained all the information).
    By the way, it’s great to see that our up-and-coming law students still prefer name-calling over arguments.

  12. yea says:

    Pat, its more about the general attitude toward sexual assault in general, and the abstitence first policy that makes it difficult for assaulted girls to come forward if they have been assaulted. Why did you ignore the rest of my post and only focus on one sentence?

  13. Aaron says:

    First off, let me say “yea!” to Yea. (That’s lame, I know, but someone had to do it)

    A question. If one believes that marijuana Prohibition is both Wise and Just, then I suppose one would have to believe the same thing about the university’s policy to enforce that prohibition. Consider that point granted.* But what if one believes that prohibition is unwise and unjust? (and enormously wastefull, and funtionally racist, and damaging to national security, and.. and.. and..) Supposing that, is there any virtue in a university going out of its way to enforce the policy? Any virtue in applying a strict no tolerance policy on drug use based solely on the fact that said drug use happens to be illegal? I would say no; no virtue at all.** I think Patrick might disagree, but he can speak for himself.

    *I granted that point for the sake of argument, but it’s not necessarily true. “No tolerance” policies, even in the pursuit of wise and just ends, are often a case of the ends not justifying the means.

    **Just to head off any attacks on men of straw, I’ve said nothing about ND’s right to enforce whatever code of conduct it wishes.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Aaron, I agree that one should not adopt policies that are unwise and unjust. But who is to decide whether the marijuana prohibition is unwise and unjust? I don’t think you can allow individual students to do so. Perhaps the University believes that a policy of requiring adherence to the law, whatever the merit of the underlying law, is wise and just in itself.

    Underaged drinking, of course, is also illegal, so one would think that this prohibition should be enforced with similar vigor. But it is also within the University’s discretion to decide that using a substance that is illegal only in the hands of those under 21 is serious, but not as grave as use/possession of a substance that is always illegal. The type of policy that the University adopts could be justified by proportionality–punish underage drinking seriously, and treat illegal drugs with no tolerance. (And I mean “justify” in the sense of devising a policy that is just and reasonable–your point that the University can enforce the code without such justification is well-taken).

    Also consider that the University might be concerned about the “social ills” of drug use on campus and not only the culpability of the individual violator. It might be more prepared to deal with students trying to bring beer into their dorms than students selling or exchanging pot in the dorm rooms or other spots around campus.

  15. Aaron says:

    Anon,

    perhaps the University believes that a policy of requiring adherence to the law, whatever the merit of the underlying law, is wise and just in itself.

    That’s really the heart of the question I was asking. It’s sort of a given that I’m going to disagree with Notre Dame’s moral and social views. I’m not trying to win that argument right now. My question was, under the hypothetical where a university is otherwise neutral on drug issues, is the illegality itself enough justification for an aggressive anti-drug use policy? I’d say no.

    Your thoughts on proportionalty between drug punishments and alchohol punishments have a certain logic to them. (even though I’d argue that the distinction the law makes between marijuana and alchohol is fundamentally illogical.) But this raises the obvious question of why the law treats a 20 year old as “under-age” when it comes to alchohol consumption but “of age” for virtually everything else, including military service. You can probably guess what I think of that… ;)