rsl12

"Play had to have" is a perfectly good sentence. You have the subject (Play) verb (had to), which is enough for a complete sentence ("Play had to", with the object being understood without mentioning it. It's just as complete as if you had said "John went in.").

"Have" can be used in two ways--have, meaning to own something ("Play had to have weed") and "have" being used to create a perfect past tense when combined with a past participle ("Play had to have smoked"). In your case, "have" is being used in the second sense: Play had to have smoked weed.

I think everyone can agree that if 'have' was being used in the first sense, "play had to have" is grammatically correct. It's just as complete as saying "John had to go." You can say "Play had to have" if what you mean is play had to have (it), or if you mean that Play had to have things in general.

I would argue that using 'have' in the second sense is equally correct. "Did John go to the store?" "Yes, he did." If "he did" is correct, when meaning he did (go), then "Play had to have" should be correct, meaning Play had to have (smoked).

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.