"The only pot smokers I know and am aware of are burnt out, so they all will burn out! Oh and it's immature, whatever that means."

Sorry for the snark, but when there's clearly a visibility problem, these one-off negative anecdotes given as universal observations and advice are nearly useless.

Look, I'm all for legalization, but let's not kid ourselves.

Alcohol doesn't make you more sociable. Tobacco doesn't make you look cool. And weed doesn't help you relax.

Or rather, all of the above certainly do that, but there are ample alternatives that do it better and have zero consequences for your health.

I'd hesitate to clump in alcohol and weed with tobacco use. Tobacco use is tied directly to increased risk of cancer. FWIW, there seems to be evidence that inflamation is a factor in some cancers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994795/. With alcohol, there have been studies that show consumption actually lowers stress and improves health.

Have you ever known someone who uses marijuana medicinally?

No. What precisely is your point? That there are legitimate uses for weed? Ok, agreed.

There are legitimate uses for alcohol too. Great disinfectant. Great at cleaning mechanical parts.

Doesn't mean drinking half a bottle of vodka a day will make you a great business leader. Smoking weed won't make you into one either.

Comparing getting high in your free time to drinking half a bottle is so disingenuous, it's actually embarrassing to watch you do this.

That, and you know what, going around calling everyone "kids" because you can't formulate an argument makes you look bad, not the "kids" you're looking down on.

You're so clearly unwilling to even listen on this issue, it was apparent from the get-go.

I'd hate to ever get caught eating a piece of chocolate in front of you. You'd probably slap it out of my hands, call me a fatty and tell me there are healthier ways to make myself happy.

Maybe if you weren't so high when you wrote that reply, it would have actually made sense.

> That, and you know what, going around calling everyone "kids" because you can't formulate an argument makes you look bad, not the "kids" you're looking down on.

I never called anyone kids?

> I'd hate to ever get caught eating a piece of chocolate in front of you. You'd probably slap it out of my hands, call me a fatty and tell me there are healthier ways to make myself happy.

If you were sitting in front of me, eating a piece of chocolate, telling me how eating that chocolate is going to make you a better business leader ... well, I'd be making fun of you just as much as I'm doing now =)

>Maybe if you weren't so high when you wrote that reply, it would have actually made sense.

Are you kidding me? How petty, childish, immature and snarky can you be about this? What an obvious defense mechanism. (The irony being I'm in the middle of a two month break from using anything as I'm traveling).

I didn't claim it would make me a better business leader. I claimed it wouldn't make me a worse one and you've done nothing to show otherwise but offer a single stupid anecdote to dismiss everyone else.

And yes, you've three times now implied (or explicitly said) that anyone who even smokes pot occasionally needs to grow up. (Imagine the absurdity if I said that about having a beer. And you're already jumping to a million conclusions in your head that you know nothing about). You're a smug person latching to stereotypes. A tough anti-drug guy (proudly) making fun of people for what they do in their spare time. Just like I said: preconceived notions and judgmental condescension. Thanks for confirming all of my suspicions from my very first post in this thread.

All gay people I know have lisps, so they all do; don't you know?

You think he is bad here? Just read his comments. They speak plenty about his character.

LMAO! You created another throwaway account to post this? How insecure are you?!?

This isn't a throwaway...

You really have no idea what my experiences are, but you seem quite judgemental and somewhat defensive, and eager to pick a fight.

The point remains that there is a non-zero chance of harming your chances of achieving you career goals if you light up frequently. Ther are no doubt outliers who can work well stoned, but for the regular person this is not likely to be the case. In fact for most people they'll regret endless hours stoned on the couch when they look back, after they realisr their youth and enthusiasm were precious assets that don't last forever.

Growing up and facing the world clear headed is a worthy goal. I don't think anyone can really argue against that.

Both are judgemental, actually. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be heard. Non-violent communication skills will tell you pokesmot is probably blaming brc for his own feelings about smoking weed. I'm implying he smokes from his username.

What is the evidence pokesmot is blaming himself? Notice he is "quoting" brc using the quote symbols, but brc didn't actually say what is quoted. NVC will teach you to read things like this as a feeling/opinion held by the person who is "quoting" someone else. When you are saying something contentious, you are are either blaming yourself or you are blaming the other guy. Given brc didn't actually say what pokesmot said he said, I'm going with the former: he's blaming himself a bit. This leads me to thinking it's not beyond us to consider we might feel a bit of fear ourselves if we consumed more than a moderate amount of pot in a given week and then someone comes by and said "don't kid yourself it's making you better at work".

Ironically that last quote is also a blaming statement. The logical implication of that statement is, if I smoke weed, I won't be better at my job, especially if I do it regularly. The won't is derived from the negative fragment 'kid yourself'.

Anyway, I agree with both of them! Don't smoke weed with the expectations of becoming better at work. Making casual blaming statements affects all of us. We should all try harder not to do it!