I think the fact that you interpret "actually discussing the topic at any level of detail" as intimidating or threatening probably tells me more than I need to know about you. I'm so sorry I threatened you with my long post. You aren't capable of having the conversation I'd like to have with you, and I find it peculiar that your immediate response is unadulterated emotion. I'm not uncomfortable mocking you for being wrong, but at no (previous) point I wasn't trying to troll you. Certainly you could have at least attempted to debate the subject? Give me a link? Talk about dopamine? Said "yeah it does reduce motivation, but not much, and not for many people". Maybe even just... idk... understood what I was getting at without assuming that I was some anti-marijuana fundamentalist who was attacking your identity.

I am an expert on the subject. I have a research degree, which makes me systemically and certifiably qualified to draw conclusions based on scientific research, amalgamate it, and even publish my own research through the consolidation of other scientist's and other researcher's studies. So for example, I can take multiple uni-variate studies that focus on different variables, combine their conclusions, and create a multi-variate study. My area of focus is Marijuana and nootropics. I also have a business degree, and I currently operate a company that summarizes the the science behind these these compounds in an easily digestible format (for people like you), and then endorses related products for affiliate commission. Turns out most people don't have the attention span for more than 400 words (and I'm not even going to troll you any further by pointing out the irony there), so I communicate the research to them, that way they don't have to search for all of it and read it all themselves. I also blog about my personal experiences with said compounds, and about the communities views on them (turns out, those who are interested in the science - and understand it - disagree with you). I'm sorry if I didn't cram that down your throat hard enough. I figured the entire paragraph about it might suffice, but somehow you thought my only merit was an intentional hyperbole about "going to a school where most of the students smoked pot".

The fact that you underestimate marijuana usage in places like Seattle proves that you lack the experience necessary to discuss this subject. Generous statistics state that 20% of Washingtonians smoke weed habitually (that percentage is higher in Seattle, and higher amongst teenagers and young adults). It's also self-reported, so both statistics are higher than reported, particularly in the case of juveniles illegally using it.

My experiences in multiple high schools, as a drug dealer, as someone with extensive social networks, as a Seattlite, as a Marijuana consumer, as someone who is highly and actively involved in Marijuana culture, and yes as a professional who deals with the science and usage of Marijuana, with a Marijuana business, as well as who purposefully markets Marijuana to specific demographics - was meant to provide anecdotal evidence so that you might be able to understand. I didn't realize I was understating my involvement in the community. I figured you were smart enough to deduce the point, regardless of any hyperbole that I'm purposefully and obviously using. I was trying to emphasize, but that's my fault for not realizing I was in the middle of a debate with someone of below average latency. If you had just stated that you wanted to compare dicks, I wouldn't wasted so much time with exposition. We could have jumped straight to the trolling.

The actual number of high school students who smoke Marijuana every day is probably under 20%. That doesn't mean Seattle isn't a huge stoner beacon, with hempfest, with tens of thousands of people smoking en mass on the Puget Sound, regular public consumption, with a pot shop on every corner, who is selling enough marijuana annually to keep the entire state high for the entire year (though we do know 20% of the users buy 80% of the marijuana).

But not of that even matters, because all I was trying to communicate was that Marijuana abuse actually does, as a matter of objective scientific fact, reduce motivation. If you weren't such a nitwit, you'd understand that. Because anything that over-leverages dopamine and causes any type of Dopamine deficiency, also causes a decrease in self-discipline and motivation. This isn't some scientific revelation. We aren't arguing degrees of magnitude. Maybe it's a 1% decrease... does that really outrage you that much?

Let me put it to you in no uncertain terms: If you work a 8 hour-a-day job with a 1 hour commute, and the first thing you do when you get home is rip the bong or the dab-rig because you have a daily marijuana habit, the likelihood of you completing adjunct, complex tasks (like starting a business, or doing most of the tasks necessary to developing one) is lower than if you didn't have a daily marijuana habit. This is because Marijuana reduces Dopamine. It reduces Dopamine transmission in the prefrontal cortex, and Dopamine is responsible for motivation and self-discipline. In fact, the way you develop self-discipline is by taking advantage of your dopamine reward system, and people who, for example, play video games daily also struggle with this. Because positive feedback loops and instant gratification produce an instantaneous dopamine release, and someone accustomed to instantaneous dopamine release won't be neuro-chemically motivated to pursue goals that operate on extended feedback loops and delayed gratification - which manifest through delayed Dopamine release. Self-discipline is generally the mechanism through which people generate productivity, goal attainment, self-development. So it shouldn't be bewildering or confusing to you that anything that diminishes the efficacy of Dopamine, will result in some reduction in motivation (or whatever, other word you want to associate with that).

I'm really sorry that science offends you so viciously. I'm really sorry that your fat fucking ego could help but jump on the opportunity to criticize someone you thought was wrong (but who you didn't realize is both smarter and more educated on the topic than you are), because you are defensive, and incapable of understanding what someone is saying without having their entire professional background and thought-process laid out for you, piece by piece, like some kind of baby who is trying to figure out why the star-shaped-object doesn't fit into the circle-shaped-hole. Your type is talked about Joe Rogan almost daily, and I find it incredibly surprising that you're active on this subreddit. My only guess is that you're so dense that you don't even realize when Joe and his guests are making fun of people with your exact thought process, and that somehow you're still able to enjoy it.

Allow me to reiterate: Someone with a net worth of 30 million dollars, who has achieved more success in their life than 99.99% of the population, who decided to start smoking weed when they were 30 years old - and did so with comorbid usage of things like Tryptamines which expand the mind, and help put Marijuana usage into context - is not qualified to speak about, or for the portion of the population who started using marijuana when they were young (typically for socio-cultural reasons), and who have developed a long-standing addiction (whether they perceive it as positive, negative, or neutral). Because he doesn't understand. Marijuana can have a negative effect on motivation, the stereotype is there for a reason, and it's dangerous to tell drug addicts that their abuse is okay and that it won't affect them in any psychologically-negative ways, because that isn't true.

It doesn't take a researcher, a scientist, or even an intellectual to understand that. Just ask Jordan Peterson. When you over-indulge in anything, you dis-regulate your reward system. The the entire story of the lobster. I'm guessing you mostly watch Rogan for UFC guests, and that maybe you've been hit in the head a few too many times yourself.

This is something Joe regularly overlooks, despite the fact that he makes an effort to empathize with other demographics. Elon (who isn't even very smart as far as I can postulate) represents a really good example of someone who doesn't indulge, and has attained massive success. His opinion on the matter is relevant, even though I don't particularly respect him. Most open-minded individuals would love to hear his perspective on it. It's really too bad that I can't bring up such a simple point without your brain exploding.

Anyways, I'm not going to engage you any further because I don't think we can speak without me relentlessly mocking you for your below average IQ, and your 3rd-grade reading comprehension of my first post didn't give me any competence. So fucking funny that you tried to call me biased because I referenced science that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions about Marijuana usage. What's that called again? Oh yeah. BIASED. You're a fucking riot, I want to dress you like a clown and bring you to a party. You'd be a hit.