For my part, after taking THC(tincture) I "get creative" on architecture solutions, new feature ideation, and things like that. I generally keep any code I write during this time in a separate branch to code review while sober before merging in - it's the ideas that are most important, not the actual code.

This has been my experience as well. It's not a good time for writing maintainable code, but it IS a good time to abstract some complex solutions and think of possible problems that could arise from each possible architecture.

They say Coffee or Caffeine is really good when you need to spit out stuff like code. It's similar to when you're fresh or have just exercised and just started working.

If you're taking cannabis for work, be sure to take Sativas.

Terpenes are gaining popularity, but I'm not 100% since some report it being toxic at higher levels. A terpene that I purchased (but am scared to use) are from SpaceBear Co.

I guess you don't drink coffee? How many people use caffeine to chemically alter their state? How about using alcohol to ease social interaction anxiety? Nicotine is another very popular tool for altering one's state.

We are all essentially bags of chemicals. If someone hacks their diet to optimize nutritional chemical input, are they a chemically altered monster? Where's the line?

Even playing sports together, sharing in a rush of dopamine to bond, could be considered here.

You think drinking caffeine makes you feel anything like getting stoned? Or that smoking a joint is comparable to smoking a cigarette?

If you ever get stoned, you are in for a surprise.

Try leaving caffeine for a couple of months, and then have a cup of coffee.

I actually did this, and it's amazing to actually notice the strong effect it has.

It alters your mood SO MUCH you'd be amazed. But since you have a daily dose, you can't really tell. Much like you will never know what a weed-adict behaves like when he hasn't consumed in days.

I have, 6 months without caffeine.

It didn't affect me anything like a spliff, you're massively over-exaggerating the effect. Also caffeine you build a tolerance to, so that's not something you're normally experience when drinking a coffee.

> weed-adict

I tried a drag from a cigarette a few times, always made my head spin like crazy and I puked.

It was stronger than a drag from a cannabis joint. But I have never been a nicotine user.

That head spinning isn't a normal side-effect and you don't feel ill, it goes away after you smoke regularly (don't, it's horrid to stop). It's your body reacting to a poison, once it's used to it, it doesn't react that way any more.

A few spliffs is more comparable to drinking a bottle of wine, rather than a couple of coffees or a few fags. But different. A single drag is more like have a gulp of wine. Won't get you drunk, might get a little fuzzy feeling depending on your tolerance.

I can bet you the op isn't talking about having a single puff.

False equivalency, all chemically altered states are the same? If someone used alcohol (another of your examples) at work, during the work day you'd consider an intervention; you wouldn't shrug and say "eh, bags of chemicals".

I've experienced work lunches with alcohol a lot and it can help in team bonding. I've also been involved in deal making where if you didn't drink alcohol with the prospect (China), you were not going to get the deal.

I'd say the false equivalency is thinking substance use always = substance abuse.

It's really hard to interpret what you mean by this comment when your username is "SippinLean".

Let my biography serve as a cautionary tale

>Maybe try not using drugs as a crutch? . . . Be your own man, not some chemically altered monster.

Many forums have a rule: "do not diagnose[0] fellow forum members." You're not directly diagnosing kdelano, but if a malady (crutch-needing) needs a drug (THC), you're implicitly saying kdelano has a malady. It's then too easy to insult the person ("some chemically-altered monster").

[0] medical diagnosis, psychoanalysis, etc.

Does Adderall count as a 'crutch' or make someone a chemically altered monster?

As somebody who takes Adderall. Yes, it does count as a crutch in my book.

How about you don't judge someone you don't know?

We are anything if not constantly chemically altered. From the food we eat, to the drinks we consume, to the things we inhale.

that's an awfully weak crutch to stand on to justify usage of drugs.

You can try to hyperbolically describe it as a "crutch", but if you're just going to ignore that you are in fact constantly chemically altered then I'm not sure what to tell you. The whole "be your own man" is baseless feel-good ego massaging.

It's comments like these that do an incredible disservice to actual conversation. No one is arguing eating food doesn't aid in the regulation of a standard baseline for natural chemical balances in the body.

Which is exactly what it is. A standard baseline for your typical, normal, healthy human being.

Taking your stand of "but everything is chemically altering" is being intellectually dishonest in this argument and serves no real purpose beyond derailing conversation BACK to defining the constraints to which we're using to discuss the actual implications of actual, out of the normal baseline, mind altering substances.

You're not contributing anything with the ridiculous position you take by doing so, and make yourself and the rest of the "recreational user" group look bad by such poor arguments.

It's not a "ridiculous position". It's a succinct rebuttal of a position that serves no purpose other than to grand stand. Evidence based perspectives are not intellectually dishonest.

>A standard baseline for your typical, normal, healthy human being.

This is so vague. Ironic that you feel the need to claim I am being intellectually dishonest. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself compared to when I eat sugar? Based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is no. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself than when I drink coffee? Again, based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is probably no. In fact caffeine is more likely to be harmful to me for a multitude of reasons.

>group look bad by such poor arguments.

Meanwhile, the entirety of your statement is condensed down into "lol bad argument." Also, I don't actually smoke marijuana (I've tried it, it was "okay"), so your personal appeals are not only completely irrelevant and self-serving, they're useless as well.

You would do well to take all your charged criticism at my statement and apply it to your own; it fits it a bit better.

If you think "but everything alters your chemical makeup" is a sufficient rebuttal, you're mistaken for the outlined reasons above. There's simply no more to say about it and I'm not going to get drawn into a pointless debate over mind altering substances as a recreational outlet or how it "enhances your mind" when all it's proven is otherwise.

>If you think "but everything alters your chemical makeup" is a sufficient rebuttal

Considering that the original claim had no depth to it what so ever other than attempting to grandstand, it is odd you feel to have two completely different standards here. You have to point out why it isn't a sufficient rebuttal other than saying it doesn't. Time for some intellectual honesty. Or you can just blanket label people that consume certain things as having a "crutch" with absolutely no basis for such a claim.

> when all it's proven is otherwise.

Where's the evidence for this?

Do any amount of research on it in reputable scientific papers and studies on the subject will get you an answer in short order.

I'm finding the exact opposite? Do you have any concrete examples that you would care to provide in the spirit of intellectual honesty?