[| I, CWAS |]

Even some stoners will admit to, and a cursory glance at heavy smokers shows similar results to the study. Without a doubt, employers will be more likely to prohibit the use of Marijuana in order to maintain productivity (the context of this study is Marijuana users in the workplace).

...
Discussion
The pattern of results broadly suggested three possible impacts of cannabis use on cognitive performance and mood.
First, cannabis users had slower response organization and
were less alert than controls. Impaired response organization suggests a possible impact on information processing. This is consistent with work suggesting that cannabis use, particularly over many years, leads to subtle neurophysiological deficits (Solowij, 1998). Lower alertness is consistent with the drugs’ well documented sedative effects (Parrott et al., 2004).

Second, cannabis users had poorer working memory than controls at the start of the week (prior to work on the first day), suggesting a ‘hangover’ type effect. This was significant for those who had used cannabis in the previous 24 h but not for those who had not (though the trend was apparent for this group too). Their performance was not statistically different from that of controls during the rest of the week. Associations with working memory deficits have been reported previously, particularly among longerterm users (Block and Ghoneim, 1993; Fletcher et al., 1996; Pope and Yurgelun-Todd, 1996; Pope et al., 2001; Bolla et al., 2002; Solowij et al., 2002).

In this study cannabis users’ generally lower alertness levels were also most evident prior to work at the start of
the week, and tended to worsen with increased frequency of use.

Impairments among heavy cannabis users have been detected
hours or even days after smoking (Pope et al., 1995; Pope and
Yurgelun-Todd, 1996; Struve et al., 1999). There is also some
evidence of significant impairment even at lower levels of consumption up to 24 h after smoking (Robbe and O’Hanlon, 1993). This may be the result of withdrawal or a residue of cannabinoids in the brain (Parrott et al., 2004).

Third, cannabis users had slower psychomotor speed than
controls but only at the end of the working week. The pattern of results across the test sessions suggested not that cannabis users became slower as the week went on, but rather that their speed did not improve as much as that of controls. In this case those who had not used cannabis in the previous 24 h differed significantly from controls and those who had did not (though the trend was apparent). They also had poorer episodic recall later in the week. Previous work has also suggested links with both memory impairment (Block and Ghoneim, 1993; Pope and Yurgelun-Todd, 1996; Dafters et al., 2004), and slower information processing particularly among longer-term users (Pope and Yurgelun-Todd, 1996; Kelleher et al., 2004).

In this study, performance on these tasks was negatively associated with duration of cannabis use. This suggests that they may result from subtle cognitive deficits arising following long-term cannabis use. These differences became apparent only later in the week, particularly after work, and this raises the possibility that they may become apparent only under certain circumstances, such as when users are tired. This is also consistent with the idea that deficits, perhaps because of subtle cognitive impairment following
prolonged cannabis use, are more apparent under heavier
cognitive load (Leavitt et al., 1992, 1993).

Alternatively, they may result from poorer learning among long-term cannabis users. This would be consistent with a detrimental effect of heavy cannabis use on the ability to learn and retain new information (Grant et al., 2003).
Cannabis use has been associated with lower educational
attainment previously (Hall and Solowij, 1998; Macleod et al.,2004). However, cross-sectional studies, such as this one, cannot determine whether this is because of poorer cognitive function prior to first use of cannabis, the effect of the social context of the cannabis use (Fergusson et al., 2003) or a direct effect of cannabis use on ability or motivation.

In this study a measure of pre-morbid IQ was used (Nelson and O’Connell, 1978). Cannabis users and controls had very similar IQ levels. However, there was a negative
correlation between IQ and frequency of cannabis use (0.35,
p0.04).

The patterns of ages of first cannabis use among respondents
meant it was not possible to consider whether this was associated with mood or cognitive performance. However, correlations between duration of cannabis use and both poorer episodic memory and slower psychomotor speed are consistent with suggestion that early onset users (before age 17) perform worse,particularly on verbal cognitive measures (Pope, 2002).

The mean age of first cannabis use of participants in this study was 16.09 years (SD1.92, range 11–21). This is close to recent figures for the UK giving a mean age of 15.5 years (Aust et al., 2002). It may be, therefore, that future cohorts will show more performance deficits, and/or that they will become more apparent as participants get older.

Self-reported lower alertness levels imply that cannabis users may be aware of some cognitive problems. However, the error diary data seem to suggest that this is not the case, at least for workplace performance. They did imply that cannabis users may find work less demanding, and that this was correlated with duration of use. This may simply reflect a generally more relaxed approach to work. Other studies’ findings, however, suggest that cannabis users subjectively report negative effects on cognition, career (Gruber et al., 2003) and memory (Rodgers et al., 2001; Gruber et al., 2003). Cannabis use has been associated with both poorer reported short-term and internally cued prospective memory, and with the use of fewer strategic memory aids(Rodgers et al., 2001).

...
Cannabis use is not a behaviour that occurs
in isolation, and the study was designed specifically to incorporate this context, and to consider the effects of cannabis use within it, controlling, where possible, for the influence of potential confounding factors. It suggests a two-fold impact of cannabis use: first a possible ‘hangover’ type effect at the start of the working week, which seems to increase with more frequent cannabis use.

Second an effect on psychomotor speed apparent at the end of the working week, which seems to increase with longer duration of cannabis use, perhaps resulting from subtle neurophysiologic deficits following prolonged use. The latter may become apparent particularly under specific circumstances, such as heavy cognitive load or fatigue, or may be the result of impaired learning. Furthermore,
the study shows that the timing of testing may be fundamental.

Certain functional changes may not be apparent unless testing
is carried out at particular times within an individual’s day to day routine. This is of particular importance when considering how cannabis (or other drug) use may affect performance and safety in the workplace or elsewhere.
Cannabis is the most widely used, and earliest first used, illicit drug in the UK (Aust et al., 2002). It is also the one most likely to be continued into adulthood. It is the third most common drug of choice in Europe behind alcohol and tobacco (Calafat et al.,1999), and is frequently used in combination with other illicit drugs and with alcohol. In a climate in which recreational drug use is increasingly part of young adult life (Parker et al., 2002) among otherwise conforming individuals (Williams and Parker, 2001), the implications of a detrimental impact of cannabis use on mood
and cognitive performance are potentially wide reaching. It is, therefore, even more important that research is carried out within
the context of peoples work, routine and everyday lives, and that it
is designed to control for the influence of potential confounders.
Furthermore, it must allow and search for the possibility that any
impact is only apparent at particular times and under particular circumstances:
cannabis use may alter cognition subtly over time and
with frequent use; it may also exacerbate or interact with other
factors to produce specific effects. This is consistent with recent
safety research suggesting that cannabis use may amplify risk
factors associated with accidents and injuries

Source

[Korimyr the Rat]

It's pretty simple.

If you're intoxicated at work, you should be fired, publically humiliated, and beaten with reeds.

If your employer attempts to regulate your behavior when you are not at work, he should be fired, publically humiliated, and beaten with reeds.

[| I, CWAS |]

If your employer attempts to regulate your behavior when you are not at work, he should be fired, publically humiliated, and beaten with reeds

I actually support an employer in this. If the employer is obligated by law to pay a minimum wage and health insurance, it makes sense that they would want to minimize costs. If the employer isn't fitting the bill for health insurance, and can fire at will, that is another issue.

[kipper]

at least you have a chance of getting thorugh a problem if you don't do drugs...marijuana people's brains are so screwed that they don't.

[George W Bush]

From experience i can tell you MJ does slow you down.

the good news is: it isnt permanent. Once you relax your intake, you'll re-orient intellectually.

Disclaimer: This is just based on my own personal experience.