Because I don't know anyone under 40 that doesn't. Are these numbers adjusted for suspected liars?

I think it would hinge on how regularly they are smoking. Almost everyone I know has smoked it sometime in the past, but not that many smoke regularly.

I'm 23 and don't smoke. Neither does my wife. Or our friends. Or our siblings.

Seiko:

I'm 23 and don't smoke. Neither does my wife. Or our friends. Or our siblings.

I smoked pot on a daily basis for almost 20 years, and I'm pretty sure my mother and father would have said I don't smoke dope, too. There are lots of things going on behind closed doors.

No doubt those are highly conservative stats, given the stigma attached. Those who partake can be exceedingly discreet about it.

DecaturJeff:

Because I don't know anyone under 40 that doesn't. Are these numbers adjusted for suspected liars?

You have an unusual circle of friends -- well, perhaps not if you hang around with other potheads, but I'd say most people do NOT smoke pot.

I'm a professional 30 something and I just polled my office... 100% of the people polled smoke pot. Sure, we live in California, but people who are convinced that MOST people do smoke pot because THEY do not spoke pot are living in fantasy land.

I don't think "most" people smoke pot. But I do believe it is a considerably higher number than 23 million. And in terms of our society's overall level of intoxication, it isn't useful to ignore the many millions who self-medicate with booze and prescription painkillers. We carve out the pot smokers as a separate category, as if they are somehow different than the people who get loaded in bars every weekday happy hour. The truth is the most of the country is buzzed most of the time.

Some reasons there might be fewer pot smokers than you think:

A lot of people have jobs with random drug testing, or are looking for jobs and want to be able to pass any pre-employment drug test. And don't give people any shit about not working for that kind of company - most don't really have a lot of jobs to choose from right now.

And then there are those of us that pot doesn't affect very much, or who have bad experiences with pot. For me, it's seriously not worth the lung pain for me for something that I can barely feel, and also not worth the lost job opportunities.

A lot of people have jobs with random drug testing, or are looking for jobs and want to be able to pass any pre-employment drug test. And don't give people any shit about not working for that kind of company - most don't really have a lot of jobs to choose from right now.

There are many jobs that require drug screening, but there are many that don't. I've always found it strange, and quite unfair, that most of the jobs that require drug testing are those that pay the least, including jobs that aren't particularly dangerous.

It takes 30 days for a chronic smoker to clear his system of cannabinoids...but a casual user can clear his sytem out in just a few days(this does not include hair follicle testing, obviously). Vigorous and regular exercise can speed up that process. Point being, if you want to keep people from getting high, drug screening is not 100% effective.

But I'm curious to know what legalization would do to those drug policies. Would it change anything?

BritBailey:

There are many jobs that require drug screening, but there are many that don't. I've always found it strange, and quite unfair, that most of the jobs that require drug testing are those that pay the least, including jobs that aren't particularly dangerous.

I've had the opposite experience. My company doesn't have any regimented drug testing policies but we often have clients who require it from out staff as a condition of our contracts. It's typically the more lucrative projects that require it -- coal, gas, Army Corps, etc. They typically drug test everyone, regardless of how involved an individual may be on a given project. We do environmental work but I suspect they're even more stringent for their actual employees than they are w/ contracted firms.

Bummer. ;)

KB01:

BritBailey:

There are many jobs that require drug screening, but there are many that don't. I've always found it strange, and quite unfair, that most of the jobs that require drug testing are those that pay the least, including jobs that aren't particularly dangerous.

I've had the opposite experience. My company doesn't have any regimented drug testing policies but we often have clients who require it from out staff as a condition of our contracts. It's typically the more lucrative projects that require it -- coal, gas, Army Corps, etc. They typically drug test everyone, regardless of how involved an individual may be on a given project. We do environmental work but I suspect they're even more stringent for their actual employees than they are w/ contracted firms.

I know there are exceptions. A good friend of mine is a contracts manager for a gas company. It is a management position that is about as dangerous as any other job that requires sitting at a desk for hours on end, yet he also had to take a drug test. But there are many, many jobs that require no drug testing. I've always assumed insurance had just about everything to do with who requires it and who doesn't.

I'm 23 and don't smoke. Neither does my wife. Or our friends. Or our siblings.

Seriously? How boring.

I'm a 28 year old with an MBA who works in the energy sector in Texas and votes mostly Republican...and I'm definitely claiming that I don't smoke pot.

(I am also unfamiliar with the degree to which keystroke tracking software is used at my company)