I started smoking weed in College. Since then, I've developed a habit of smoking almost daily. Not all day, but usually a few tokes from a vape at the end of the night.
When people ask, I usually reflect that weed has been a very positive addition in my life.
I became VP of Eng. for a well known software company within 3 years of graduating. We did a lot of things right and the company eventually exited with unicorn status. I then left, bootstrapped my own startup w/ a small team, and after 2 years were acquired by a major software company which cemented financial independence. These days, I spent most of my time doing advisory/consulting/investing roles.
I achieved all of this within 10 years after graduating, AND essentially consuming weed daily(usually took breaks when traveling, etc.).
For me, it helps me with relaxing as well as creative thinking. The way I describe it is that it removes mental filters and allows you to appreciate something in a new way (that "mind blown" feeling). Sometimes the insights can be superficial, but sometimes they are not.
Nowadays, I am generally pretty open about my use when people ask. What I've found is that it is a lot more common then I used to think. So many founders, executives and otherwise "smart" people use it frequently for mostly the same reasons. I'd have never guessed.
For anyone who might be interested, I'd suggest reading Carl Sagan's essay on it in which he talks about his experiences and insights while high. He actually wrote it under a pseudonym (Mr. X) but revealed his identity through a friend after he passed. http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/
This is also just my own opinion - but from my own experience what I've found is that people tend to want to blame someone (or something) else for their problems in life. And generally, marijuana is a pretty good scapegoat to point a finger at.
Many people don't seem to have the same respect for self medication, however. I personally think trying alternative treatment options, be it drug based or experience based, is always a better option than slavishly following your doctor who himself is often slavishly following some established medical dogma du jour or his own financial incentives. That is not to say that standard medication is not effective in some or many cases, moreso that there are very many people who think they "need their medicine" because a doctor or psychiatrist has diagnosed them with something that is at best an educated guess (with high error margin) along a multidimensional space of possible psychological profiles that we don't fully understand. My point is that by breaking down psychological issues into various abstract "disorders", it makes questioning a Prozac users choices tantamount to begrudging a diabetic for taking his insulin.
Disclosure: I smoke more than most.
When I was an adolescent I was diagnosed with ADD after a few days of examination, and was recommended adderall, which my pareents thankfully refused.
My mom told her GP she had trouble focusing and was prescribed adderall pretty much willy nilly.
I know quite a few people who are perpetually on SSRIs for anxiety or depression, yes it works as a palliative measure for some but I do question both the long term efficacy, if the magnitude of the side effect and dependence risks are understated, and most importantly whether or not the patients worked hard at all of the endogenous variables relating to their lifestyle to optimize for happiness before slavishly accepting their diagnosis.
I don't like that the conspiracy nut / tinfoil hat / anti science pejorative gets thrown around so easily as an argument ender in discussions like this. It is most definitely NOT scientific how these diagnoses are done, it's heuristic based, it's based on observed models and patterns, obviously, since we barely have slightest idea about how our brain is working under the hood / how it differs among individuals / what leads to long term convalescence.
So, for some people, diet, exercise, getting out of unproductive or toxic relationships/jobs, can help, for others, they need the boost of an SSRI or something to get out of the bog, etc. but I definitely suspect that very many people are prematurely getting pushed to the latter option without fully exploring the former, as was the case with my mother and I (except with focus issues instead of depression, though i suspect they're related)
Think of the parent commenter -- Say he went to a doctor or a psychiatrist with his issues. How much time do you think they would spend with him before getting to the point of prescribing him something to take care of his issues. Maybe 10 hours max? Probably more like 2 or 3? Often times less? Whereas he is obviously a thoughtful, intelligent, and diligent person who has probably spent years responsibly experimenting on what works for him and found that it is marijuana. Yet that would never even be an option for the docs to prescribe to him. So if he were to slavishly follow what you deem as "science", he would be stuck in the paradigm that he needs an SSRI or benzo or whatever it may be. Whereas by being anti-scientific, and self-medicating, he's here telling us how happy/successful he is.
Another more prominent example would be the opioid crisis.
When we consistently see that studies are designed poorly (in many cases by selecting poor metrics, think self-assessed productivity on adderall or amortizing results of SSRIs over multiple severity levels of depression) and mechanisms are poorly understood, what do you think that it is?
Science is in many cases filled with perverse incentives that only complicate this relationship -- do you want citations, a popular publication, tenure, influence on policy decisions? Does your hypothesis align with the ideas which are popular enough to get funding?
The fact of the matter is that science is political, psychiatry is in its infancy, and results are not great in a lot of cases. We treat everything like we couldn't possibly be developing our generations' version of phrenology and it's hubris.