Is weed worth smoking? Is there any long term effects?

>>17762979
I enjoy it in my recreation time, where others would prefer alcohol.


There are no long term effects.

>>17762981
>there are no long term effects
this post just gave me cancer. that can be definitely proven, unlike pretty much anything "long-term" marijuana related. anyone who tells you conclusively that there are no long-term effects is either drinking the kool-aid, lying, or some combination of the two. while there are safer methods of ingesting than smoking, if you smoke it (like most people do) you are still putting massive amounts of tar into your lungs -- moreso than tobacco. COPD, emphysema, and yes, potentially lung cancer are issues.

beside that, there is a definite causal connection between marijuana use and activation of potentially latent mental disorders. it's also strongly linked to mental and emotional development delays in those under 25.

>>17762979
It's relaxing and makes mundane things more entertaining. I smoke once every week or two, if I'm just wanting to chill with some friends or something. I just don't get how people can smoke all the time and maintain responsibilities. To be fair, I feel the same way about alcohol

>>17762999
This is some Grade A Government bullshit my man.

I started smoking about 2 years ago and haven't stopped. Here's what I experience, good and bad.

PROS:
>decreases stress
>increases happiness
>decreases bodily aches and pains
>increases appetite

CONS:
>makes me lazy
>makes me forgetful
>makes me stupid
>wastes time
>hurts your lungs, unless you get an expensive vaporizer
>costly habit, the more you smoke the more you need to get high as your tolerance increases

Try it if you want. There are no real long term effects (though I'm sure the DUDE WEED LMAO crowd will argue with that) and its not physically addictive so you won't get hooked on it.

>>17763008
no, it's the result of some grade A, scientifically supported, apolitical clinical trials, """"my man"""". weed is rapidly turning into big business, a lot of people want to get their hands in the pockets of the burgeoning big green on the legal side of the fence. besides this, there is a strong political wind blowing in the favor of legalization -- naturally you are going to be soaking up a lot of strategic disinformation, especially if your only exposure is through pro-marijuana publications.

>>17763020
>I'm much more trustworthy than a pro-marijuana publication. Did I mention I need no citations in order to prove my opinion?

>>17763028
>implying if i cited anything you wouldn't try to rationalize your way out of it anyway
>implying you cited anything when you said that there are no long-term effects
the wasn't for you, however hard that might be to accept. you've already made up your mind and won't see an opposing opinion -- it's really no skin off my ass. it's for OP's benefit, who is still on the fence and is owed the opposing argument before he makes a potentially life-altering decision.

Well I don't think the weed is bad for you but smoking will fuck your shit up either way. That shit is not supposed to go into your lungs and a bong will only make it taste better not help your lung out.

But do what you gotta do but make sure you get enough of that important and tarty oxigen so your brain doesn't die.

>>17763041
I'm not going to rationalize against something that's been proven as a fact. When did I say there were no long-term effects? You do know there's more than just you and one other poster in the thread right? If I won't see an opposing opinion then why would I literally ask for facts on the opposing opinion? This is all clearly for his benefit, no one needs a reminder. Everyone knew that when they clicked on the thread. One key thing you may want to remember is that you don't know everything pal.

>>17763041
Not him. But if you have a source, cite it or there's no reason for me to take your posts seriously.

>>17763054
sorry, i just assumed that there was only one self-important internet xXx 420 WeEd WarRiOr xXx in this thread. looks like i was mistaken. then again, it is your mistake for not recognizing the scope of the discussion (which was only two posts long really, you lazy, lazy girl). long-term affects are not settled science, and if you do a little digging on your own, you will see that smoking anything is going to lead you down a nasty road. many of the chemicals in marijuana itself are benign, much like nicotine and heroin. and like cigarettes and heroin, it's the lifestyle and method of delivery associated with its use which are the primary causes of complications.

at least with THC you have no realistic potential for a lethal overdose, but it's still extremely irresponsible to proclaim its safety without qualification.

>>17763066
right, but you just take the pot advocates at their word? this is fucking laughable. if you want to learn and become educated on the subject before doing so, that's on you. if searching for "marijuana safety" leads you to safeaccessnow.org and that satisfies the extent of your deliberative process, that's on you.

no skin off my ass.

>>17763003
When it comes to being responsible, I just smoke every night around 9:00, sleep at 11:00, wake up at 7:00 just fine. Now the weekends, I'm not so responsible.

>>17763081
>but it's still extremely irresponsible to proclaim its safety without qualification.
Point out where in the thread I did that. Also point out your citations at any time, or just keep rambling and attempting self-deprecating humor. Oh you lazy, lazy girl, maybe you should do the digging in my place?

>>17763087
I nean. I'm not saying I take what they're sayin at face value at all. You're the one making that assumption and projecting onto me.

i hate that smoking weed is becoming a norm. if people cant find a way to be happy while sober, they obviously have problems. people need to stop relying on drugs.

>>17763113
>feed me information
>do my research for me
>make my decisions for me
nope! this is the board for advice. what i'm giving you is advice garnered from a pretty decent amount of time having been involved with drugs, going through recovery, and gathering independent research. i'm not going to go poring through scientific journals to find you original sources that satisfy every every aspect of what i'm saying. like the previous guy, i'm not going to expend effort justifying what i know to be objective fact.

you're proving to be entirely more difficult than is proportional to your worth.

>>17763117
the guy you are is the one sitting here refreshing every 5 minutes and waiting for someone else to literally use a search engine for you instead of looking it up yourself. that's frankly not going to happen. """""cite your sources""""" is the single most obnoxious reddit meme ever to cross 4chan. we're not a center of fucking scientific debate -- i don't continuously update a bibliography for every single statement i make on fucking 4chan. the assumption is that i say something, you figure out for yourself if it's true. if you don't want to believe me and don't want to do the research yourself, you're beyond help in the first place and are just going to go with your gut anyway.

File: 1475022409043.jpg (36KB, 640x623px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x623px

>>17762979
>Is weed worth smoking?

I'd say no. Even though people have different opinions on its effects, I seriously doubt it can be good for your body

>inb4 "it like heals cancer bro weeed"

It'll probably make you feel good at the start, but then you'll become resistant to the effects, and ultimately need to have more. Even though people say it's not addicting at all, I call bullshit. I'm sure it'll end up becoming a big part of your life if you like it at all.

I say it's not worth it because (from my experience) everyone who smokes weed becomes lazy and stupid. Rather than doing other shit, they spend the first couple of weeks just sitting in bed smoking weed, doing nothing worthwhile. And there are other avenues to be happy or feel good or relieve stress. Wanting to smoke weed to do any of that is not worth it. You'll like it at the start, but after several weeks, you'll become bored of it probably be worse off than you are right now.

But that's anecdotal evidence and just how I see it. Take it as you will.

>>17763137
>WAAHHH EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE TO LOOK UP THE BULLSHIT I SPEW ONLINE ON A SHITPOST FORMAT BECAUSE I'M TOO LAZY TO PUT IN THE FIVE SECONDS I MYSELF ADMITTED IT WOULD TAKE TO GOOGLE THE FACTS OF MY CLAIM

Redditors are the obnoxious faggots who think everyone else should suck their dick and block you if you disagree. Much more suited for you, I think.

>>17763137
You're also not a doctor, retard. If you're going to be pulling up peer reviewed articles like a doctor you should include the caveat that the health effects of marijuana are still highly debated among multiple researchers and pointing toward any one clinical trial or meta-analysis and going "HERE I KNOW THE TRUTH" is severely misleading and against the very tenants of the scientific method you claim to uphold. Any claim can be disproven... any theory is falsifiable... and drug research is some of the most divisive around, esp. considering conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies.

>>17763289
>health effects of marijuana are still highly debated among multiple researchers
the greatest irony is that i've been saying it's not settled science this entire fucking time. self-important neckbeards will latch onto anything. that said, there ARE certain facts. ie. smoking shit is bad for you. there are also studies which correlate marijuana use with mental disorders in populations predisposed to them. if that sounds like something you'd be interested in learning more about, by all means, you can consider this a formal invitation to look it the fuck up yourself.