I suppose it's the same with all prescriptions where the doctor has to figure it out, but without the additional risk of them OD'ing on opiates.
Personally I would rather someone cook their braincells on pot and still be able to hold down a mediocre job than turn into a full-on batu zombie.
What we know for certain is that besides the recreational market there are extensive medical benefits and probably more will be revealed soon now that extensive testing has been permitted.
I would hate to see a cancer patient be forced to choose between quality of life that Rick Simpson Oil provides vs being able to defend themselves from a home invasion.
You're describing the exact scenario that state and local governments used when passing MEDICAL marijuana laws, as opposed to the more recent recreational laws.
IF someone has a diagnosed chronic ailment, and IF the use of cannabis can be documented as having a measurable impact on quality of life as it relates to their condition, then medical cards get issued. What the card doesn't specify is whether the patient is a responsible person who makes efforts to avoid driving, operating heavy machinery, firearms, or any other high risk activity while "medicating."
The issue is no different than using alcohol. Use impairs good judgement, meaning sober, you might never do what you would when high.
Just like narcotic prescriptions, you can't guarantee the patient won't pop their necessary pain relievers and then go for a drive past a few elementary schools.
I don't see any of these debates as being different from one another. By recognizing the societal problems that come from alcohol, we passed Prohibition. Later, we saw crime increase as people refused to abide by prohibition, so it was repealed.
You can't legislate morality, and what we are debating are moral issues. Should we have the right as a government to prohibit one intoxicant over another? If alcohol is legal -- one of the biggest factors in murders, rapes, assaults, divorces, on the job problems, and so on -- then why isn't pot or any other intoxicant legal? It's a bit contradictory.
Either we try to control the recreational use of all intoxicants, or we have to allow at least the most benign if them to be legal. Cherry picking alcohol and now pot -- but only in narrow circumstances -- just shows that the same arguments that apply to illegal drugs today also applied to alcohol under the 18th amendment from 1920-1933.
Vice crimes -- drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. -- are all one big pot (pun intended) of morality questions. Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one? Or is there a responsible and enforceable way to allow exceptions for the minority while still restricting access for all others? The War on Drugs suggests prohibition against any form of intoxicant is a losing battle.