Interestingly, the article points to "medical marijuana" as the big hurdle to overcome if regulation of recreational cannabis use can succeed. Naturally it lea

Interestingly, the article points to "medical marijuana" as the big hurdle to overcome if regulation of recreational cannabis use can succeed. Naturally it leads to questions about exactly what ailments is marijuana known to be a remedy for? A quick review of the cannabis literature shows potential therapeutic utility for cannabis-derived compounds, particularly in conditions like depression, psychosis and anxiety. So far, it's all "promising" and no conclusions have emerged. IOW, definite indications are not established. Risks of adverse effects are not delineated but must be known in order to prescribe responsibly. In addition, lack of product standardization makes safe use murky. Living here in Oregon where medical marijuana has been available for a long time, the therapeutic boundaries appear practically nonexistent. It means with very little effort just about anyone can get the "card". Indeed, most users need not bother since it's easily available and laws are seldom enforced. Of course, "decriminalization" was the reason the recent Oregon ballot measure passed with a wide majority. A good idea, but it calls into question the merit of enshrining cannabis as a "drug" when its credentials as a therapeutic agent are still in doubt. I'd advocate phasing out "medical marijuana", and those who believe it is effective can easily purchase it from licensed outlets, just like any other user. That's not different than many drugs sold without prescription, like analgesics, gastric acid-reducers, etc. BTW, many OTC drugs are not particularly cheap, but because they are OTC insurance won't cover the costs. Exactly parallel to buying marijuana retail even if some people might argue it's for a medicinal use.