Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
I think now that use is "legal" you will start to see real data (as opposed to limited and/or extrapolated data).To be fair, we've had almost 5 decades of government-funded research, "just say no" campaigns, and a failed war on drugs telling us how bad it is while at the same time, about half of Americans admit to using it, millions use it frequently, and no one has died directly from it.
Somehow I doubt another 10 years is going to tell us something we don't know. Unless, of course, the government actually allows research on the benefits of it, and we end up learning that it could have some benefits.
As a result of the data points being more plentiful and more honest I think we'll get a better picture of the pro-s and con-s. And I think 10 years will be enough time to do so.
Again, not taking either side, only to say that currently the benefits are over-emphasized and the detriments under-emphasized. In other words, we are in the political phase of the discussion as opposed to the medical (i.e., we are not having an entirely honest conversation...). Sort of like public discussion of the three most addictive substances: nicotine, alcohol, and gambling where lots of cash/profit are at stake (so we over-emphasize the upside and seek to minimize the downside). (NOTE: with "addiction" being defined as BOTH craving AND withdrawal.)
One example of where I'm going with this line of thought: cannabis has long been touted as beneficial for sufferers of glaucoma. But "newish" research is showing that while it does help with ocular pressure there are downsides that perhaps outweigh its benefits.
--- End of line (MCP)