That’s the question raised in this Hit and Run post by Jacob Sullum.
These developments, while a boon to patients, will pose a challenge to the drug policy reform movement, which has gotten a lot of mileage out of the federal government’s cruel, know-nothing intransigence on the issue of medical marijuana. Once legal, equally effective aternatives to marijuana are readily available, reformers will be forced to switch their focus back to recreational use (which is, after all, the main form of marijuana consumption), seemingly confirming the accusation that all their talk about the drug’s medical virtues was just a cover. And having emphasized the sympathetic claims of suffering patients for so long, they will be in a weak position to argue that people shouldn’t need a special excuse to smoke pot.
I’m not sure I agree, but it’s an interesting question. What do you think?