I am not unaware of the potential tradeoffs. You cite the most severe immuno-depressant states, notably the '96 from Transplantation, "those receiving chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer".
I am not willing to deny a patient suffering from a less agressive cancer, or for that matter, any disease whose treatment side effects might be ameliorated by ingesting marijuana in whatever form, that relief on basis of a decade-old study.
In support of my position, I point out that you cannot cite more recent references due to the governmental ban on "legitimate medical research" in this area since the mid-90's.
I would require doctors to advise patients of the hazards you point out, but leave the final decision to the informed patient.
My lack of additional and more recent study is your justification to recommend home-grown marijuana to a chemotherapy patient? Whoa! Why do I have the burden?
Where's your documentation/reports/studies/ that positively supports your position, recent or otherwise? Where are the recommendations from medical organizations such as the AMA, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Lung Association, et.al.?
Seems to me that you're pretty cavalier about recommending a drug unsupported by any major medical organization, with unknown potency, unclear drug interaction, an "as needed" dosage, smoked (no less) by a cancer patient, with no FDA approval, and self supplied with possible bacterial and fungal presence.
Oh, and I bet you want the "doctors" to have protection from potential medical marijuana malpractice suits also, huh?
Maybe you've noticed that humans are not walking on all fours anymore, and that we've gone beyond ripping up weeds and smoking them to relieve our ills. Treat marijuana as any other prescribed drug -- I don't see why it deserves special status, especially when it merely duplicates the effects of other existing FDA approved drugs and has no unique properties.