I'm not convinced that more academic information will benefit anyone other than the most fastidious individuals (a minority unlikely to ever participate in recreational use). The majority of use is recreational and rarely entails the kind of detailed cost benefit analysis you imply. Reading the disclaimers on modern medicines usually leaves me feeling more confused (not helped by the fact they usually list every side-effect under the sun, often mentioning opposite effects such weight gain and weight loss together).

For the typical user, the logic is usually that marijuana enhances their mood or creativity or coping ability, and that its adverse effects are relatively benign (based on informal/anecdotal knowledge from its millennia of use as a recreational substance). Decisions are also made at the margin, meaning the user rarely considers the impact beyond the immediate costs and benefits (a strong argument for taxation).

What would be useful to the majority of users is research in to how to mitigate the harmful effects to consumption (e.g. through alternatives to smoking) and through clear standards so they know what they are getting, the strength, duration, etc.