Wow, I didn't know any doctors were required to advance their knowledge before dealing with this stuff. That's great.
Ten hours doesn't seem like much time, granted. But I'm assuming they already know how diagnose people, read patient records and medical histories, and to discern whether a person actually has a given issue or is just seeking cannabis. So, yeah, ten hours, huh? Assuming they had the IQ for a real med school instead of a diploma mill, and can read/comprehend English at a fair rate... That's doable. I mean, sure, cannabis can be useful in treating a great many ills/conditions - but each state only recognizes a scant few of them in regards to cannabis.
Much depends on what that ten hours gets spent on, though. Reading government pamphlets and listening to a politician drone? <~TS~ MAKES RUDE GESTURE> But you could get a decent handle on specific things if you're willing to look. Something like this:
Home
...would appear to be a great source of knowledge. And there are a few others around the world. Along with the usual medical periodicals (occasionally, cannabis-related articles do get published in them).
EDIT: Sorry, the above link is to the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (at the University of California, San Diego).
There really isn't a great deal of double-blind, tested against placebos, hardcore experimental research as of yet to draw from.
Some, yes - but the number, when compared to the same kind of data for most other things... would almost round to "zero." That's why specific strain/dosage information becomes problematic. It's about like head-meds for psychiatric cases, only worse (at least
they've got the result of decades' worth of doctors playing "pill roulette").