Well, no one has answered you yet, so I'll offer my opinions. To me the only negative aspect of QUALITY damascus is that it costs more. It was originally intended to offer the best of two worlds, cutting ability (including longevity of edge retention) and toughness, or resistance to breaking (ballpark explanation). Thus, high carbon steel was layered with low carbon steel, and it worked pretty much as expected. Along the way someone noticed how great the two separate layers looked when etched. This evolved into it's current primary use, which I believe is for it's appearance, via all the superb patterns available from various "artists in steel", although with the high-tech steel combinations in use, I'm sure it's cutting ability is excellent.
For a frequently used knife I'd go with the standard stainless. For a collectible, or light/occasional use knife, damascus might be a nice choice. Is it worth it? Only you can decide how important the artistic side of knives is to you. In terms of the effort put into it by the makers of damascus, I do think it's worth the extra cost. I have a bar of Devin Thomas high contrast, non-stainless, raindrop damascus on the desk beside me as I write this (part of it is in the shape of a CQC-9 blade I'm working on--keeps me happy until I get the one on order). With no heat treat (it helps to bring out the pattern), or etching on my part, it's like having a piece of art laying around--that's how good it looks to me. Can you tell I like damascus? And there's non better than Devin Thomas'.
Stainless, of course, resists rust, and the high carbon would need more attention along those lines, although the DT high carbon bar that I've had indoors for several years doesn't have a speck of rust on it. My understanding concerning appearance is that high carbon, in general, shows better pattern contrast than the all stainless types. How much difference, I'm not certain. Perhaps some of the folks that make or have both types, can tell us.