This is a pretty weak article, and (from what I can make out), a pretty weak study too. Obviously, there's the usual concern about sample sizes (30 people does

This is a pretty weak article, and (from what I can make out), a pretty weak study too. Obviously, there's the usual concern about sample sizes (30 people does not a scientific study make), but this study is also self-selected (i.e. survey respondents chose whether to take part or not - obviously a considerable source of bias), and even more worryingly, it appears that the "study" in question is simply a survey where participants report changes in their own use of prescription drugs. So not only are there very few participants in the study - but they're also self-selected, and so are their answers. This is anecdata at its finest and really shouldn't be in a peer-reviewed journal. (P.S. the journal article itself isn't linked on the Chicago Tribune's website at all...). I really think there is genuine medical potential to be discovered from cannabis and exploited for the greater good - but our enthusiasm to access these potential benefits should not get in the way of doing good science. This sort of badly-executed study just cheapens genuine efforts to do sensible research into its medical value.