At least what age should one be to consume cannabis?

[GHoSToKeR]

I notice the majority of the votes are either for 16, 18, or 21. I wonder; is this because people have made their own decision and just drew the same conclusions, or is it because these are the magical ages that our governments use whenever they have to restrict something?

[beachguy in thongs]

It's because most of us have already reached that age.

I, originally, put 18, but I've changed my answer to "No limits".

The worse that can happen is a child could become overly-passive.

[KenoSmoker]

I agree with Torog, thats exactly what Ive always said.

[Trychs]

I've put 18 for recreational same as alcohol which seems fair I sppose but for medical then there shouldn't be an age limit its a medicine too I reckon.

[afakeleg]

OK, actually my sis and I have been talking about this for years, it seems. We decided 21 and it should have the same type of laws alcohol has. Of course 18 seems reasonable because it's identical to smoking a cig., but a cig doesn't cause the same effects as a joint does. It causes a reaction that impaires your jugement. Must be 21 to purchase, smoke, got to coffee shops, and of course no driving while stoned. Of course many of the laws would be broken, just like drinking, but I think that this is the only type of the thing the Government would go for, if they ever do it at all... too bad we didn't have the same laws as the Netherlands. Legal pot and drinking at 16.

[potsmokersinceiwas9]

as soon as they hit puberty

[buginabassbin]

18. simply because its the age at wich you are legally an adult and can vote drink get married etc.

its not a case of being greedy or age discrimination. you have to give something for kids to do illicitly or there wouldn't be any rules to break!

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

i'd like to point out that anyone who did not choose "any age is fine" is prejudice against age groups, for whatever reason i dont give two craps.


be it "medical science" that "proves" children are underdeveloped.

be it whatever it may, it's still prejudice.

no matter how you look at it, it's still "you cant do that because of this"


"you cant be free because your black" makes as much sence as "you cant smoke (or drink) because you're under *age here*"

it's prejudice.

[sirkills]

I voted 18, but i think that it shouldnt be sold in shops - just able to grow. Of course, paraphernalia (sp?) would be sold everywhere. Then if it was legalised, cafes would have to be made legal aswell - which is only a good thing. Think about it, would you rather go out and get pissed (and probably in a fight) on a friday night or sit in a cafe with yer mates, passing round a J and having a laugh? In that respect, there would be a lot less violence on the streets aswell so the cops - useless as they are lol - could concentrate on catching the REAL criminals, not the laid back stoners that are too damn monged out to even fight back lol. Rant over.

that is the truth sounds like amsterdamn a bit..........your location says kettering...is that ohio by any chance

[Monkey4Sale]

i'd like to point out that anyone who did not choose "any age is fine" is prejudice against age groups, for whatever reason i dont give two craps.


be it "medical science" that "proves" children are underdeveloped.

be it whatever it may, it's still prejudice.

no matter how you look at it, it's still "you cant do that because of this"


"you cant be free because your black" makes as much sence as "you cant smoke (or drink) because you're under *age here*"

it's prejudice.

You aren't very bright. If you are under 18 it doesn't much matter, you can't vote. And being ageist doesn't have the same repercussions as being racist. No one hangs kids because they are kids. I don't much care what your rebuttal is, you don't really know what you are talking about.