[AlexandrB]

How so?

> all legalization frameworks in the US already limit legal age of purchasing possession and consumption to 21 and over, specifically as a form of seeding ground to the opposition

This plainly says that legal frameworks limit the age of consumption as a way of ceding ground to the opposition (implicitly the opposition to legalization). So I'm questioning, if there was no opposition to legalization, what would the legalization frameworks look like? Legal for anyone at any age?

Edit: To put it another way, what's the ground that has been ceded here?

[smithoc]

This seems like a lot of different people voicing different opinions and talking past each other. Roughly, I think you're jumping into the middle of a hypothetical conversation that went like this:

Person A: "It's bad that we throw people in prison for pot, and use possession of pot as a subtext under which to harass people, perform warrantless searches, etc. We should just legalize it."

Person B: "But it might be bad for children and teenagers if they get access to it"

Person A: "Okay fine, we legalize it for people over the age of 21, happy now?"

Person A could be said to have compromised or ceded-ground to person B here, even though they themselves might actually not even disagree.

[Teever]

The freedom of 18-21 year olds to consume cannabis legally and not be threatened with violence from the state for doing so.

[aaomidi]

I see. I missed that part sorry!