Depends on what one means by the term "a problem" because technically, if even a single 8-year old is smoking pot, it could be called "a problem". (Just a teeny little one for society as a whole.)
And, since this whole sub-discussion arose after BB posted an article describing how 2 kiddies smoked pot and then he seemed to take some liberties with inaccurate language by asking the misleading question, "Would this become more prevalent with legalization?" (NOT "Would this become prevalent with legalization?"), I find it hard to want to come down on Jack T. for any of his own language shenanigans.
That being said, I now gather that maybe Jack has some history of trolling you and SS4U so I'm going to say "ooops!" and see my way out of this discussion without further comment. 
lol nah, its just a typical tactic of Jack. He often dodges, defects or misdirects when pressed. Its more tedious than trolling. Jack's alright, he's a good guy. I don't consider Jack a troller. He's just tragically flawed in many of his conclusions.
Like i said to Jack, show me some hard data or research on Children smoking pot 200 years ago and i will give him credit. I am sure some 8 year old kid smoked pot in the world 200 years ago, but was it so often and so many kids that it was a problem as defined the way would see it today? Where, for example, there was school complaining that their students were smoking too much pot? See we have to kind put this in perspective. Another example, i am sure there was someone some place 200 years ago who tortured a squirrel. Is it accurate to say there was a problem 200 years with children torturing squirrels?
Until then, my A + B = C CT'er logical fallacy still stands.
