Not universally. Even bad parents — and speaking as a parent, no parent is perfect — can have advantages in dealing with their own kids. A lot of what we experience on an emotional level as kids comes from our genes. A biological parent has valuable insight into what a toddler-age child is experiencing.

It's not just a matter of how things might go badly if you take kids away from parents. Things will go badly. Kids need their parents. This is a reality that foster parents have to deal with all the time. In some cases, whatever the parents were doing was sufficiently bad that it's worth it, and the kid will…

But is that how taking a kid away from its parents generally goes? By the math, I would say that the odds of the child suffering serious harm by being taken away from its parents is far greater than the likelihood that the child will suffer serious harm from a bong toke.

I guess I just look at it as an hierarchy of wrongs. Giving a toddler a bong toke is wrong because it's bad for the kid, right? But taking a kid away from its parents is also wrong on the same grounds, and is probably a worse offense. I mean, that's the point, right? You said that what matters is how the kid's…

My problem with that is, you have to think about things from the kid's point of view. Sure, there are times when separating children from their parents is necessary, but it has to be taken more seriously than that.

That is not a meaningful request.

Like letting (or making) them play football? That is so much more dangerous than marijuana — people actually die playing football all the time. If they don't die, there are all kinds of crippling injuries they could sustain, including brain damage.

Not necessarily okay. But also not necessarily worth taking someone's kids away from them.

True in a scientific sense. But scientific evidence isn't worth much on an individual basis. Anecdotal evidence is legit in a discussion, I think. It's not something to base policy on, I'll grant you.

But how would you make it harder?

The statement regarding IQ is legit in this context. Being exposed to weed as a child seems very unlikely to reduce intelligence or cause brain damage, given the number of really intelligent people I know (I bet we all know a bunch) that were exposed to lots of marijuana as children.

Depends on the drug. Something like crack, I'd say that one time would be sufficient to step between parents and kids. Something like alcohol, I'd say that repeated large doses would rise to that level — but if Catholics wants to give their kids communion wine, I'd have no problem with it and I think our society is…

No doubt there are cases out there where children should have been removed from their parents, and they weren't. But just given the information I have here, I can't jump on the bandwagon.

I think the danger of drugs, which is very real, is nevertheless exaggerated greatly in our society. Especially marijuana. What real harm is this kid going to suffer, here? Until someone can explain how this child is going to suffer genuine ill effects — and I don't think anyone can — then it's just not a big…

I totally agree that it's stupid and wrong. Just not quite stupid and wrong enough for to feel like the parents should be separated from their child. It sounds to me as though the punishment is greater than the crime.

So I take it that you would take someone's kid away for this? I'm sure your interest is in protecting a child, which is perfectly laudable, but I think that forcibly separating parents from their children is more serious business than its given credit for.

While I don't condone what they did, this sounds like a huge overreaction. It's not like this toddler is going to suffer lasting harm from a bong toke. You wouldn't take somebody's kid away from them for a beer. Well, some of you might, I guess, but I think it would be total foolishness to do so, and this even…

Who's Adam Levine?

What about women that don't clean? Or, when they do clean, they do so badly? Also assholes?