@Poptart Of course they aren't. My point isn't that meth addicts make great parents. What I'm trying to say is that our current laws around this sort of thing make little sense, and we should be very careful to understand that all laws represent us giving the government permission to use violence to remedy a given situation. Whether or not a given law enforcement officer actually uses violence or not the threat is *always* implicit in the enforcement. A law against theft means that force by a law enforcement officer against a thief is permitted. That force may be channeled appropriately (non-lethally/proportionate to the offense) or inappropriately (they just shoot the poor guy), but in all cases it is force. I think we should grant permission to use such force in as few places as possible. I think the default state of human society ought to be that we agree not to use force on each other and exceptions to that need to be proven and considered long and hard before we grant them. Sorry if I came off a bit combative, but my issue with your statement was not that I disagree in essence with the use of certain drugs in front of children being reason enough to take action. I just get a little jumpy with how often "think of the children" gets used as an excuse to give the state authority over things it really shouldn't have authority over