How to Learn If Your Kid is a Junkie
While burgeoning heroin use in the suburbs of Long Island is certainly something to be concerned about, one has to seriously wonder how and why the Nassau County Legislature had to enact a law to let schools and parents know that their kids were junkies. According to Newsday,
Nassau lawmakers approved a bill Monday requiring police to notify school districts about heroin arrests, and establish an Internet map on the county police department's Web site to post those charged to create a broader awareness about the highly addictive drug.
The chief sponsor of the bill, Legis. David Mejias (D-Farmingdale), said it was necessary to include the school boards because "a few of them" had refused to recognize they had a heroin problem.
However, he amended the bill to mandate "communitywide dissemination" of heroin arrests by having police create a Web site that would map arrests for possession and sale of heroin.
The theory behind this law was that schools were clueless about heroin use, and needed to be told where heroin was being sold so that they would . . . do what?
Andrew Malekoff, executive director of the North Shore Child and Family Guidance Center, testified that it was difficult for parents, and even legislators, to confront heroin abuse.
"Public support must replace secret pain, and therein lies the challenge in Natalie Ciappa's [a Suffolk County teenager who died of a heroin overdose] Law," Malekoff said. "With this law comes enormous responsibility. School officials will no longer be able to keep a straight face and say, as I have heard countless times, 'There is no drug problem in my school district.'"
Is the purpose of this law to embarrass school district in denial that they have a drug problem within their community? Certainly, school boards should engage in measures to recognize and address student drug use, teaching them to steer clear of drugs and to identify students using drugs and help them obtain treatment. But this seems an awfully heavy-handed way to accomplish this task, given that having a bunch of junkies running around a school is ordinarily viewed as a problem without requiring a public airing.
But this is Long Island, the land of denial. The school boards don't like being singled out one bit:
Jay L.T. Breakstone, vice president of the Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association, objected to having the boards included in the legislation, arguing that singling them out for notification would make them the targets of lawsuits.
And don't believe that lawsuits are the issue for second. It's about school report cards and house prices and pressure to bear on school boards to fix problems with kids that parents leave behind. Parents on Long Island do nothing wrong. None ever has. Just ask one, and he'll tell you.
This is a ridiculous law, inspired by a ridiculous situation created by a ridiculous group of people who can't manage to come to grips with their own personal reality. How many parents are so fundamentally out of touch with their children that they don't notice that junior is a junkie? Since when do school boards have the responsibility of rooting out drug dealing, arresting and prosecuting the perpetrators? And if they have this significant of a problem, hasn't everyone in the chain of responsibility already blown it big time?
It's not to suggest that the Legislature is being disingenuous in trying to do what it can to deal with a problem that schools are apparently ignoring or denying. However, this hardly seems like an effective to do so, and it remains unclear what the Legislature thinks the school districts are supposed to do about it, other than sit there red-faced.
On the other hand, there's no mention of how this law will impact those arrested for drug sales, following up on Nassau County's "Wall of Shame" of those arrested (but not yet convicted) of DWI. Will these maps only show locations of alleged drug sales (such as Joe Smith's living room) or will the information include the identities of arrested but presumed innocent "drug dealers." It's a shame that the prime sponsor of this law, David Mejias isn't a lawyer, aware of the constitutional issues raised by these dubious efforts to rid Long Island of teenage junkies. Oh wait. he is. Never mind.
And, for the record, Newsday supports this law, because children are good and heroin is bad. Some very deep thinking went into this one.
Possibly the most shocking part of this is that the law is triggered by arrests and not convictions.
It is only a matter of time before this law is dumped. Reminds me of Megan's law on (forgive the pun) crack.
Reply to this
Maybe it has something to do with the relatively recent SCOTUS cases that have relaxed probable cause into reasonable suspicion for searches of students, and permitted drug testing of students that participate in any extracurricular activities. Another way to sidestep the Fourth Amendment and judge people with popular opinion rather than established judicial procedures.
Reply to this
Dear Scott:
I testified in favor of the law before the Nassau County Legislature, to address issues of concern regarding liability on the county and school district (short answer: there is none).I spoke as a trial attorney and law professor. I also spoke as the founder of The Law Squad a program which presents attorneys, judges, cops and DAs to Long Island schools. Heroin use is up over 30% on Long Island and when kids snort it instead of injecting it, it is much harder to tell if your kid is on it. The purpose of the law is to heighten awareness because parents and school districts want to hide their heads in the sand. Having police keep stats on this and report it to the school district forces superintendents and principals to face the issue. What forced this in to law was that when a child recently overdosed on heroin after snorting some at a party, it was learned that many months earlier there were several arrests in the area of teens sellling and using heroin. If the girl's parents had known this or if the school had been made aware of this, steps may have been taken to prevent this girl's death. This girl by the way, exhibited no signs of being on heroin - she was still beautiful, had a 113 average and was captain of the cheerleading squad. Her parents were very involved but believed her sleepiness and nodding off was due to her overworked schedule. The names of the individuals will not be given to the schools until there is a conviction or never if the convicted person is YO or JO eligible. David Mejias is in fact a practicing lawyer doing personal injury and divorce. Much time was taken to try to come up with some legislation to makea difference. The law isn't perfect but it does not raise the concerns you address in your post and at least its a step in the right direction.
Reply to this
Oscar,
I'm sure you meant well, but this is fundamentally misguided. Your entire rationale is irrelevant to the law, which makes no sense whatsoever. Of course school districts have no liability, and if they had competent counsel that would have been clear from the outset. But we don't pass laws that serve no cognizable purpose and which, by definition, carry unintended harmful consequences, such as the identification of locations, which by definition relate to a person, where alleged sale occurred. These will identify people who have not been convicted of anything. How to you ignore that this attack on presumptively innocent people?
You offer only one purpose for this law, to "heighten awareness" by school district and parents. This isn't a purpose for a law. This is slogan for a poster. As for your effort to suggest that no one knows that their kids are heroin users, you've been fed a load. They don't if they don't want to; and if they don't want to, this bill does nothing to make them want to.
This law is absurd. I'm sure you meant well, but it's a horrible, ridiculous bill, and no saintly description of a young girl makes a bad law any better, and frankly suggests that if you can't sell the law on its merits and need to throw in the saintly heroin using dead girl for the sympathy vote, you know that there is no legitimate rational for this absurd law.
Reply to this
Thanks Oscar!
Excerpts of testimony on Natalie's Law by Andrew Malekoff
…My heart goes out to Natalie’s family and to the growing number of families on Long Island that are grieving the loss of their children to heroin addiction. Having worked in the addictions field for almost four decades, there are a few simple truths that I have learned. One is that drug addiction is a disease that destroys families. Another is that it doesn’t have to.
Those that are afflicted with heroin addiction and their families have been stigmatized by an unforgiving society that view addiction, not as an illness, but as the consequence of a moral failing, lack of will power or poor parenting. Although progress has been made in dispelling these damaging myths, I am afraid that we still have a very long way to go.
Most people with physical illnesses are the beneficiaries of widespread understanding, sympathy and support. Not so with addiction.
Addiction is most often suffered secretly in families, only deepening the shame and pain for all that care for an addicted child. Public support must replace secret pain; and therein lays the challenge in Natalie Ciappa’s Law.
With this law comes enormous responsibility. School officials will no longer be able to keep a straight face and say, as I have heard countless times, “There is no drug problem in my school district.” Which leads me to two questions?
1. Will the passing of this law bring with it dialogue and collaboration among community stakeholders that will ensure that notification of arrest information will cause no further damage to suffering families?
2. Will the passing of this law serve to protect and prevent others from criminal activity, and also help young people and families to gain timely access to the help that they need?
The answer to these questions is, it depends.
It depends what school district leadership does with notification. I assure you that it will not be easy. But nothing worth fighting for ever is.
Natalie’s Ciappa’s Law will shake up the status quo and create dilemmas and concerns among school officials, family members and others. Sometimes, especially when young lives are at stake - which is why we are here this morning - it is worth taking the risk to shake things up to motivate change.
Beyond notification, I hope that the law that bears Natalie’s name will serve to remind all parents that Natalie was not a bad girl. She was a beautiful young woman that was loved by her family and that suffered from an insidious and unforgiving disease. In addition to the good that it can do, passing this law is a step towards publicly restoring Natalie’s good name and the dignity that she was denied near the end of her life. Your yes vote can grant that.
Finally, it is my hope that Natalie’s legacy will be an important step forward in the ongoing march to ensure that all of our children are healthy and safe.
Andrew Malekoff, is CEO, N. Shore Child and Family Guidance Center
Reply to this
Ordinarily, a comment like yours would be deleted, since this isn't your soap box. In this case, however, I've decided to leave it up because it offers an opportunity to make a point. While many of the sentiments you express sound wonderful, it's an example of why warm and fuzzy sentiments, utterly devoid of substance, makes for bad law.
Arrests will be made at people's houses, which will then be listed as locations of drug dealing. These addresses will be identified with people, and these people have not been convicted of anything. You fail to recognize that innocent people can be irreparably harmed in their community by this law. This harm means nothing to you. So let's consider all the good this will do.
You offer some vague and inexplicable thing that's supposed to happen when schools are confronted with the fact that they have a drug problem. An address within the school district is identified as location of a drug arrest? So what? What does a drug sale within a school district prove? It doesn't identify which teenagers are heroin addicts, but locations where arrests were made for the sale of heroin. Are you contending that heroin addicts can't buy their drugs outside of the school district? It means nothing. It proves nothing. It shows nothing.
Even if this "message" you believe is sent, what are the schools to do? Hold another "just say no" assembly?
So the point of this is to prove you're right and they're wrong? To embarrass them? That's it? Do you plan for force them to put extra emphasis on "don't do heroin" in their health class? What is the substantive goal? You have none.
What change are you trying to "motivate"? More words, no answers. And by the way, all lives are worthy, not just the young, but it still means nothing if laws don't accomplish a substantive goal. Laws don't enforce fuzzy rhetoric.
So you urge passage of a law, put presumptively innocent people at risk, waste taxpayer money, because you want to remind people that Natalie Ciappi was a nice girl? That's idiotic. Should we pass a law for every nice child?
This is why family counselors should stick to family counseling and stay away from law. All these words, and their warm, fuzzy and utterly meaningless rhetoric amounts to an equally meaningless law, which has plenty of potential to cause harm and, at its very best, serves no purpose whatsoever except to promote warm, fuzzy and meaningless thoughts.
Put up a sign on the outside of your office about what a nice girl Natalie was if you like. Throw a party in her honor. Name a scholarship after her, Perhaps you can call it the Ciappa Scholarship for Heroin Addicts. But you've offered no basis for this ridiculous and dangerous law.
Reply to this
Thanks for taking the time and commenting in such a spirited manner SHG. I believe, as I stated in my testimony, that this law brings with it enormous responsibility. You speak to that very clearly. Your rebuttal of my testimony repeatedly uses terms such as "warm and fuzzy" and refers to my rhetoric as filled with "meaningless thoughts" and you state re Natalie that maybe we should "throw a party in her honor" instead of pass a law in her name. Why is your rhetoric dripping with sarcasm and posed in such an insulting manner? There are important points that you make that should be a part of the ongoing debate, but I think that they are obscured by presenting them in such a degrading manner. You state in reaction to my comments,
"So you urge passage of a law, put presumptively innocent people at risk, waste taxpayer money, because you want to remind people that Natalie Ciappi was a nice girl?" If you re-read what I said, I did not urge passage of the law for this purpose, I simply commented in the end, that I hoped the law in her name might have the added affect of restoring Natalie Ciappa the dignity that she was denied at the very end of her life. Your reaction to this is taken out of context of the entirety of my testimony. Perhaps you can respond to the two questions posed in my testimony and tell me if you think it completely inconceivable that either question can be answered affirmatively. “Will the passing of this law bring with it dialogue and collaboration among community stakeholders that will ensure that notification of arrest information will cause no further damage to suffering families?
Will the passing of this law serve to protect and prevent others from criminal activity, and also help young people and families to gain timely access to the help that they need?” I am not intimating that a "Just Say No" assembly, as you quip, is the answer. Of course it is not. My testimony was not intended to support a law to embarrass schools or anyone else, as you suggest is my intent. I did not think that giving testimony before the legislature within the three minute time frame I was allotted, required that I map out a plan for how school districts should respond. If the answer is a "Just Say No Assembly" or "a don't do heroin" class," as you kiddingly remark, then there will be no gain. If, however, schools work more closely with families of identified students to get them the help that they need and quickly, I believe strongly that lives will be saved and families preserved. These are not empty words, but real actions - school and families working as partners to get students access to the treatment they need and fast. These are real actions that can be taken, that families are not often able to take themselves, and before it is too late. Finally, I think your argument gets lost in the offensive manner in which it is framed. You are right I am not an attorney. I do not have your rhetorical skill. But I am grateful the exchange. Thank you.
Reply to this
Andrew,
I've identified a specific fault with this law, that it will identify by address/location people who are charged, but not convicted, with any crime. These are presumably innocent people. That they will not be named will not keep their identities secret from their friends, neighbors and others. In addition, all laws suffer from unintended consequences, and this is particularly true of bad laws.
My reaction to this law drips with sarcasm because neither you nor Oscar have propounded a single logical nexus between this law and any legitimate purpose. Laws are not enacted to create "dialogue and collaboration among community stakeholders." That's the language of counselors, not legislators. It is devoid of legal meaning or consequence. Worse still, it's irrational. There is no logical connection between the public posting of addresses where drug arrests occur and (1) identification of individuals who suffer from drug addiction, and (2) school districts providing affirmative help to these specifically identified individuals.
Let's try to explain this in painful detail, since your use of subjective language allows you to fudge logic to arrive at a qualitative conclusion.
1. An arrest is made for drug dealing.
2. The arrest occurs at a specific location.
3. The location is provided to the school board covering the location.
4. The location is posted on the internet so others can identify the location where the arrest is made.
From this, you arrive at the conclusions that:
1. No one will know who is involved, since only locations (addresses) are listed, not names of individuals.
2. That, assuming that the presumably innocent person arrested in fact sold drugs, he/she sold them to a student.
3. That the student who purchased the drugs is a student of the school district wherein the location is situated.
4. That, if the student in fact is within the school district where the location is situated, this will enlighten the school board that it has a drug problem.
5. That this will magically inform the school board of which student within the district has a drug problem.
6. That the school board will then do something (though you have yet to suggest what) to address this student's drug problem.
So on your side of the equation, the dots simply don't connect under any logical approach. It was my hope that we would be able to see this without it being spelled out in excruciating detail, but obviously this is necessary.
As to your second question, "Will the passing of this law serve to protect and prevent others from criminal activity, and also help young people and families to gain timely access to the help that they need," the answer is painfully no. This law has nothing to do with this. We already have very harsh laws to criminalize drug dealing, as well as drug possession. They are enforced by police, who are charged with rooting out and arresting the people who sell drugs. Notifying a school board or the public after an arrest bears no connection to this. It is simply irrational to connect things that lack any nexus whatsoever.
It is deeply disturbing when intelligent people resort to irrational, emotional, subjective arguments, and it engenders ridicule. You are a counselor, and work in a world where subjective rhetoric suffices. This isn't about "feelings", but about the harm laws like this do in the name of good feelings. Where will you be when some kid is murdered by the parent of a dead heroin addicted teenager, after his address is wrongfully posted on the internet, who blames the kid for the death? He's a real person too. Will you be satisfied when some innocent kid is killed because of this law? Would you feel better if I gave you 50 examples of what could go wrong with this law, while absolutely no substantive benefit was achieved?
You may well "believe" with all your heart and soul. Other people believe that the government is shooting gamma rays at their heads with equal fervor (and wear aluminum foil to protect themselves), It doesn't make it so. Sorry, but bad, irrational law doesn't get any better when you wrap it up in a pretty ribbon.
Reply to this
I don't see the pretty ribbon in any of this. Natalie Ciappa is dead; she is not a musing born of "subjective rhetoric," whereas your prediction about the murders to come are. So all I can say then is welcome to my world. ps. Battling aside, you sound like a good lawyer who puts up a good fight for his clients.
Reply to this
Wrapping up a law in the name of Natalie Ciappa is ploy to sympathy. I, as you, am deeply saddened whenever someone dies needlessly. But using her memory to push a law would have done nothing to help her is disingenuous. As for predicting the impact of a law, that's how laws are crafted. I realize that you aren't a lawyer, and are unfamiliar with the means by which laws are vetted, but we try to determine the unintended harm that laws could cause before they are enacted rather than take the affirmative act of passing a law and waiting for people to be harmed by it. We then compare the potential benefit of the law with the potential harm, assuming that harm can't be eliminated through better drafting and forethought, and determine whether the benefit of the law is suffciently significant to justify its potential harm.
This law poses substantial potential for harm and essentially no substantive benefit. That's why it's a bad law. As for the goal of starting a dialogue on the subject of drug abuse within schools, no law is needed to accomplish that purpose. That would be better accomplished by advocate pursuing public discussion of the problem, starting with Natalie Ciappa's death.
Reply to this
I do try to be fair, even though when I hear somebody launch into do it for the children my first guess is poltroon, then fool, and not something along the lines hey, well, since we probably didn't have a law against throwing babies in a blender, I'm glad somebody's seen to that problem.
But here's a prediction: a year or two from now, nobody will be pointing to a drop in heroin usage in Nassau County that can be in any way attributable to this new law; nor will the stigma around drug addiction have been lessened. If anything, by making people arrested for buying heroin wear a big H in public more prominently drawing attention to the names of people arrested for heroin offenses, it will have increased the stigma.
Reply to this
I feel like I've had the "why invoking the death of a child doesn't make it a good law" discussion about a million times. In fairness to Andrew, he isn't a lawyer and lacks the tools to see why there is no logical flow from this law to the goals he hopes to acheive, such as they are.
Just wait until they start screaming when teenage buyers are arrested with sellers and named as drug dealers (how long to a new Wall of Shame goes up on Newsday). Andrew's never had to deal with the law of unintended consequences, but now that he's gotten involved in lawmaking, he'll find out. Next time, he'll think things through a whole lot harder.
Reply to this
Boy, This is a tough website. I have never been called poltroon before! And I don't even know what it is, so I had to look it up and found the following:
Main Entry: poltroon
Part of Speech: noun
Synonyms: chicken, coward, craven, dastard, milksop, varlet, weakling, yellowbelly
Milksop? Varlet? Anyway, thanks for the legal education and to the other respondent, thanks for the new words. And, I know somewhere down the road I am sure to also receive an "I told you so." Finally, as I think I will end my remarks with this one, I thank for the educational back-and-forth. You guys are tough hombres! Good health for the New Year.
Reply to this
You've done an admirable job of advocating your position. And for what it's worth, I do not think you're a miksop at all. It's more reflection of the nature of the argument, as it's one we hear all the time in criminal law, and we tend to have a very negative reaction to it and have experience many bad things happen because of it. Many bad laws are passed under cover of dead children, when the laws have little or nothing to do with the root of the problem and merely conceal bad law by scaring off people who might point out the obvious under the guise of disrespect for the child.
One parting thought. Now that the Lege has passed this bad law that will fail to accomplish any legitimate purpose, this precludes them from spending the time and effort necessary to come up with a good, viable law that is well designed to achieve your intended goal.
Thanks for coming by, and zei gesundt to you as well.
Reply to this
From the poltroon: Now that I had a chance to take the ride home from work and unwind a bit and get a second wind, I looked back over this blog process with trial attorneys that I have been a part of since early this morning and I have determined that there is still a little more fight in me. I must say though that it feels sometimes like the bloggers here would like to rip out my heart and eat it. All kidding aside though, I don't mind actually; it is quite interesting to be the "warm and fuzzy" creature in this pool of trial attorneys. I wonder if you see me as prey, only a poltroon (I love that word) or is it just my imagination? Anyway, jdog, I think that you raise some very important issues, especially regarding stigma. But first, on the issue of will this law reduce heroin use. I never thought that to begin with. Will it create more leverage for kids using heroin, and other drugs, and their families to get the help they need. I hope so. That is an outcome I would be interested in seeing. As for stigma, this is just a part of why addiction tends to be kept as a family secret that remains hidden and prevents families from seeking assistance - the shame. If it is exposed through public notification and all it becomes is another Wall of Shame, which I am opposed to, then I would have to agree with you jdog. If however, there is a serious effort by schools to work effectively with families and treatment facilities (and there are many good ones on Long Island and in the metro area besides my agency, with various levels of intensity depending upon the level of need)then there could be a real benefit. The argument that we don't need a law to do this is valid. However, if there are schools that have their heads in the sand, and if families do as well, because it is the nature of the disease that it is kept hidden by loved ones, then maybe exposure will activate a process in which a young person and their family can get the help they need. I do not think that simply because this law has passed that that will happen. What I do know is something more is needed than what currently exists. In sum, will the new law reduce heroin use? Probably not. Will it increase rather than reduce stigma? It could. Will more kids who are addicted or on the road to heroin and other drug addiction, and their families (don't forget that this is a family disease; I won't elaborate on that here, but the literature is clear on that)get the help that they need? I think yes. Will this happen in a seamless manner, from law to practice? No. Was the law worth passing? Yes. Could it have been stronger, better? Probably. Who will see to that? Hopefully some of the very smart people that I have met on this blog will make it their business to fight for a stronger law. I hope to testify on your behalf when that happens. Good evening all.
Reply to this
What's in this for the North Shore Child and Family Guidance Center, "the pre-eminent children’s outpatient mental health agency on Long Island"?
Reply to this
I believe that Andrew is sincerely dedicated to the welfare of kids who become engaged in drug abuse, and wants to slap some school boards upside the head to get them to realize that they have a problem and need to be part of the solution rather than hide their heads in the sand. I don't attribute any improper motive here. Good intentions, bad law.
Reply to this
Well, one good way to evaluate most situations is to follow the Woodward and Bernstein approach summed up in the admonition to "follow the money" As a parent in Nassau County I don't see how this new law will serve any real purpose although it clearly will allow the legislators to promote themselves as being "tough on drugs". My main point though is that once the school districts are given this information, it will be expected that they "do" something and there really isn't anything they can do other than tell the suspected drug users that they shouldn't be doing drugs.....ah, but wait!!! come to think of it there is something they can do, they can refer the student and the student's family to some sort of agency, one that specializes in helping people combat drug abuse. I wonder if there is such an agency in Nassau County?
Zie Gezundt? is that Fukanese for Gezunterheit? Ich veys nischt
Reply to this
I've no doubt that our fine legislators will make much of their role in passing this historic law that will save our children from heroin. No need to discuss that any further. You could be correct in the money trail, but I'm trying not to be too cynical about this one.
Andrew? Any thoughts on the subject?
Reply to this
Since you asked, I do understand the cynicism and assertions regarding questionable motives. The truth, in this situation, is that how one might benefit by this law financially did not occur to me until I just read the recent blogs. I cannot speak for anyone else’s motives. But, as for me, it is up to you whether you wish to give me the benefit of the doubt.
Reply to this
Speaking for both myself and everybody else in the world who agrees with me on this: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It's a bad law, and a bad idea, but people put forth both of those without having a pecuniary motive.
Reply to this
Thank you Jdog. It is a pleasure doing business with you, er..ah, I mean having conversation with you.
Reply to this
This law, and this whole situation in general, frustrates me to no end. I knew Natalie, and was friends with many of the people who got arrested over the last year. The way the media [and the whole county] has misinformed and handled this story is mind-boggling. Why is it that none of this came about until a pretty, young girl died? And why is she looked upon as an innocent, tragic case, when every other heroin user is considered "evil"? COME ON. This girl was no angel. And she wasn't sniffing her dope. She was shooting it. And did they mention that she was also drinking and doing xanax that night? [Which could have easily been the culprits in her death.] No.
And I'm sick of them dragging her ex-boyfriend "the evil dealer" into this.. it's nobody's fault but their own when they choose to do drugs, and Natalie of ALL people would never have blamed him. And honestly, I think she'd be horrified at what her death has brought about. Sending notices to schools and announcing heroin arrests?? As if people with drug problems are on the same level as sex offenders? What are the schools going to do? They're still gonna push it under the rug and look the other way, because the more arrests occur in their district, the worse they'll "look" to everyone else. This law is nothing but bullshit, something they pushed to make it look like they have control over the situation. How about pushing for more treatment programs? More drug education? Helping, rather than judging and ostracizing, people whose crimes could be no more than they had a shitty life, and ended up on drugs.
Heroin is not the devil. Not all drug addicts are evil, immoral people. This stereotype needs to be thrown out before it continues to do more harm than good. If these 88 people who got arrested during this heroin operation are "bad" people who should be punished, then Natalie is just the same. I'm sorry to say it, she was a nice girl and I don't like what happened to her more than the next person, but I don't understand what people think makes her different from all the other junkies. If she hadn't died, she probably would have been arrested, too. I'm sorry for the rant, but it's been building up in me lately. I just wish people would go about these things in a proactive way, rather than judging and punishing. What good has that ever done anyone? Help the people who need help, and keep in mind that "bad" drugs do not equal bad people.
Reply to this