Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (6106)	3/12/2007 7:10:25 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

I'm wondering if perhaps you think being a meth addict in and of itself isn't the issue. Its whether the addiction causes neglect or harm, which wouldn't necessarily be presumed just on the basis of addiction to meth. Am I correct there? Exactly. With a meth addict it would be much harder, nearly prohibitive, probably, to provide a safe home than with an alcoholic or an epileptic, but the principle holds, which is that it's not the meth use, itself, but the endangerment of the child.