Re: the requirement that the state *provide* an education

In article <vaur84p9ve6ion5o7p8jebca0879k313kb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Nan says...
>
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT), Beliavsky
><beliavsky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>If parents are using illegal drugs but are not directly involving the
>>child in their activities (for example by having the child take drugs
>>or buy the drugs), I am uncomfortable with calling in the police
>>because of what a child says or because of his/her appearance.
>
>Why am I not surprised you'd say this....
>

In my county we had a family of five, both parents and three elementary
and
junior high school aged boys, murdered one night in their home and their
house
burned down as a cover.  The culprits, who were both recently convicted,
were
drug dealers who had constant business with the father, who was also a
dealer.

Their parents were proud, we were told later by associates, that they
"kept
their kids out of" their drug dealing by only doing deals after their
bedtimes,
etc.

So these boys were not directly involved in the drug dealing.  Would you
say
that were *affected*??!?

Banty