Our country decided to devastate the Black and Latino/a communities in 1986 and 1988 with the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts. Len Bias had a heart attack that many attributed to his crack cocaine use, and people were scared to death about how quickly AIDS was spreading via drug users. Our legislators decided to get tough on the “war on drugs.” Their economically irrational solutions have probably been the most devastating intentional or unintentional forces the Black or Latino/a communities have faced in a century.

I don't want inspire others to turn this thread into a debate about our "war on drugs," and I know this Community already knows the details.

I doubt we will get a similar "get tough on drugs" policy for the drugs that are used mostly by White teens. If we were to crack down (no pun intended) on OxyContin, Meth, X, and others like we did on crack cocaine, then prosecutors and the power players in the prison industry would grow even stronger; however, they would have to put their own kids in jail and devastate a generation of Whites in order to do it.

And, one of the outcomes of this devastation, and the new negative stereotypes for Whites that would accompany it, would certainly be some serious negative impacts on achievement.

The sympathy demonstrated on NPR did not surprise me.

Excellent, Dorothy! Thank you for this. Your analysis is right on.

" Is it possible that the hugely disproportionate placement of black children in juvenile detention and foster care – and the stereotypes that go along with it – contribute to the “achievement gap?”"

Yes it most certainly does contribute to that gap. One thing it doesn't do however is to excuse bad parenting and poor attitudes.

This article rightly points out the differential and preferential treatment of rich and upper-middle class drug offenders. What it does not do persuasively is to rebuke those that wish to challenge the status quo from inside the African-American community.

I wish I could say that, at a policy level, I cared as much about White rich and upper-middle class kids as much as I do about poor, working and middle class African-American kids, but I don't.

Unfortunately there is no new information here. White kids doing druga nd commiting crimes is not a revelation...at least to those of us who grew up around them. Maybe this is not the case for those who have spent their lives in a "black bubble". Thankfully these drug addicts/criminals have the good sense to keep their exploits out of the streets9and easy reach of the cops).

I know that this type of perspective is unwelcomed in these parts. But I think to fix "us' we have to focus on "us"...not them! Unfortunately, like addicts, you have to admit you have a problem before you can solve it. Until then, we'll just have to hold on while others continue to varify that white people over and over, while making no real progress.

oops....should have said..Until then, we'll just have to hold on while others continue to varify that white people are bad over and over, while making no real progress."

One other point as well, to the first commentor who implied that there aren't any "get tough" policies with drugs such as X and Meth, you are mistaken.

There is now, and has been for some time, an ever expanding emphasis on other drugs, especially Meth. There are all types of articles, tv exposes, and policy pronouncements covering this emphasis.

All one needs to do is go to any drug store and see that Meth is indeed a priority by trying to buy certain cold and sinus medications.

We don't need exaggerations and assumptions. Drug policy is draconian everywhere.

"One other point as well, to the first commentor who implied that there aren't any "get tough" policies with drugs such as X and Meth, you are mistaken."
—usuallyalurker

I didn't imply there aren’t any “get tough” policies with those drugs. That is, at worst, a gross misrepresentation of my point, and, at best, a very uncharitable interpretation of my words. I don't see how you could have pulled that implication/conclusion out logically. I try to disambiguate my comments before I submit them.

I was referring to mandatory minimum sentences and the length of time that these minimum sentences have been in play when I spoke of devastation, of course. These sentences do take time to work their “get tough” magic. I'm unaware of anything with respect to the drugs I mentioned that is equally tough.

However, if the sentencing guidelines for the drugs I referenced are now as tough as they have been for crack cocaine since the 1980’s, then please do post information about what you have read or some links. I'd like to learn more.

Can we stop asking rhetorical questions and sounding like weasels?

What is being advocated?

Loosening drug enforcement on minorities or tightening drug enforcement on the wealthy? Or is there something else bothering the NPR, and other people?

Can we then have the courtesy of justification of that position? Can we assume I am a high school grad on a jury? Can we explain the position in plain, ordinary language? Can we use data from this, our world, and not use the usual lawyer supernatural doctrines from 1300 AD?

Or is it the purpose to expose the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the lawyer run government?

Or is it that some people are dissatisfied with this country?

Or is it that some would feel more comfortable moving to Canada?

Or is it that some people are partisan Democrats who want to deride and replace the Republican management of government to redistribute wealth to the lawyer?

Or is it that the party in power makes no difference to the public, since only criminal cult enterprise interests will prevail, no matter what the party?

Or is it that blind bias will never be influenced by empirical data?

Is it possible that the relentless, repetitive asking of rhetorical questions with obviously biased correct answers are just attempts to make points without exposing the poser to valid criticism, since he can reply, I was just asking?

Is it possible that the lawyer blogging has signed a hold harmless clause with the blog provider? Is it possible that is really dumb? Is it possible that asking a question is a shield against libel?

Is it possible that the Socratic method is contagion from a bunch of law school prof slackers having 1L's teach the class instead of actually doing the work to prepare a class for students that have borrowed massive amounts of money to sit there, and are paying more than $100 a ticket to each class?

Is it possible that if I were a law student I would demand the teacher immediately stop asking questions and using the Socratic method, or I would sue the school and the teacher for the $100 refund in small claims court, seek to enjoin the school into forcing the teacher to start doing his job and performing the terms of the contract with the student, whether express or implied?

Is it possible I am starting to annoy even myself with these biased, insubstantial, weasel, repetive, rhetorical questions?

I also listened to this same NPR news piece yesterday and you're right on point Ms Roberts. The tenor of the feature was so well crafted that halfway through it, I actually began to feel sorry for that kid Ryan and the other kids profiled.

Reminded me of the movie Traffic about the US Drug Czar's daughter that became a junkie. I also agree with Usuallyalurker. That the only real difference between "white" drugs and the accompanying crime and those ills typically associated with black folk is purely socioeconomic. If you have money, it's cocaine, oxycontin and whatever it is that Rush Limbraugh is addicted to. If you're poor, it's crack and sharing a hit of heroine. Needles and all.

I believe it was Hitler who said that no one asks the victor if he told the truth. I think it goes without saying that in this socioeconomic war that's has been ongoing in this country for centuries, white american continues to give us a resounding thrashing. So if they choose to use THEIR media outlets to depict us as criminals, droputs and addicts and themselves as cops, intellectuals and doctors, we are powerless to stop them. Case and point, this NPR report that was all but missing the violins.

It's not what things are, it's what they're perceived to be that matters. Crack = illicit drug, crime and destitution. Cocaine = recreatonal drug, a victimless crime involving corporate VPs blowing off steam.

The problem is that perception drives policy; policy drives laws and laws drive up the mandatory sentencing minimums for crack which in turn explains why 65% of AA behind bars today, are behind bars today.

My purpose was not to fix attention on white teens, but on the state-supported institutions (the media, the juvenile justice system, foster care) that unjustly and affirmatively interfere with black children’s and parents’ efforts to achieve success in America. I agree that black communities should work collectively to improve our status, but that has to include exposing and challenging systemic practices that target our children for failure while privileging white children. Our Apartheid prison, juvenile justice, and foster care systems promote the myth, perpetuated in the media, that black people are more prone to criminality and irresponsible parenting and that blame these traits for persistent racial inequities. Sometimes showing people that the very interpretation of these offenses is racially biased helps to shatter that myth. It is just one piece of a multifaceted struggle to change these systems that are presently devastating black families and communities and impairing black people’s own attempts to make “real progress.”

It is settled for 40 years, blacks do not have a higher rate of antisocial personality nor the child version, conduct disorder. That has been repeatedly the finding in study after huge study using state of the art design. Nor do they have an increased biologic risk of addiction.

That means all disparities are not biology based, are cultural, and are the total responsibility of normal people not following the rules. Plus, that hostile, unfriendly attitude. Have a nice day.

This is partly from an environment of lawlessness. The latter can be changed overnight.

In lawless Vietnam, more than a third of soldiers used illegal drugs. Upon return here, the rate immediately dropped to the age matched expected rate, about a tenth, with little or no treatment, just fear of going to jail.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12873239&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

The disparity is real, not over dramatization by the media.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm#race

The disparity with the community's being misled by lawyer scam artists, talking them into thinking they will get something without working for it. Then the lawyer hobbled law enforcement. Poor communities do not have enough police protection. You lawyers have called them a colonial army and relentlessly sued them. Please, note that black victims have had the greatest benefit of the high incarceration rate of black criminals, and that may account for better economic progress.

Why don't you address the resulting mass murder disparity of young males that completely dwarfs the total of historic lynchings by 2 orders of magnitude?

She has me repeatedly asking questions? It's freakin' contagious.

Those decisions that state that the police has no duty to the individual make no sense and are unjust, if corporations have duties to individuals. Start by advocating for reversal of those bonehead decisions by the CCE geniuses on the SC.

"I doubt we will get a similar "get tough on drugs" policy for the drugs that are used mostly by White teens. If we were to crack down (no pun intended) on OxyContin, Meth, X, and others like we did on crack cocaine..."

This comment, within the context of the discussion, does imply that you did not see the policy on those drugs as "get tough" policies, while you did with the crack cocaine policy.

By refrencing the enforcement policy of those other drugs as something different in scope, from that of crack, I think it is entirely rational and logical to draw the conclusion that I reached.

You now claim to have been referencing mandatory sentences, but curiously those words do not appear anywhere in your original comment. Had you reached that level of specificity on a narrow point about mandatory minimums, I would have agreed with you.

However, you didn't, and I took your comment to be more generalized as to policy and commented thusly.I must say that though that I view policy as much broader then sentencing handed out to those convicted of offenses, perhaps you do not.

So my comments are not a misrepresentation of your comment as it was originally worded.

For the record, I have no issue with the other points you raised in either of your comments, just the point that I raised.

Prof. Roberts: Any disparity in the treatment of rich white kids and poor black kids for the same level of depravity is best explained by ...? No. Not racism.

Here is a hint. What happened to Cory Erving, the kid of Dr. J, the rich black kid after repeated brushes with the law, and a struggle of 5 years with illegal drug use? He drowned. He would be alive if held accountable, and sent to jail when he should have been.

What happens if a rich kid gets held accountable by the law?

Correct. He gets a slick lawyer who really wants to be in his job to maintain the Gulfstream fleet. And this land pirate is not doing the black or white rich kid any favor by getting him off the hook of accountability.

Before casting stones at the media, at apartheid, at all the other unproven allegations and self-serving lawyer myths flying in this PC motherlode website, look in the mirror. The lawyer is the proximate cause of all racial disparities in all areas in which you care to discuss real world data, and not the standard, Hate America, PC fairy tales.

The lawyer seeks the rent, Cory Erving dies.

Prof. Roberts,

I concur that our criminal justice system is a system of "Apartheid". I have always believed that it is the modern equivalent of the plantation system of the Old South.

I also agree that Whites are perceived, and thus, treated differently than African-Americans. I just would argue that this is nothing new and fails to bring much in terms of solutions.

I reacted strongly to your comment...
" Some commentators on this blog are fond of blaming the poor parenting skills of black adults and bad attitudes of black children for their failure to achieve.....", because the use of the word "fond", was a very cheap shot.

In essence what you said was, anyone who argues that parenting skills and attitudinal dispositions should be part of finding solutions, is not just wrong, but finds pleasure in raising those points.

While I do not agree that state institutions such as CPS, or foster care, unjustly carryout their duties, I would never say that you assign this blame with fondness of motivation. Perhaps you do, but it adds nothing to the discussion to make such a gratuitous assertion.

That said, I have no problem removing a child from an enviornment of drugs. Notice I didn't qualify "child". Doesn't matter to me if we're talking crack or anyother drug. The general policy of removing kids from enviornments that are dangerous is a good policy as is punishing kids..all kids..who break the law. Perhaps you do not think so?

This response is for usuallyalurker, other readers may desire to skip it, as it is not germane to Professor Roberts’ post topic

usuallyalurker:

I did assume that most readers of my first post would be very familiar with the details of the very well known 1986 and 1988 Anti-Drug Acts I referenced and their impact. These acts are most important because of the mandatory minimum sentences and the Office of National Drug Control and Policy (ONDCP). Additionally, recall that I made reference to prosecutors and players in the prison industry growing stronger. Why would they grow stronger? Mandatory minimums transfer the power to decide the fates of convicted drug offenders to prosecutors and away from judges, primarily via plea deals. And, we have more than doubled the amount of money spent on prisons since 1986 thanks largely to mandatory minimums for convicted drug offenders, thereby making those who build and manage prisons more powerful. If we were as tough on sentencing convicted drug offenders for Meth, X, and Oxycontin as we are on convicted crack offenders, then there would probably be another huge wave of drug-related cases prosecutors could control and there would be even more prisons built. I assumed most readers, especially those who would comment on my comment, would have picked up on these clues. I thought the clues were so obvious in fact, that I assumed the phrase “mandatory minimums” would have been a waste of space.

I stay well informed about our drug policies and laws, and I don’t know about current federal policies or laws for Meth, X, or Oxycontin, that are similar or equal in severity to the mandatory minimums for those convicted of possessing five grams of crack cocaine. In fact, a recent push to establish tough federal mandatory minimums for Meth failed last month.

“One other point as well, to the first commentor who implied that there aren’t any “get tough” policies with drugs such as X and Meth, you are mistaken.”

You’ll find no sentence in my first post that makes the absolute claim that you stated I implied in the above quote. “Any” is a strong word. And, I didn’t use it. I didn’t write that there aren’t ”any,” “some,” or “none.” I used no quantifiers whatsoever concerning the number of “get tough policies” for the abovementioned drugs. The best you should have been able to pull from:

“I doubt we will get a similar “get tough on drugs” policy for the drugs that are used mostly by White teens. If we were to crack down (no pun intended) on OxyContin, Meth, X, and others like we did on crack cocaine...”

should have been that I was doubtful that the anti-Meth, anti-X, or anti-Oxycontin policies or laws would ever be “as tough as” the current anti-crack policies or laws.

I agree, your comment was not a gross misrepresentation. It was based on an incorrect interpretation. I think you just missed the clues for mandatory minimums. Perhaps they were weak clues. Even so, your comment was a very uncharitable interpretation, and perhaps you should have read my words more closely. Maybe you could have done more to understand why I wrote what I wrote in the first paragraph. Nonetheless, I could have written my thoughts even less ambiguously had I not assumed the level of familiarity with the 1986 and 1988 acts that I assumed.

I now take full blame for the mix up.

I am in juvenile court almost daily. More than 70% of the teens there face Controlled Dangerous Substance (drug) charges. I watch judges, prosecutors, public defenders, social workers, and parents fight to save the lives of children, primarily male African-American and Latino. No one attends court with the purpose of damning children. Rather states, lawyers, judges, social workers and parents want to save the children. I see it daily.

I know that the system is not perfect but most people who work in juvenile justice are sympathetic with an eye to help not hurt. Probation officers that check schools and neighborhoods tend to be African-American and Latino men and women. They all want the children to succeed. Many of these civil servants come from the same communities as the youths. Therefore, the system which is made up of people often from similar backgrounds is not as draconian as hostile as some might suggest. Some may say that these workers do not write the legislation that deals harshly with Black children but in practice young people are not held or sent away unless and until they engage in repeat behavior during the time of their probation.

I have noticed that young people fail to go home after school and stay out too late. Most of the boys I see on a daily basis were picked up at 11pm or later on a weeknight!!! These boys are often as young as 13 and 14 years old. Such behavior places them at risk to come in contact with drug culture and dealers. Parents must be mindful of this ugly reality and insist that their children come home. Further adding to the problem of children is the reality that the juvenile system as harsh as many think it to be pales in comparison to the adult system, thus adult dealers actively recruit teens especially impressionable boys who want to be cool to sell drugs. Perhaps raising the penalities against adults who recruit kids to sell drugs will deter the behavior. I don't know.

Nonetheless, the solution is to get children off the streets. Children need to get from school to the custody of a responsible adult as soon as possible especially the teenagers!!! Maybe parents should be ticketed for child neglect for failing to supervise their children after 9pm. My point is that children do not need to be on the streets unsupervised or dropped-off at the local mall to hang-out all night.

Also, parents should not let their children bring clothes, shoes, and other items into their homes that they did not buy. Too many people turn a blind eye to the expensive sneakers, gold, videogames, etc. that they cannot afford to purchase. If parents did not allow such items in their homes, kids would not have the same incentive to earn vast amounts of money with little work.

P.S. Please note that I said parents (race neutral).

Mr. Ricardo, Sir: We appreciate your public service. Whichever side you serve, you are actually working, in contrast to the cud chewers and CCE inductors elsewhere.

Obviously, we cannot jail these totally irresponsible parents. What can be done is to criticize, correct, and supervise them. The lawyer calls that racist, sues the police, and seeks to crush any accountability for these selfish, immature and sybaritic orgiasts. The lawyer destroys the American family, then innocently wonders why children are starting their criminal careers so young. Then he has the gall to blame groups that have nothing to do with the behavior you are witnessing. 11 year old girls roaming the streets, unsupervised at Midnight is the fault of racism. That sound right to you? It is plain stupid, except it is not. It is slick lawyer job creation. Even verbal criticism is grounds for torts, according to the rent seeking land pirate. Try directly criticizing these girls, you will be listed as a child abuser and lose your license and livelihood. "Stop acting like a cheap whore. Take a break. Try doing some homework for a change of pace," that's emotional abuse.

Thank a lawyer. The client is above verbal criticism.

Prof. Hopkins,

Yes, I should have reserached the 1986 and 1988 Anti-Drug Acts. As I said above, other than that, I agreed with the thrust of your comment.

I still believe that there is more to drug policy than sentencing. If the point is that the sentences received are vastly disparte, then that is true.

However, especially when it comes to Met and Oxy-Contin, those of us in the South, and Midwest, know that there has been an increasing emphasis on Meth and Oxy-Contin.The gang activity involved in Meth and Oxy-Contin is also said by officials to be increasing.

Drug enforcement officials will now tell you that the number 1 priority is Meth. Many will also tell you that Meth is more addictive than crack, and far harder to control due to the ambulatory nature of Meth labs. Those labs also present a danger unique to Meth in their flamability.

I have a brother who is a resident in a emergency room and he has commented on any number of occassions that hospitals have been beseiged by a wave of Meth overdoses.

Physicans and drug counselors will also tell you that Meth(and Oxy-Contin), have the highest of relaspe rates.

In the gay community, Meth use is said to be the primary factor in the increase of STD's, particularly HIV, due to stimulation of the sex drive and lowering of inhibitions which often leads Meth users to engage in unprotected sex.

If you look at rural America, there is plenty of evidence that the authorities are "getting tough". There are plenty of tales of little old ladies selling their Oxy-Contin pills in order to make money.

Again, perhaps it is a matter of where one lives, or chooses to place emphasis. I can tell you that in the South, one cannot say with any degree of credulity,that there aren't "get tough" policies directed toward Meth and Oxy-Contin.

Perhaps also, the major shift in emphasis is taking place primarily at the state and local level.

Again, thank you for pointing out my failure to reserach tose particular laws.

Caleb

Caleb:

We are on the same page. I agree with your analysis in your most recent post. I thank you for providing that valuable information.

And, I care deeply about how drugs, less-than-stellar governing, lack of moral education, and lack of quality economic and educational opportunities—things I think feed off one another—are crippling people who could lead happier and more productive lives, and their communities.

Meth is particularly destructive.

BTW: I'm no professor. I'm just a rare Black male T7 law school applicant and Order of the Coif aspirant.

Caleb (if I may):

Perhaps "fond" was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean to suggest that some commentators take delight in blaming black parents and children, just that they seem to prefer these explanations to more systemic ones. My purpose was to bring attention to the institutional biases that judge bad behavior differentially, according to race (and class), and that interfere with individual and collective efforts to improve black people's status and well being. Policies that place children in juvenile detention/prison and foster care not only disproportionately affect black communities, but there is mounting evidence that they affirmatively harm these communities. If it's so helpful to remove newborns from substance-abusing mothers, for example, why is this policy applied almost exclusively to black babies in many cities? (One study found that black women were 10 times more likely to be reported for substance abuse during pregnancy, though they had slightly lower rates of drug use than the white women in the study; other studies have found that babies develop better if they remain with their mothers and their mothers receive drug treatment.) If you're interested in more information on this(with lots of citations of studies), see my book, Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare, on foster care; ch. 4 of my book, Killing the Black Body, on criminalizing prenatal drug use; and my article, “The Social and Moral Cost of Mass Incarceration in African American Communities,” 56 Stanford Law Review 1271-1305 (2004).

Ed: yes, we are on the same page. I guess I just added an additional paragraph for Meth.

Good luck with your pursuit of law school and academic excellence. Sounds as if you have things planned out and that is good because many in law school haven't thought that deeply about their future.

Prof. Roberts: Thank you for the additional information and resources.

Again, I think the only difference between our perspectives is that I see reason for outrage in the bad/neglectful/abusive/drug-addicted parents.

I just don't have the stomach to say that because of racism, questionable prosecutorial discretion, etc.., that children should remain in horrible enviornments.

We both want the same thing I believe, we just have different bottom lines. Yours stops at institutional racism, while mine extends further into the familial enviornment.

Caleb

Caleb,

My bottom line doesn't stop at institutional racism; the familial environment is also citical, but has to be linked to institutional racism. What I was trying to show is that the state's response to familial environment is racially biased and injures families. Removing children from "horrible environments" and placing them in foster care/juvenile detention often causes more harm than alternative ways of correcting the horrible environment, and this harm is visited disproportionately on black families. My work in child welfare is directed at changing policies and institutions so that black children have a better chance of growing up in healthy environments.

Prof. Roberts,

Ok, how about instead of "bottom line", we substitute primary area of emphasis?We differ on our points of emphasis.

Perhaps this is a good thing. It is good to have some of us who emphasize and work to change those outside the African-American community, and the rest of us who want to ephasize and change within the community.

Let's hope that there can be a productive balance.

Caleb, I think we've reached agreement!

Can we then have the courtesy of justification of that position? Can we assume I am a high school grad on a jury? Can we explain the position in plain, ordinary language?

This argument, as well as those above about minimum sentences and the friendliness of juvenile court miss a critical point -- often these white kids never see a court house. They have non-legal intervention from counsellors, parents, teachers, etc. to help them "get back on their feet" and so forth, rather than being expected to "pay a debt to society" and get the record before shaping up. Part of it may be a visceral privileging of prescription drugs (not dangerous to have in the house) over "street drugs" (danger! someone must pay!), as well as the bias that goes with presuming that the rich kid starts as a contributing member of society and can thus be returned to that state with care (as opposed to the poor kid who may well be good for nothing). Race, class, and all sorts of other expectations get involved long before anybody is even thinking about jail versus being grounded . . .

First-time visitor to this site (bookmarking it).

Being white and having grown up in the same posh neighborhood where the "Traffic" movie segments about the drug czar were filmed, I can attest to the great ability of old white moneyed families to deal with children's criminal drug offenses and avoid records. There seems to be this assumption by the judicial system that these kids will of course do better in rehab than in juvie - and yes, ALL kids will most likely do better in rehab, but rehab is only available for those who can pay the hefty fees. There is also an assumption that moneyed white parents can keep their kids in line post-rehab (not necessarily true, naturally). The third assumption by the judicial system is that these kids will steal only from their families (who can afford to overlook such theft) and will not engage in violent crime, therefore it really isn't the court's problem. What with backlogs, that might be a reasonable assumption for the short term, though it does provide a hint as to the origins of Enron "ethics".

All kids are prone to screwing up as part of the learning process, and if violence or criminal neglect or large scale dealing is not involved, multiple (3?) "free passes" of court appearance, followed by mandatory community service, ought to be available to all kids, along with whatever counselling/ 12-step groups/ drug-alternative activities are needed. Instead we have the race and class-based system allowing rich white kids to make way too many mistakes without consequences and condemning poor black kids on a single nonviolent drug offense.

splashed.Thimbu stopping injuring prizers encountering abhorrer

instill?laborious.gild!Missy:mussel fertilizes ...

loyalties!buses planetary Schapiro?few?elide Grossman giggle?

antibiotics overland irreproducibility Winfield utopian askew aboveboard whaling

antibiotics overland irreproducibility Winfield utopian askew aboveboard whaling

martial convincer seditious deportment,coequal interface.Israel:

suite avionics!exemplifier handcuffing overcame activates....

backstage botanists Lynchburg.cakes.petitioning?glint?Kirkland gimmicks

belly,fend dog appropriations proscription ...

emigrant befitting stepson clamored,dented faithfully

emigrant befitting stepson clamored,dented faithfully

Are you sure 74408 about this?!?

jonny

amateur fucking housewives amateur teen blow job

naked curly redheads sexy redheads

naked curly redheads sexy redheads

naked curly redheads sexy redheads

latin pussy free movies hot latin guys

latin pussy free movies hot latin guys

incest chat, incest forums incest tales

incest chat, incest forums incest tales

january 5 1994 duke university girl sex with dog on video man dog sex male

january 5 1994 duke university girl sex with dog on video man dog sex male

ionolsen20 Your home page its greatwww_4_2
www_4_3
www_4_4
www_4_5
www_4_6
www_4_7
www_4_8
www_4_9
www_4_10
www_4_11

Nice site. Thanks:
shemales pics

Nice site. Thanks:
shemales pics