in his and Champoux’s care while consuming and consumed by the drug, that is sufficient to support his conviction. It is one crime to possess methamphetamine; it is another crime to use methamphetamine and then try to supervise one’s children or leave one’s children in the care of an addict. The defense would have it that only when the child has meth in her system does a parent expose the child to a danger or a hazard. The particular circumstances of this case, buttressed by expert testimony regarding the affects of meth addiction and its concomitant dangers, also fit within the statute’s prohibitions. The effects of meth are felt long after the last hit has left the body. The trail of danger left by meth is often profound. See State v. Bulington, 802 N.E.2d 485, 440 (Ind.2004) (<HOLDING>). A parent in this state is a danger, to which
holding that a statute is certainly not so plainly unconstitutional that the failure of the trial court  to hold it so can be regarded as a plain error or a culpable neglect of judicial duty internal citation omitted holding that a defendants unlawful use of a controlled substance need not be simultaneous with the actual crime involving the firearm as long as it occurs during the time period charged as part of the indictment  citation omitted holding that an alien  must show that he is at particular riskthat his predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by his fellow citizens  citation omitted recognizing that dismissal is warranted only in extreme cases citation omitted recognizing the dangers methamphetamine use poses  including neglect by adults on a long cheap high citation omitted