Pubdate: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 Source: Columbia Daily Spectator (NY Edu) Copyright: 2002 Spectator Publishing Company Contact: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2125 Author: Casey Hankey Note: The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in English and creative writing. Alert: It Is Not OK To Evict Granny http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0237.html ADDICTION EQUALS EVICTION At a time when I would like to place as much faith as possible in governmental authority, I can't help but question the Supreme Court's latest ruling. Its unanimous decision in favor of a one-strike law for residents of public housing decrees that even innocent tenants can be evicted if a family member or guest is caught with drugs in or near a housing project. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is quoted in the Los Angeles Times saying that the policy serves to make all tenants aware that they can be removed if they do not prevent drug use by their family members, and that furthermore, it protects law-abiding families from crime and violence in the projects. How can parents or grandparents control their children 24 hours a day, let alone their adult acquaintances? Can we expect to see the Bush family evicted from the White House because the president can't control his own daughters' substance abuse? In order to control crime and violence, is the government also going to start evicting any family whose members get into a fight or are caught using a can of spray paint? Under this law a disabled individual could lose his home if his caregiver was caught carrying drug paraphernalia. Without prior knowledge of the situation, what control could one possibly exert? In order to effectively detect and prevent drug use by fellow family members, unyielding surveillance would be required; as this is impossible, people with families face the highest risk under this law. Astonishingly, not one judge considered the very obvious consequences of this ruling. This one-strike--or, let's face it, no-strike--law has many more victims than beneficiaries. People who had been living in the projects, obviously not doing well to begin with, will effectively become homeless and most likely contribute to an increase in crime--the opposite end of the law's intent. I recently witnessed the speech of a homeless man who announced that by giving him my change, with which he would admittedly buy crack cocaine, I "might be saving a human life." He yelled, "If I don't get what I want, I may end up killing someone tonight!" I was terrified, and I shudder to think that my government considers it wise to mass-produce that kind of desperation in its poor. Even worse off are those who would still subsist in the projects, for whom the social effects would be devastating. With this law the government demands that residents assume the role of police, and in doing so not only break sacred trusts with their children but cast a suspicious eye on their neighbors, thus forging their world on a foundation of distrust. A grandmother who would normally not think twice about taking her daughter's children under her wing now has her own livelihood to consider. Additionally, this law ignores the addictive qualities of most narcotics, which will certainly impede the efforts of many tenants who might otherwise be willing to comply. But citizens from the projects cannot afford to just up and go to detox now that there is more at stake. The risk of losing one's home does not make quitting any easier. People are forced to turn their backs rather than extend their hands to friends and family who battle addiction. In effect, normal familial connections are severed and forced to undergo scrupulous review. Of course innocent residents of the projects have the right to live in an environment free of drugs and crime. But their rights do not supercede the rights of equally innocent tenants with relations to people who are caught using drugs. Under ideal circumstances, all families should be more vigilant about controlling drug abuse among their members. But people who live in public housing do not live under ideal circumstances. Punishing innocent people for others' faults is a cruel, senseless way to make public policy. The biggest problem with drug eviction is that it ultimately targets the poor, violating a number of constitutional amendments. If I go to the park and get arrested for smoking dope, my dad is not going to lose his house. Granted, government property is subject to different rules than private property, but if owning a house makes one exempt, that is not equal protection. And it certainly doesn't take a chief justice to see that paying for a crime one didn't commit is cruel and unusual punishment. We have become so concerned with putting a foreign face on terror that we have lost sight of it within our own borders. - --- MAP posted-by: Ariel