# Your family member used drugs, so it's living on the streets for you **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 26, 2002, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205 "2002-03-26T17:27:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/1 "2002-03-26T17:27:19Z")
Or that what the SCOTUS has decided, unanimously. The case at issue was a lawsuit brought by four elderly Bay Area public housing residents. They were evicted because family members who shared their public housing apartments were involved with drugs. I didn’t hear whether the drug offenders were users, or dealers, or gangsta hit men. and I don’t really care, because this is one case where I don’t think it matters, because punishment is falling on the brothers and mothers and fathers and uncles of the offenders, like some Biblical plague. What kind of fucking hysteria is this when poor old people are put out on the street because someone else used drugs? A roommate or family member could get convicted of assault, theft, or drunk driving, and nobody would get evicted. But somebody smoke one joint (correct me if the relevant law doesn not include pot), and out they go. The drug activity doesn’t even have to occur on the premises, for fuck’s sake. I’m ashamed for my country and my people. ---
**Author:** ![auntie\_em](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@auntie\_em](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/auntie_em)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/2 "2002-03-26T17:44:52Z")
Zoinks! Got a link for that story? I’d like to know more. ---
**Author:** ![belladonna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@belladonna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/belladonna)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/3 "2002-03-26T17:46:00Z")
Well, here’s the [story](http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/26/scotus.evictions.ap/index.html) on the Supreme Court’s ruling, it includes this gem… > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the California tenants, including 63-year-old Pearlie Rucker, whose mentally disabled daughter was caught with cocaine three blocks from the apartment she shared with her mother and other family members. And yes, [Pot does count.](http://www.hightimes.com/News/2001_01/USCOURT.html) Disgusting all around. bella ---
**Author:** ![CRorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CRorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CRorex)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/4 "2002-03-26T18:11:50Z")
I was under the impression that with federally subsidized public housing you had to agree with certain ground rules to live there. Much like with any apartment. One of the conditions was your residency could be revoked if any tenant was caught with drugs in their possession. Ya know… a contract… The government is helping to pay for the cost of your living space… you abide by their rules… ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/5 "2002-03-26T18:47:42Z")
I like this part espcially (from Belladonna’s cite): > [@](#): > > The four had been permitted to remain in their OHA apartments during the three years of legal skirmishes. Pearlie Rucker, 67, was evicted after her mentally disabled daughter was caught with cocaine three or four blocks away from Rucker’s unit. Rucker regularly searched their apartment but found no evidence of drugs She actually tried to take positive steps against here daughter’s drug use, but it made no difference. We who look on this with dismay do not need **CRorex’s** reminder that the contract provisions allow innocent roommates or family members to be evicted. We already _know_ that that’s what the rules say! We say the rules are draconian and grossly unfair to innocent people who, however well intentioned, were unable to prevent or even know about others’ involvement with drugs. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/6 "2002-03-26T18:54:31Z")
**CRorex** , how big of a barrell do you want to hold them over? In most, if not all ,cases these tenants are in these subsidized units because they can’t afford to live anywhere else; they’d probably “sign the contract” if it included a codiclie stating they weren’t allowed to masturbate. So then why make rules that aren’t even within their control to abide by for the sole reason of kicking them out? ---
**Author:** ![CRorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CRorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CRorex)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/7 "2002-03-26T19:49:07Z")
Folks, I’m not saying that its fair or not… I was just saying that it is a clearly state condition of residence that there are no dugs. I’m not making any judgement call on if it is morally right to require the apts to be drug free, or anything else… What I have an issue with is Javaman’s statement that it take the Supreme Court’s ruling for him to become ashamed by this… You SHOULD have had an issue with the policy change that happened years ago making the one strike out policy into a legal document. ALL the court ruled on was a legal contract. ---
**Author:** ![CRorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CRorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CRorex)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/8 "2002-03-26T19:53:33Z")
Hrrm and I’m kinda putting word in Javaman’s mouth… So please disregard that. What I’m trying to get across the time for outrange and indignation was quite a while ago. Several years infact (I remember helping organizing some sort of petition about this in college). Anyway, aren’t all of the court cases the article talks about having to do with the lease agreement and not the policy change? ---
**Author:** ![CRorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CRorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CRorex)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/9 "2002-03-26T20:01:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jack Batty \* > \*\ ***CRorex** , how big of a barrell do you want to hold them over? > > In most, if not all ,cases these tenants are in these subsidized units because they can’t afford to live anywhere else; they’d probably “sign the contract” if it included a codiclie stating they weren’t allowed to masturbate. > > So then why make rules that aren’t even within their control to abide by for the sole reason of kicking them out? \*\* I want a barrell held over people? Neither I, nor anyone else is discussing about the pros or cons of doing this… People were disgusted about the court’s ruling and how people were getting kicked out of their apartments. I was commenting on how this was a preexisting condition of their lease. I was attempting to bring up something that people who haven’t followed this issue may be unaware of, or people from overseas who aren’t aware of the current regulations of public housing in the US. And I do think it is within the tenent’s ability to abide by their rules. They choose, granted depending on the type of retardation the girl in one of the cases may not be able to legally choose, but that was not brought up, to do drugs. The lease agreement is quite clear. Yes it is unfair to punish everyone else for the actions of a single person who doesn’t abide by the rules. But the actions are controlable. If I signed a lease where I couldn’t masturbate, and if I didn’t want to be homeless I’d abide by the contract. It would be unfair is the policy/lease change was made retroactive so people who already had leases before the change was made were forced to abide by the change. This is an issue I’m not sure about. Personally, something should be done to control the crime problems in public housing developments. But is this how it should be done? That I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/10 "2002-03-26T20:19:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CRorex \* > \*\*Hrrm and I’m kinda putting word in Javaman’s mouth… > > So please disregard that. > > \*\* Actually you were right to remind us of exactly what the Supremes can and can’t do. Viewed as a simple contract law case, I suppose they really couldn’t have come to any other verdict, and that was why it was unanimous. But I’m still dismayed by the verdict. ---
**Author:** ![CRorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CRorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CRorex)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/11 "2002-03-26T20:23:34Z")
Read between the lines folks 🙂 Not ALL of the judges ruled… at least 1 withdrew. I take that to mean they aren’t any happier than we are about the regulation. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/12 "2002-03-26T20:32:07Z")
Invent me a time machine and I’ll be outraged about it then, but considering this is now, I think I’ll be outraged about it now. Okay, maybe I should start a new thread since it seems to be a different issue, but it’s all wrapped up in the same cloth here. Hypothetical: Some poor woman can be kicked out of her apartment when her freeloading son is caught smoking a joint in her bathroom – that ain’t right, contract or no contract. ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/13 "2002-03-26T20:36:01Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by CRorex_ > Not ALL of the judges ruled… at least 1 withdrew. I take that to mean they aren’t any happier than we are about the regulation. Justice Breyer’s brother is a federal judge in California. I’m assuming he recused himself because his brother was involved in the case (as a judge, not a drug user, presumably). Justices don’t recuse themselves as a protest, they write dissenting opinions. I agree with you on the issue of blame. The law, in my opinion, is stupid. But it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to strike down a law they find ill-advised. As long as it’s constitutional, they must uphold the law. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/14 "2002-03-26T21:00:04Z")
There’s a thread over in GD that takes a look at this issue as well. The link to One Strike policy is especially thought provoking when looking at the way poor people and those who are more advantaged are treated under the law. ---
**Author:** ![Soul\_Brother\_Number\_Two](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/soul_brother_number_two/32/3515_2.png) [@Soul\_Brother\_Number\_Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soul_Brother_Number_Two)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/15 "2002-03-26T21:01:32Z")
crorex, must you be so depressingly literal? get off yer high horse. in one case, it was the tenant’s _home health care worker_ who was busted for crack! i mean, if this person is so infirm as to require home health care, how could he or she possibly monitor someones drug use? as to signing the contract, im reasonably certain they signed because if they didnt, they would have nowhere to live. see how that works? these people are old. im sure they have little control over what friends and especially relatives choose to do. jesus christ, cut em a break. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/16 "2002-03-26T21:03:35Z")
The Supreme Court opinion is [DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER ET AL.](http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26mar20021145/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-1770.pdf). Here are some excerpts. Apparently, evicting the little old people will diminish the likelihood of murder and mayhem. > [@](#): > > And, of course, there is an obvious reason why Congress > would have permitted local public housing authorities to > conduct no-fault evictions: Regardless of knowledge, a > tenant who “cannot control drug crime, or other criminal > activities by a household member which threaten health > or safety of other residents, is a threat to other residents and the project.” 56 Fed. Reg., at 51567. With drugs leading to “murders, muggings, and other forms of vio-lence against tenants,” and to the “deterioration of the physical environment that requires substantial govern-mental expenditures,” 42 U. S. C. §11901(4) (1994 ed., Supp. V), it was reasonable for Congress to permit no-fault evictions in order to “provide public and other federally assisted low-income housing that is decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs,” §11901(1) (1994 ed.). > [@](#): > > There are, moreover, no “serious constitutional doubts” about Congress’ affording local public housing authorities the discretion to conduct no-fault evictions for drug-related crime. > [@](#): > > We hold that “Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S., at 842. Section 1437d(l)(6) requires lease terms that give local public housing authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of the drug-related activity. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/17 "2002-03-26T21:06:02Z")
This was discussed at length [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=105224). ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/18 "2002-03-26T21:07:03Z")
> [@](#): > > I agree with you on the issue of blame. The law, in my opinion, is stupid. But it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to strike down a law they find ill-advised. As long as it’s constitutional, they must uphold the law. Yeah, but let’s not forget that the Court can sometimes decide that something is Constitutional only to have the Court reverse itself years later on a similar case. And then there’s cases where the Supreme Court rules one way and years later its decided that this was a wrong thing to do without another ruling on the matter. (Dred Scott anyone?) The law is a crock of shit, and the Court could have, and should have found a way to overturn it. I mean, hell, they threw out clauses in deeds that said the house couldn’t be sold to a person of a certain ethnic minority. Why the hell couldn’t they say that its unfair to punish someone for the actions of another? What the Court has said is basically this: If your brother kills someone, _you_ can be punished for the crime even though you had no involvement in any aspects of the crime. I don’t see how anyone can find this to a fair ruling. (Well, outside of politicians who only enacted the law so that they could look good at re-election time by saying that they’re being “Tough on crime.” :rolleyes: ) ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/19 "2002-03-26T21:15:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Robb \* > \*\*The Supreme Court opinion is [DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER ET AL.](http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26mar20021145/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-1770.pdf). > > Here are some excerpts. Apparently, evicting the little old people will diminish the likelihood of murder and mayhem. > \*\* Of course it will!! Having the little old people living _al fresco_, or in homeless shelters, will provide many more easy targets that may distract the attention of human predators away from the rest of us. Maybe that’s the idea. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205/20 "2002-03-26T21:19:02Z")
Well, I’ll write the dissenting opinion here. The means available for social programs are not unlimited which means some people are left out. Help should be given to those most deserving it and I think this is a valid factor to take into account. I would rather my tax money go to help those who are doing their best to succeed rather than those who are sheltering criminals. That’s just me. I have seen several areas of subsidized housing in DC which were just dens of crime and open air drug markets. Sorry but I think we should not be subsidizing that kind of stuff. At least not with my money if I can help it. You may now call me heartless if you like. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-family-member-used-drugs-so-its-living-on-the-streets-for-you/100205.md?page=2)