THE COURT'S DRUG WAR: JUSTICES GIVE LIBERTIES LITTLE QUARTER, BUT LOCAL
BALANCE CAN SOFTEN BLOW

Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that public
housing landlords may evict anyone who uses or carries drugs on or near the
property, even if the user is a visiting relative who happens to be
lighting up a joint in the parking lot -- or three blocks away. In a
separate case the week before, the court in oral arguments made it clear
that it was ready to let schools randomly drug-test all students involved
in any extra-curricular activity, not just athletes (as has been the case
since 1995).

The two cases continue a Supreme Court pattern dating back to the
mid-1980s. When it comes to police work or the so-called war on drugs,
there are no liberals on the court.

There are only conservatives and iron-fisted conservatives. In this
judicial clockwork orange, police can do no wrong, drug users can do no right.

On those scores the court is blind to compassion and common sense, its
interpretation of the Fourth and Fifth amendments' rights of privacy and
property unapologetically rearing back to the basest standard of might
makes right.

Public or private housing leases commonly list restrictions. In private
housing, landlords often require tenants to be smoke-free so long as
they're in the house or apartment.

No-pet rules are also common. Sometimes landlords forbid tenants from
having a home office, or of running an internet business.

That public housing would include prohibitions against drug use is neither
unusual nor unwarranted within the scope of what's legal and common.
(Forbidding adults to use drugs or tobacco may be the sort of prohibition
the government should have no business imposing, but that's a different
matter).

The problem with the Supreme Court's public housing case is that the
prohibition extends so far beyond the control of tenants.

Tenants may be evicted if their guests use drugs.

That may sound reasonable: A tenant should control what goes on under his
roof. But public housing tenants, like anybody else, go away for weekends
and vacations -- or does the court assume they don't? -- and like anybody
else, they let family or other guests claim the place for a while.

One plaintiff in the case was evicted after her daughter was found with
cocaine three blocks from the apartment, another was evicted because his
caretaker carried cocaine.

There are no more dividing lines between suspicion, intent and conspiracy:
In public housing, everyone must prove innocence first. Ludicrous in
itself, such a harsh standard pales next to its consequences -- more
homeless, more broken homes, more poverty.

Once again, the fanaticism of the war on drugs trumps more serious social
issues, about which this court -- as iron-veiled as it is fisted -- has
nothing to say.

But those issues do exist, and this ruling obviously opens the door for
further mistreatment of "innocent tenants" -- particularly elderly or
disabled tenants -- by exploitive caretakers and ne'er-do-well family members.

The court's failure to protect their rights forces the hand of local, state
and federal officials to make sure this punitive policy is only levied
against the truly guilty.

Unfortunately, the federal government has been slacking in that duty. Over
the last few years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has
been pulling back grants for special policing units in public housing, a
cutback that's hit DeLand and Daytona Beach police departments hard in
their efforts to maintain a presence in public- housing projects.

So far, local officials have chosen to continue support for the special
units, and with good reason -- they're effective.

The officers who work in public housing units every day are in the best
position to help well-intentioned residents fight the blight of drugs in
their neighborhoods, and the best protection against exploitation of
vulnerable residents.

Without the special units, many residents say, drug dealers would have
taken control of local housing developments.

As HUD cuts funding for local law-enforcement grants, more communities are
forced to make the tough decision to find local money for special
public-housing units or discontinue them. If Congress is serious about
eradicating drugs in housing units, it will reinstate the grant program at
a level that allows community-based policing in every unit.

Elderly residents also need tougher laws, and strong advocates, to make
sure they aren't victimized by home-health aides who use or peddle drugs on
the job.

Without these improvements, the court's authoritization of a harsh punitive
stance against drugs could trample individual rights.

By the end of June, the court will have ruled on drug testing in schools,
likely applying the same logic: The defining factor of a student's profile
sets all academic and athletic achievements aside, and all comes down to
one thing: Proving beyond suspicion that not a trace of drugs is on his or
her curriculum.

Again, there's a need for discretion on the part of local officials. The
fact that the court allows near-universal drug testing in school doesn't
meant that school boards should feel compelled to join the frenzy. Drug
testing is still expensive, invasive and usually unnecessary. A school in
rural Volusia or Flagler county should not be run by the same paranoia as
Boston Public. A public housing authority shouldn't give in to the zealotry
of zero tolerance just because the law lets it.

Many schools and housing authorities, in fact, don't: They judge cases
individually and balance rules with compassion, realizing that one
punishment's consequence may lead to far worse crimes or hardship.

The balancing act is where it matters most -- locally.

And federal officials should be held responsible for giving local
authorities the support they need to act wisely and prudently in fighting drugs.