When I was growing up in McKenzie Court, a housing project for African-Americans in Tuscaloosa, Ala., everyone understood Mr. Robert L. Glynn’s rules. The director insisted that apartments, which were subject to surprise inspections, had to be kept clean at all times. Yards had to be neatly cut. And everyone knew that if you didn’t follow Mr. Glynn’s rules, there were thousands of people eager to demonstrate that they could follow them.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 permits housing authorities to evict tenants if a member of their household or one of their guests is caught using or selling drugs. That’s even if that unlawful activity is not known to the person who signed the lease or if the offense takes places off premise.

Although the court has ruled that there were no constitutional issues to be decided, it is a stupid policy. As a brief filed in support of four tenants evicted by Oakland, Calif. housing officials notes: “…A tenant who has a fleeting connection to the alleged perpetrator of a crime is put at risk because of conduct that only the most paranoid or clairvoyant tenant could have possibly foreseen.”

This is another of those short-sighted laws passed by Congress that makes it appear that lawmakers are being “tough on crime.” In fact, it will do little to reduce the flow of drugs and is yet another example of focusing on the low-level offenders rather than the kingpins.

Take the case of the four plaintiffs that brought the case in Oakland. Two of them had grandchildren who lived with them and were caught smoking marijuana in a housing project parking lot. How could the grandparents possibly have known what the youth were doing away from home? Another parent’s daughter was found with cocaine three blocks from her apartment. And a disabled 75-year-old man was kicked out after his caretaker was found with cocaine in his apartment.

Where are these evicted tenants supposed to go now? Public housing is often housing of last resort. What happens when there is no “last resort?” Do we really need to expand the ranks of the homeless? While it might seem like we’re cracking down on drug use, image-conscious public officials are acting more like they are on crack.

We shouldn’t forget that in our rush to pass strong, mandatory drug laws before, we have ended up filling our prisons with first-time, non-violent drug offenders and people with only a peripheral connection to drug trafficking, especially African-American women. How long will it take us to realize that this approach hasn’t worked?

Another concern I have about this approach is that it employs a double-standard.

If this Supreme Court ruling is to apply to poor people, it should also apply to the rich. That means it should apply to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose 24-year-old daughter, Noelle, was caught trying to get a fraudulent prescription filled at a Tallahassee pharmacy. According to news accounts, Noelle has been living with her parents in the governor’s mansion.

As governor, Jeb Bush lives in public housing – the public pays for his housing. And if elderly Black women can be evicted for behavior that they were unaware of, Jeb Bush and his family should be kicked out of the tax-payer supported mansion if our laws are going to be fairly enforced.

What’s the difference?

If we are going to punish entire families for the sins of their youthful members, should that punishment extend to alcohol, as well? If that’s the new yardstick –and I am not saying it should be—then George W. and Laura Bush would have to leave the White House. Their 19-year-old twin daughters were cited for alcohol violations. Barbara was charged with possession of alcohol by a minor; Jenna was arrested for allegedly using a fake I.D. to buy alcohol.

Ideally, neither the First Family, Jeb Bush nor the tenants in Oakland should be evicted. Many American families are wrestling with the problem of a family member afflicted with drugs and deserve our understanding and sensitivity. Rather than trying to punish drug users, especially first- and second-time offenders, we should try to get them into a treatment program.

The sad fact is that there are not enough treatment slots available for the addicts who want help. If Congress wants to be sincere about helping people with drug problems, that’s where they should add more resources. It might not be as effective helping them get re-elected, but it will be helpful for the people who need help the most.

In the meantime, we should try to find more Mr. Glynns, authorize them to tightly manage public housing units – including having the power to evict people selling or using drugs within their apartments – but not kick innocent families to the curb because they are not clairvoyant.