Some years ago, Utah became a hotbed for methamphetamine. Our police agencies and lawmakers, in an effort to rein in the abuse, chose to go after the property owners when meth was found. I would guess most meth users and makers are renters, but it is their landlords who are bearing the brunt of the punishment.
When a drug raid results in the property being condemned (shut down), the drug users can simply move to a new apartment and take up where they left off. Yes, they might be given a ticket if any drug paraphernalia is found on them or in the apartment they were renting. And penalties might be even stiffer if methamphetamine, itself, is actually found.
But, it is their landlords who face the stiffer financial loses. Renters are more inclined to move from one place to another than landlords, so they do not acquire as many personal items. Also, the furniture is sometimes provided by the landlord, so when all those things are hauled off the the dump in the cleanup, it is the landowner who suffers most.
Then there is the matter of the $10,000 to clear the methamphetamine out of the home. It is solely the property owner who bears that charge -- not the renters who were using the meth.
It is not right when you punish the innocent to spite the criminal, nor does it work. Our laws should be framed to go after the criminal, not the property owners who are caught in the crossfire.
Probably many like me weren't aware of this before. Change is needed.
ReplyDelete