@Allison2 Thank you for linking that thread; this story makes it all the more disturbing.
What's not clear to me from that post is which of the host's actions was the basis of Airbnb's deactivation. I wish the host had followed up on the thread, because it sounds like something went spectacularly wrong there. Even though it's clear that Airbnb reversed its decision, the host must have suffered some income loss in the process. Even so, I will stand by one principle here: there is nothing Airbnb can do to you that justifies tolerating violations of your House Rules or any behaviors that endanger your property or well-being. Defend your home first - with police if necessary - and deal with your listing service later.
@G-C-R-M0 Marijuana is legal in California, so the guests are not violating state law by possessing it. But if they don't have the right of tenancy (which generally applies to stays of 30+ days), and the host revokes their permission to be on the property for any reason, they are still in violation of California Penal Code Section 602 PC (Trespassing) if they do not depart. If money was exchanged, the host may be liable for a refund when terminating a booking, but they still retain the right to eject the guest at any time.
@Airbnb if anyone out there is listening - if Open Homes is genuinely a philanthropic cause, prove to us that it's not just a cynical marketing stunt. Here's the obvious way to make it work: instead of asking hosts to carry the risk and income loss of throwing their doors open in an emergency, why don't you use your considerable resources to vet guests in need and issue them travel credits, so that they can request an Airbnb home as a normal customer?
The only logical reason you wouldn't choose to do it this way is that you want to get all the public-relations glory without losing out on any profit. Shame, shame, shame.