THE SUPREME COURT'S SUPPORT FOR ZERO DRUG TOLERANCE WAS CORRECT

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to permit families to be evicted from
public housing if any relative or guest is involved with drugs is a tough
call, but it's correct. People who live in public housing deserve to be
protected from the rampant drug abuse that exists among them nationwide.

Public housing has become the last resort for many poor Americans, the last
step before homelessness. Waiting lists are long even when people know how
difficult life can be in most projects. One of the worst difficulties is
coping with drug users and sellers. Many a public housing project has
become a war zone.

The court turned aside arguments that "single strike" evictions in public
housing target poor people for tougher punishment than others who live in
private housing and do not face automatic eviction even if personally
involved in drugs. The difference is that the poor who live in federally
subsidized housing are guests of the state, and the state has declared war
on drugs.

Advocates for the poor fear that some tenants in public housing who have
nothing to do with drugs, and don't know that their relatives or guests do,
are going to be evicted unfairly. This is a possibility. It means that
public housing residents are going to have to be more vigilant and adamant
about refusing to have contact with drug abusers or dealers because the
stakes are so high.

As it is, drug abusers often select public housing projects because they
know humanitarian concern for the poor protects them from scrutiny. The
blight they cause in projects falls particularly hard upon the young and
the elderly, but it endangers all residents.

However, public housing officials will need common sense in dealing with
residents who are seeking treatment for a relative who uses drugs. It would
seem to defeat the purpose if they too are summarily evicted. The rules
permitting drug-related evictions must be administered with enough
flexibility to let a family use the threat to save a relative at risk, and
with enough authority to prevent abusers from causing disorder.

This is a situation where the good of the majority outweighs the options of
individuals.