HOUSING FOR ADDICTS

Editor -- In his December 15 Open Forum piece, ``We Kill Them With
Kindness,'' Earl Rynerson is ``shocked, shocked to find'' that General
Assistance money is being given to addicts and alcoholics. He then proposes
several draconian measures to correct this problem. The problem he does not
recognize is this: alcoholics and addicts used to sleep indoors, as did the
unemployed, the mentally ill, those whose finances were wiped out by
catastrophic illness and the victims of racism and poor education. Booze and
drugs have been around forever; astronomical housing costs are the new
phenomenon. Whether they are actively using or newly sober,
addicts/alcoholics are the pit canaries of the housing market.

Are we to withhold General Assistance from the illiterate until they learn
to read? How about monoglot immigrants? Let's test their English skills as a
requirement for assistance. Schizophrenics? let 'em go hungry until they
pull themselves together and stop malingering!

Of course, in the long run, helping sober up anyone willing is by far the
most cost-effective action. In the mean time, let's put the drunks and
junkies where they belong, under a roof.

JOHN COFFIN

El Cerrito

DRUG TREATMENT TOO

Editor -- I must respond to Paul Ash's letter regarding my ``Killing them
With Kindness'' report (December 15). He either did not read my article or
wants to hide the truth about the rampant drug problem on the street.

First, it should not be this city's policy to use local taxpayer money to
fund an addict's drug problem. Second, anyone who is clean and sober on GA
should continue to receive benefits. Third, I agree with Paul that it is
difficult to kick an addiction, especially in this city where we are paying
them to stay addicted. Fourth, anyone tested who is found to be an addict
should only have their GA cash grant ended; nowhere did I mention ending
food or shelter assistance. We should help the needy by providing food and
shelter -- NOT drugs or alcohol! Remember, my article said that removing an
addict's drug allowance was only half the equation; that money should go
toward mandatory city sponsored drug treatment and 12- step programs.

Finally, he refers to a ``diminished and fragile'' safety net. This is
ludicrous. This city spends more money (per capita) on social services, with
more nonprofits, than any other city in the United States.

Let's not arbitrarily end services. Let's instead examine whether these
services help people back into society, or instead strip them of their
ability to be personally responsible for themselves.

I've received over 110 calls from people thanking me for my article. I am
contemplating a measure that could be placed on the ballot. Want to provide
assistance? Fax me at 415-586-4800.

EARL RYNERSON

San Francisco