COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN THE WAR ON DRUGS

When the Supreme Court last week unanimously affirmed "zero tolerance" for
drugs in public housing, its resolve was understandable. Illegal drugs in
these communities breed crime, imperil lives and destroy families. Consider
the ravages of the drug trade over the years in such notorious Greensboro
haunts as "The Hill" near Ray Warren Homes and "The Grove" near Morningside.

Yet, at the same time, the decision is unsettling and the regulations it
affirms seem cold, draconian and even classist.

The high court ruled 8-0 last week that housing authorities, as landlords,
may evict entire households if one member of that household, or even a
guest, is convicted of drug use. The policy is so unbending that it covers
drug use that may occur outside of the home. In fact, housing officials may
evict a resident even "if the tenant did not know, could not foresee or
could not control behavior by other occupants." One strike and whole
families potentially are out.

"No-fault evictions" were adopted by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development in 1991. The Supreme Court case stems from an Oakland,
Calif., lawsuit filed by four senior citizens who were evicted from public
housing because of drug use by relatives or caregivers.

The 8-0 opinion, written by Justice William H. Rehnquist, noted that
tenants knowingly and willingly agree to the terms of the lease when they
sign it. Rehnquist also argued that the "reign of terror" wreaked by drugs
in public housing is so dangerous and pervasive that the overall safety of
those communities justifies the policy's swift, unambiguous consequences. A
tenant who cannot control drug crime in his or her own household, Rehnquist
wrote, is himself "a threat to other residents and the project."

We don't disagree. A number of public housing residents councils throughout
the country not only support zero tolerance, but have lobbied for it.

"What they're saying is, you're responsible for your household," says
Evelyn Taylor, a longtime Ray Warren and Morningside resident who has
battled drug dealers in those communities for decades. "If you admit you
have a problem, they'll help you. But if you don't, they'll evict you."

Still, Taylor wonders why residents elsewhere in the city don't have to be
as accountable. "There should be something put in place," she says.

In Greensboro, the police typically inform public housing officials of drug
abuse in a household. An eviction review hearing follows. Among the factors
considered is whether the drug user is seeking treatment. "There is always
discretion to consider," says Tina Akers, the Housing Authority's executive
director. "It's not as cut-and-dried as everyone would think it is." Yet
there is no appeals process.

Meanwhile, in suburbia, we won't lose our government-subsidized mortgage
loans if a houseguest, employee or relative abuses drugs. Nor, for that
matter will drug sellers and users who live on the fringes of public housing.

Only in public housing, it seems, are civilian casualties acceptable in the
war on drugs.