RULING WILL HELP KEEP PUBLIC HOUSING SAFE

The Supreme Court has told families to police their own when it comes to
drug abuse. That is the basic underlying message we find in a ruling that
upholds the federal government rules that allow an entire family to be
bounced out of public housing if any member of the family is caught up in a
drug case.

We cannot think of any defense that should have allowed for overturning the
law and applaud the common sense approach by the justices. The basic
premise behind the law is that the taxpayers do not want to be stuck in the
funding of drug houses.

It is a good premise. Far too often public housing can become a drug den.
Critics say the law is unfair to the poor.

But for the law to be unfair is to assume that all those in public housing
are somehow involved in the drug trade.

We must never allow that kind of thinking to set public policy.

The rule does not say that all public housing tenants are drug dealers or
users. What it says is that sometimes, elements who deal in drugs or are
major drug users deserve to be booted onto the street for messing up the
lives of those who are not able to move to the best neighborhood in town to
live. What it says is that tough standards must be enforced by the
landlord. In this case it's the government.

What it says is that everyone in public housing has a right to safe and
decent housing and does not need to be subjected to the worst conditions
because they're down on their luck. This is not a taking of personal
property, because the basic premise behind the law is that public housing
is publicly owned.

The case ruled upon by the justices Tuesday involved the eviction of four
senior citizens from public housing in California.

The issue in the case was that the residents did not know about the drug
activity of a young family member who was arrested away from the public
apartment complex.

While none of us can really know what every member of our families is doing
at every hour of the day, this tough law must be in place. Too often in
drug cases, family members are kept in the dark or are too afraid to step
forward to stop the drug use of another family member.

If getting tough means families must take tougher stands within their
households, so be it. That, after all, is where the war on drugs truly is
won or lost - in the living room and around the dining room table, where
families talk and values are instilled.

What we see on the streets is a manifestation of what happens in the home.

And if what we see on the streets can be reduced by making sure public
housing is not merely a breeding ground for drug-related crime, all the
better.k, really don't seem all that convincing yet for a dramatic increase
in the complement of force, especially within the currently tight fiscal
budget in Ohio, running at a $400 million deficit.

While we may think of the patrol sometimes as a mere impedance to travel,
running radar when we'd rather be speeding, we also know what a comforting
thought it is to know the troopers are available on lonely roads in the
middle of the night when we need assistance.

They are doing a good job at that job and we're thankful for it.

But to expand the force under the current budget situation, we think would
require Ohio to reconsider just what it wants with its state law
enforcement agency.

A small expansion to deal with an increase in law enforcement
investigations could be necessary. And if the state decides it wants more
of a state police force, with greater investigative duties, then perhaps a
more sizeable increase would be warranted.

Otherwise, we think the state patrol really isn't broken and isn't in need
of repair.