DRUG BANS IN PUBLIC HOUSING: TOO DRACONIAN?

Regarding "One strike and out, in public housing" (Feb. 19): I appreciate
the effort to make readers aware of the problem in the Oakland, Calif.,
public housing projects as a result of the law passed by Congress. I
understand many may see this as a problem. But the goal of the law is to
help fight the war on drugs. Any drug use on the tenants' premises is
grounds for eviction. In order for this law to be effective, it needs to be
practiced, and practiced without provisions or exceptions. The use of
illegal drugs is not permitted and should not be condoned in any circumstance.

I fully agree with the law and the efforts being done to support its
success. Public housing is a benefit that should be given only to drug-free
households willing to ensure they don't contribute to illegal drug
activity. Families that can live by the laws are the ones who should have
the privilege of federal government public housing. If this is a problem,
obviously those families do not have a place as tenants in that complex.
Holding people accountable by enforcing the law is the only way a change is
going to be seen.

Julia Frank

Chino, Calif.

It is unfair that innocent people are being held responsible for drug use
going on in their homes when they have no knowledge that it's going on. It
is obvious that the public is trying to help control drug issues, but
blaming and punishing innocent people for the acts of others simply does
not help solve the problem. In the case mentioned, the tenant had no idea
her grandson was using drugs. Blaming the tenant and kicking her from her
home is a little extreme. If innocent people are being treated this way for
something they never did, I am wondering what the punishment should be for
actual dealers and users - and what punishment the grandson is facing for
actually smoking the marijuana.

Antoinette Fianu

Accra, Ghana

It is unfair to evict tenants after "one strike," especially when the
tenant is a senior citizen and the offender doesn't even live in the home -
and grandparents should certainly not be held responsible for their
relative's actions.

I do believe, however, parents who have children under 21 should take more
responsibility in monitoring their children's actions. Young people often
lack clear judgment and are conducive to peer pressure. Parents' lack of
knowledge in what their kids are doing does not give them freedom from
responsibility. They should, however, be given a second chance based on
investigations on whether or not the offenses and drug abuse have been
going on for a long time without the parent's awareness. In cases where
parents are totally ignorant of the fact their children have been involved
with drugs for quite a while, meaning months, and they should have seen the
signs in their children's behavior but did not, the eviction should take place.

Jacqueline Pelealuw

Jakarta, Indonesia

I fully agree with the law designed to enforce people to take a stand
against drugs. Public housing is intended to help people, and should be
respected and cared for. With this law, tenants who want to keep their
homes are forced to take into consideration the effects their guests may
have on them. Even though it is rough for these individuals who are being
evicted due to the acts of their guests, this law's enforcement will bring
greater public attention to the war on drugs. If this law is taken
seriously and enforced by tenants, it will only serve as a protection of
those living in public housing and the surrounding community.

Kelsey Webster

Elsah, Ill.