Quote:
Originally Posted by woj
it might be the "right" thing to do? drug testing identifies people that may have a drug problem and so help can be offered to them so they can become productive members of society again?
"cost more" is a bit misleading too...
1. testing is non-random, so it doesn't effectively identify drug users
2. how is "cost more" calculated anyway? short term it may cost more indeed, cause all the costs are up front... but the benefits are spread over many years...
isn't it pretty clear that someone who is unemployed, has a drug problem and has free $$ coming in each month will never get out of the hole he is in by himself? so isn't it the "right" thing to do to try to help him, not just to prevent him from leeching off the taxpayer for what likely will be rest of his life, but to just help the guy?
|
Just the testing system, when tried, cost much more than simply giving people their government benefits.
There is no discussion of rehab, just of denying benefits to people who fail a drug test.
Someone can fail a drug test without having a drug problem. I'm sure I regularly hire people who consume the occasional beer, joint, or line.
Occasional users will fail a drug test without needing help in that area.