What if you are smoking a blunt after your third job interview of the day? Or replace "blunt" with "beer". Is that really the difference between being a guy just down on his luck and being a lazy lowlife junkie?
Sure cost per test could be decreased but you must also account for the cost of administration (10 minutes per test you say) and the water costs for millions of extra toilet flushes, paying people to wash out the cups, trash costs for millions of tests. These are all small things that add up to significant money when you are talking about millions of tests performed every month. Btw, I feel sorry for the person who has to wash piss out of cups for a living haha.
Absolutely, but now you are adding another layer of costs. I never meant to imply drug testing can not be done. I simply want to see a good/cost benefit analysis that includes all the costs. You can't just ignore these costs by saying "they are negligible" without any analysis and furthermore, you haven't given any proof of a significant benefit beyond your personal moral argument. I am willing to be convinced but you have to offer more than opinion and sweeping generalizations.
Either the tests are randomly performed on a small portion of the population so people don't know they are coming or you do it to everyone on some regular basis in which case costs will be much higher. You can't argue both ways.
In the end, if some drug users kids can still get some food subsidies even if it also subsidizes some people's drug habits, I can live with that. It's the problem with living in the real world instead of a moral meritocracy.





Reply With Quote
