Pubdate: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 Source: Minneapolis Star-Tribune (MN) Copyright: 2014 Star Tribune Contact: http://www.startribunecompany.com/143 Website: http://www.startribune.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/266 Author: Mike Auspos WELFARE RECIPIENTS AND DRUGS: TESTING THE 'TINY SLIVER' THEORY Some county officials insist the drug-testing mandate applies to such a tiny sliver of the welfare population that it's not worth the cost to administer. One legislator says that all truck drivers have to be drug-tested to keep their commercial driver's licenses. Note that word -"all." Is it worth it then, perhaps, to test all welfare recipients instead of a "tiny sliver"? Or, to use the administration cost viewpoint more broadly, why don't we tell our police agencies to not investigate burglaries and thefts using well-paid officers and detectives and prosecutors, and instead just subsidize victims for their losses? Given the millions of people in just the metro area and the probable fact that a "tiny sliver" or so are robbed or burgled, it sure seems to make sense, on a cost basis, not to pursue violators of the public peace and security. Sounds good to me, but then again, I just got off the potato boat. MIKE AUSPOS, Ramsey - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom