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