WORTH COSTS IN LONG RUN

I'm disappointed with the reasoning of the Free Press' Jan. 9
editorial "Drug-testing proposal discriminates against poor." You say
it's discriminatory and costly. You ask why only the poor, when
bankers and auto execs don't have to take drug tests. This is very
misleading, as you fail to mention that federal subsidies do not go
directly to those individuals, but to their companies, which employ
thousands and impact millions of people.

Costly? Yes, in the short term. But there is a tremendous payoff in
the long run, when even a minority knows they must now act
responsibly. Why would I care if a drug addict is cut off from a
portion of my hard-earned tax dollars?

And starting this drug testing would employ a lot of people. Why are
you against a worthy jobs program?

Glenn Engman

Warren