Hello, i'm part of a class project who is tasked with arguing in favor of drug testing for recipients of public assistance (welfare). I'm working on the economical argument, but my end conclusion seems very wrong. I'm fairly sure i've made a mistake in my calculations, or missed somthing important- but i'm not sure where. My final number is that California must achieve a drop rate of 0.16% to prevent a fiscal deficit while running the program. This is far less than the 1.87% projected by the Floridian program instated back in the summer, and even though i selected California due to a more favorable set of numbers, this seems too low to be logical. Could You please discuss this, and tell me what i got wrong, as well as your own opinions on the issue?
