That's an absurd restriction that would waste a vast amount of public money only to defeat the entire point of legalisation. Most people still won't do drugs e

That's an absurd restriction that would waste a vast amount of public money only to defeat the entire point of legalisation. Most people still won't do drugs even if they were legal, and of the ones who do, most will obey any restriction you put on them. So you'll spend billions in public money testing everyone who needs any kind of social assistance, only to give about 95% of them their money anyway. Of course, some will fail. That doesn't necessarily mean they're an addict, any more than a glass of champagne at New Years makes you an alcoholic. Many will be occasional users who will see no benefit whatsoever from enforced rehab. That's taking valuable rehab spaces away from those who genuinely need them. Oh, and when you're forcing treatment on the poorest members of society, they probably can't pay for it themselves. That's more money from the public purse. Then you've got new applicants who've just lost their job. Are they sent to enforced rehab, or just denied assistance until they can pass a drug test? Some will be addicts. Unless they actually want to quit, rehab won't fix that. And the ones who want drugs are going to get drugs anyway. You're not going to stop that just by removing their money. What you will do is reinstate the very black market you just got rid of through legalisation. Which brings us to the deeper problem with your plan. If you remove a persons ability to pay for food and shelter, what do you believe that person will do? They're certainly not just going to crawl into the woods and die quietly - they'll do what they need to do to survive. Social assistance doesn't just help the person receiving it - it helps society as a whole by removing the need to turn to crime just so you can eat.