-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
So, almost certainly a case where the absolute risk is much lower than the relative figures suggest, but that'd be very hard to do properly without access to the specific report they're referencing
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That being said, looks like about 2% of Australians report using methamphetamines within the last 12 months, so triple that rate would be about 6% of unemployed people Not really a bit increase, 4%pic.twitter.com/V44lD6cXk2
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Actually, not a bad point that I haven't seen made
@joshgnosis - testing ~all~ recipients to catch an extra 4% of people seems to undermine the govt's argument. Huge expense for a very modest benefit1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
A modest, *questionable* benefit at that
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Sure, but taking the argument at face value - test welfare recipients, identify drug users, shunt them into alternative services/cut off welfare - you're still spending vast sums to routinely test the 94% of people not using meth to catch a few users
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Each test costs the govt $41.5 as per MBS, so to identify a single person using meth in the last 12 months you're spending about $2800 (test done every 3 months due to the half-life of meth in the body)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.