Yo- I think you make great points and I agree that the cost benefit analysis may favor not doing this (it is why I said I don't have a strong opinion either way in my first post).
But, to follow your logic means that the Governor is exacly right when he says that welfare is paying for drug habits. I totally get your point about it might be cheaper in the long run to do that, but it doesnt make his point wrong and it certainly doesnt do what welfare is intended to do.
To your other point, every single medium size city and up has FREE treatment centers, counciling centers etc for drug addicts. Everyone of them. You can not force someone to go who doesnt want to. But don't act like the programs are not out there and available. They are. manmy do choose to use them. I think the centers are an excellent use of public funds too.
Truthfully, I am not sure how big a problem this really is. But, the avenues are already in place for someone to be denied welfare due to a failed drug test and then sent to a clinic where they will receive treatment/counseling/food etc until they are clean and acan resume welfare payments.