The relation really isn’t that difficult. Here’s a simplified version:
4 roommates rent an apartment at $800/month. Each is supposed to put $200 in the rent jar, so when rent day comes around it’ll all be there. One rent day, there’s not enough. Whether someone took some out or someone didn’t contribute their share, either is equivalent - the others are going to have to cover the missing rent.
Aaron says he had to take a little to pay for food, can someone else cover it? Bill immediately screams “Anyone who takes money for food should be drug tested! They’re probably scum!” There’s no logic behind it but Chuck agrees because for some reason it makes Bill and Chuck feel important to humiliate Aaron.
But there’s still money missing. Chuck says he just didn’t bother to contribute his full $200. Why? Because he felt he deserved to hold onto what he had earned because it was earned perfectly legally. Now Dave is saying “Anyone who doesn’t contribute their share should be drug tested too! They’re probably costing us more!” This has no more logic than Bill’s idea, but it’s the same thing. It just humiliates different people.
Either way, it becomes “If there’s a shortfall, drug test the people responsible”. Whether that’s due to taking or failing to give. So yes, they are directly related. But neither of them solve the actual problems (that Aaron couldn’t afford food or that Chuck is ripping off his roommates while enjoying delusions of grandeur). They just create new ones. Now people have to administer drug tests and punishment in the case of failure. And if someone does fail, then they can’t pay rent so everyone else’s rent will go up. And everyone has to contribute more to the rent jar to cover those costs.
So a counter that focuses on the economics of it does help to highlight the stupidity. You could say it’s not directly solving anything, but if it makes enough people recognize the stupidity and futility of the original proposal so that it gets rejected, then it will be successful.
