Okay. We're going to disregard the stupidity of equating the
(1.) effectiveness of law enforcement enforcing laws that prohibit drug use, where the target of that specific enforcement is unknown until after the target has been caught
Vs.
(2.) the effectiveness of law enforcement enforcing a court's opinion ordering one specific and known party to pay damages to another specific and known party.

Just so we're clear, you're position is that mandating randomized inspections prevents certain entities from breaking the law regarding health and safety. You claim they cannot self-regulate, and thus government must step in to stop them from hurting their consumers. You claim that government intervention is not only needed, it works.

I replied that self-preservation is a mitigating factor for malfeasance.

You reply that government intervention does not work.

Again. Your initial argument is that government intervention works. Your second argument is that government intervention does not work.

What the fuck is your mind made of? Jello?