Sorry, but it is both achievable and sustainable.
I didn't say it wasn't achievable. It is achievable in the same way that 100% security screening is achievable (but not 100% effective).
It is not desirable because it seriously erodes trust, drives the issue underground and provides no guarantee of effectiveness. Human beings are very inventive. Fox niner gave one example. There is also the problem of false positives which become significant at high sample / high compliance rates.
I am willing to be proved wrong but I honestly believe that cost effective - wise and workforce morale wise it is not sustainable. What will happen is that the "capture rate" will decline to a point where the bean counters will say "this program is costing us $xx millions per year and we are getting 1 transgressor every 2 - 3 years and half of those are false positives" and they will back off to random screening/risk based screening.