I look at it a bit differently...diet has a direct correllation on health. In a nutshell, I don't care how expensive the food is if it's dietarily sound. Even juice has it's value. Again, I don't think people using EBT should have to buy only the cheapest foods. In fact, that's a number one reason for obesity....processed foods are cheaper and people with less money buy cheaper to make their money stretch. Couple restrictions on EBT purchases with required diet and health education.

 

When I used to get the Government Commodities program, I got a recipe book that gave me ideas of how to use my canned meat, powdered eggs and plethora of beans to make nutritious meals. If a person is approved for the program, then we give them a similar type book.

 

You not only are educating a consumer/benefit recepient, you are helping them improve their health, and that also will result in a decrease in medical assistance needed.

 

I think people get caught up in one phase or another of benefits. They all work together.

 

I have much more to say on this topic, but I have to do some work. :lol:

We are in total agreement. I did mean to imply the cheapest foods available. My stance on steak is it's an unnecessary luxury. You can get 93/7 ground sirloin for around $3.50/lb where a t-bone is going to cost you close to half of that. 93/7 ground is as health as you can get ground beef and not pay out the rear for it. I would even be in favor of ground turkey. Price wise it isn't that much more and it's way more health. Red meat isn't bad for you in moderation but you don't want to eat it every meal. I also think they should be allowed to buy fresh fruits and veggies. I like your idea about the farmers market. I also like the idea of a handing out cook books as part of a starter packet when someone signs up for assistance. One way to make the money stretch further is educate people on the correct way to eat, less is sometimes more if you are eating the right way.

You think that a parent who smokes weed and takes good care of their children is the rare exception. You use scare tactics and unrealistic numbers like "$100 for a pill" to support your arguments. All in all, I stand by what I said; that it feels like I'm watching Reefer Madness in this thread.

 

Furthermore, it seems that a lot of posters in this thread have a playground mentality. They aren't worried about what's best for the children or the parents. But are much more concerned with what someone else is doing and possibly getting away with. They just want to point their finger and say, "Mommy, Mommy look what little Johnny gets to do". I think a lot of people in this thread are more than willing to spend more money, just to make sure every penny of their money fits their beliefs of what is "well spent". And who cares if some constitutional rights might be stepped on or children from good homes end up in group care...

 

Oxycontin street vallue is about 1 dollar per milligram a 100 milligram pill equals 100 dollars street value. And if you think drug users provide good homes for kids you are sadly mistaken and show your misunderstanding of the real world. I'll gladly introduce you to plently of children from terrible homes where the parents were drug users. Drugs are ruining the society we live in and if someone is on wel fare they don't need to be on drugs bottom line.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugbydrug/oxycontin/ This website helps it lists the estmiated street value of a 40 milligram oxycontin at $40.00, like I said all reasonable estimates of that drug are street value at $1.00 per milligram.

Who says a friend didn't smoke them out. Or maybe they only use it a few times a year. Your statements are too black and white.

 

It amazes me that so called "conservatives", "small government people", "libertarians", etc. would support such an initiative.

 

You think that a parent who smokes weed and takes good care of their children is the rare exception. You use scare tactics and unrealistic numbers like "$100 for a pill" to support your arguments. All in all, I stand by what I said; that it feels like I'm watching Reefer Madness in this thread.

 

Furthermore, it seems that a lot of posters in this thread have a playground mentality. They aren't worried about what's best for the children or the parents. But are much more concerned with what someone else is doing and possibly getting away with. They just want to point their finger and say, "Mommy, Mommy look what little Johnny gets to do". I think a lot of people in this thread are more than willing to spend more money, just to make sure every penny of their money fits their beliefs of what is "well spent". And who cares if some constitutional rights might be stepped on or children from good homes end up in group care...

 

I agree with your observations here. It seems the proponents are far more concerned with enforcing "feel good" morality through the government than streamlining aid. Hatz identified some good reasons to believe that this program could well be a deficit increaser. FMKW has noted this is the kind of government intrusion most people argue against. I don't think this law would be supported if it were a different group of people being subjected to this. If it were all about money or efficiency, we would be having a debate similar to what rockmom/woodsrider/Plato have posted.

If we are ok with something like this then surely we would be ok with requiring a drug/mental compentency test before purchasing a firearm aren't we? Rhetorical no responses need.

You seem to be quite out of touch with the realities of this world.

 

The more I read this thread the more I think I'm watching Reefer Madness.

 

Do you really believe that someone who engages in illegal drug use should recieve welfare benefits?

Oxycontin street vallue is about 1 dollar per milligram a 100 milligram pill equals 100 dollars street value. And if you think drug users provide good homes for kids you are sadly mistaken and show your misunderstanding of the real world. I'll gladly introduce you to plently of children from terrible homes where the parents were drug users. Drugs are ruining the society we live in and if someone is on wel fare they don't need to be on drugs bottom line.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugbydrug/oxycontin/ This website helps it lists the estmiated street value of a 40 milligram oxycontin at $40.00, like I said all reasonable estimates of that drug are street value at $1.00 per milligram.

 

Hard drugs such as heroin, meth, oxycontin I'd agree but if you're lumping mauijuana in there I'll have to disagree.

If we are ok with something like this then surely we would be ok with requiring a drug/mental compentency test before purchasing a firearm aren't we? Rhetorical no responses need.

 

I didn't realize that recieving welfare benefits was a constitutional right.

Hard drugs such as heroin, meth, oxycontin I'd agree but if you're lumping mauijuana in there I'll have to disagree.

 

Why should someone on welfare be allowed to smoke weed either?

Do you really believe that someone who engages in illegal drug use should recieve welfare benefits?

Why wouldn't I?

I didn't realize that recieving welfare benefits was a constitutional right.

 

Just a rhetorical question because most of the people in the thread/site want to cherry pick where they want their government intrusion directed.

Why should someone on welfare be allowed to smoke weed either?

 

I was referring to a bad home life, not beneifts.

Oxycontin street vallue is about 1 dollar per milligram a 100 milligram pill equals 100 dollars street value. And if you think drug users provide good homes for kids you are sadly mistaken and show your misunderstanding of the real world. I'll gladly introduce you to plently of children from terrible homes where the parents were drug users. Drugs are ruining the society we live in and if someone is on wel fare they don't need to be on drugs bottom line.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugbydrug/oxycontin/ This website helps it lists the estmiated street value of a 40 milligram oxycontin at $40.00, like I said all reasonable estimates of that drug are street value at $1.00 per milligram.

Don't you think there is a reason they list the street value of 40mg and not 100mg? A marijuana joint will set you back roughly $5, but 20 would run you $100. I don't think it would be logical to say that people are spending $100 to get high on marijuana.

 

Going by the general definitions of drugs in this thread, then yes, I'd say I've seen plenty of children from great homes where the parents were drug users. I think it's also fair to note that I've seen plenty of children from terrible homes where the parents were not drug users. My Mamaw has kept foster children for 10+ years...so I've seen a lot of children pulled from homes.

I agree with your observations here. It seems the proponents are far more concerned with enforcing "feel good" morality through the government than streamlining aid. Hatz identified some good reasons to believe that this program could well be a deficit increaser. FMKW has noted this is the kind of government intrusion most people argue against. I don't think this law would be supported if it were a different group of people being subjected to this. If it were all about money or efficiency, we would be having a debate similar to what rockmom/woodsrider/Plato have posted.

I would LOVE to see the conservatives, small gov't peeps, libertarians, etc. justify this. It does seem like these are the guys against it.

Going by the general definitions of drugs in this thread, then yes, I'd say I've seen plenty of children from great homes where the parents were drug users. I think it's also fair to note that I've seen plenty of children from terrible homes where the parents were not drug users. My Mamaw has kept foster children for 10+ years...so I've seen a lot of children pulled from homes.

 

And that's fine. I have no problem with parents who are self-sufficient using in their homes (marijuana). My whole point is that if the government is providing for people, they should have a right to know that their money is being used as it's intended. Drugs (not speaking of prescriptions), in no way shape or form should be an acceptable purchase for those who are on welfare or food stamps. Neither should alcohol for that matter.

I would LOVE to see the conservatives, small gov't peeps, libertarians, etc. justify this. It does seem like these are the guys against it.

 

This conservative would argue for the abolition of most, if not all aid programs but since that's not ever going to happen since that's never going to happen then make the granting of that aid as restrictive and repugnant as possible. People who are on governemnt aid can and should be held to a different standard then those who are not.