Welcome to Gaia! ::


Queen of Mercury
Alchameer
I am really skeptical that states would allow cigarettes and alcohol to be purchased with food stamps.. are states allowing this? I can speak for Indiana, we don't allow bullshit like that.


No, they don't. And claims that 'stores are faking it' don't add up. I've been in some of the tiniest towns you can think of. ones where if you blink you miss them, and all they have is a as station and post office, and they still won't allow you to buy non-food items with the snap benefits.



That's what I thought. I haven't been able to post much in this thread as I am currently at work and trying not to slack off too much.
Robotic lalanono
Something does need to be done about this, but how do you recommend it get regulated?


I'm curious as to why you think this. Are you, like the OP, assuming they're doing it to get money for drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes?

Fashionable Phantom

Queen of Mercury
SparkyKid3000
FaceThatMeows

Actually, I was thinking it might be more a form of tough love. Clean yourself up to qualify for the food stamp program, or face the consequences of your lifestyle. As I said earlier, it's not like there aren't other programs in place (shelters and food drives that operate on donations) to make sure these people don't starve.

You seem to be assuming everyone that does drugs has a problem. That's a mistake.


She's also assuming food banks have so much food that its over flowing and that shelters also have so much that they can feed millions every day. She is delusional, at best.


Actually, Queen of Mercury, if you paid attention to everything I've said, you'd see that I ended up conceding their points and agreeing with them. I was never out to prove anything.

My part in this discussion was over a while ago.

-waves bye-bye-
Queen of Mercury
Robotic lalanono
Something does need to be done about this, but how do you recommend it get regulated?


I'm curious as to why you think this. Are you, like the OP, assuming they're doing it to get money for drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes?


Not at all. I, myself, have received food stamps in the past, which is why I will never look down my nose and act high and mighty when someone in front of me in line at the grocery store swipes their card. I remember feeling completely ashamed because of what I thought people must have assumed about me when I used it (especially since I'm also a WOC, and you know people just love blaming WOC for their problems because they dared to seek assistance). There are people out there that abuse the services, though, and I'm sure there is a way to make sure this doesn't happen if we could just figure it out. I asked the question, because I wonder how the OP thinks regulations should be carried out since she seems to think everything is black and white.

Alien Dog

17,850 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Alchameer
Keltoi Samurai
CuAnnan
FaceThatMeows
To be honest, I don't see a problem with this first statement. It's not necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent" accusation, since the people who are clean have nothing to hide.

That is necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent". You are forcing the innocent to prove they are innocent, thus placing the legal burden of proof on the innocent.
You know. In direct opposition with due process.

Don't use the word "necessary" until you understand it.

FaceThatMeows
However those who have a problem with drugs are strongly encouraged to clean themselves up if they want to take advantage of this system. Better for everybody.

It's not better for anybody.
Which you would know.
If you knew anything about drug addiction or being poor.


So, why is mandatory drug testing only "guilty until proven innocent" when applied to Union workers and government benefit recipients, but not to retail and fast food employees? Why should refusal to take a drug test be something that can leave me on the streets, penniless, but not be a concern for someone who either doesn't work, or can't keep their expenses lower than their income?

See, this is the part of the debate that nobody has an answer for: What sense does it make to have harsher rules in place for those that work, and more lenient for those who live off of taxpayer money?


I feel I have an answer to your question. You don't have to assure people you are making poor life choices to buy food where as with unions and such you do. You are held to a MUCH higher standard when working in a union than someone else in the same field who isn't.


But unions and those on government benefits AREN'T held to a higher standard, they're held to a lower one by virtue of them being the ones that it's seen as wrong to drug test.
FaceThatMeows
Queen of Mercury
SparkyKid3000
FaceThatMeows

Actually, I was thinking it might be more a form of tough love. Clean yourself up to qualify for the food stamp program, or face the consequences of your lifestyle. As I said earlier, it's not like there aren't other programs in place (shelters and food drives that operate on donations) to make sure these people don't starve.

You seem to be assuming everyone that does drugs has a problem. That's a mistake.


She's also assuming food banks have so much food that its over flowing and that shelters also have so much that they can feed millions every day. She is delusional, at best.


Actually, Queen of Mercury, if you paid attention to everything I've said, you'd see that I ended up conceding their points and agreeing with them. I was never out to prove anything.

My part in this discussion was over a while ago.

-waves bye-bye-


Someone clearly doesn't know what a public forum is. If you don't want your posts commented on, here's a novel idea; delete or edit them. Its not that hard. I did it with my first post. originally I agreed with the idea of drug testing, then after a little reflection, I realized its a bad idea and changed what I said.

Alien Dog

17,850 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Queen of Mercury
Keltoi Samurai
CuAnnan
FaceThatMeows
To be honest, I don't see a problem with this first statement. It's not necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent" accusation, since the people who are clean have nothing to hide.

That is necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent". You are forcing the innocent to prove they are innocent, thus placing the legal burden of proof on the innocent.
You know. In direct opposition with due process.

Don't use the word "necessary" until you understand it.

FaceThatMeows
However those who have a problem with drugs are strongly encouraged to clean themselves up if they want to take advantage of this system. Better for everybody.

It's not better for anybody.
Which you would know.
If you knew anything about drug addiction or being poor.


So, why is mandatory drug testing only "guilty until proven innocent" when applied to Union workers and government benefit recipients, but not to retail and fast food employees? Why should refusal to take a drug test be something that can leave me on the streets, penniless, but not be a concern for someone who either doesn't work, or can't keep their expenses lower than their income?

See, this is the part of the debate that nobody has an answer for: What sense does it make to have harsher rules in place for those that work, and more lenient for those who live off of taxpayer money?


You do realize that the majority of food stamp recipients are employed, right? Unfortunately, working in a minimum wage job does not put you above the poverty level so you need the public assistance to keep your family fed.


Quote:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP, the new name for food stamps), is one of the best lines of defense against hunger in the United States. The federally funded program helps working families, seniors and many others in need put food on their tables. But stereotypes about SNAP and who uses it persist.

Myth #1: People who get SNAP don’t work.

FACT: The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP—and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children—more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year."

Myth #2: SNAP is a drain on taxpayers.

FACT: Every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.73 in economic activity, according to Moody's economist Mark Zandi. SNAP not only helps low-income people buy groceries, it frees up cash for other expenses, such as medical care, clothing, home repairs and childcare. That benefits local businesses and their employees, which boosts the economy as a whole.

Myth #3: SNAP is rife with fraud and abuse.

FACT: “SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. SNAP fraud has actually been cut by three-quarters over the past 15 years, and the program’s error rate is at an all-time low of less than 3 percent. The introduction of EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards has dramatically reduced consumer fraud. According to the USDA, the small amount of fraud that continues is usually on the part of retailers, not consumers.

Myth #6: SNAP leads to unhealthy eating habits and obesity.

FACT: National studies show no significant link, positive or negative, between food stamps and healthy eating. Nor do they demonstrate a relationship between food stamps and weight gain.
hungercoalition.org


OK, so drug test the ones who are not employed, and have their employers submit the results of their employer-mandated drug screening for the ones who are employed.

Problem solved.
Robotic lalanono
Queen of Mercury
Robotic lalanono
Something does need to be done about this, but how do you recommend it get regulated?


I'm curious as to why you think this. Are you, like the OP, assuming they're doing it to get money for drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes?


Not at all. I, myself, have received food stamps in the past, which is why I will never look down my nose and act high and mighty when someone in front of me in line at the grocery store swipes their card. I remember feeling completely ashamed because of what I thought people must have assumed about me when I used it (especially since I'm also a WOC, and you know people just love blaming WOC for their problems because they dared to seek assistance). There are people out there that abuse the services, though, and I'm sure there is a way to make sure this doesn't happen if we could just figure it out. I asked the question, because I wonder how the OP thinks regulations should be carried out since she seems to think everything is black and white.


Thank you for clarifying. I use the example of a person 'selling' their benefit in order to get money to pay a bill. In my example its an electric bill. Are there those who abuse it? I'm sure there are, but I posted some myths and facts about it and its a myth that its such a huge problem.

Alien Dog

17,850 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
HMS Thunder Child
Keltoi Samurai
CuAnnan
FaceThatMeows
To be honest, I don't see a problem with this first statement. It's not necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent" accusation, since the people who are clean have nothing to hide.

That is necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent". You are forcing the innocent to prove they are innocent, thus placing the legal burden of proof on the innocent.
You know. In direct opposition with due process.

Don't use the word "necessary" until you understand it.

FaceThatMeows
However those who have a problem with drugs are strongly encouraged to clean themselves up if they want to take advantage of this system. Better for everybody.

It's not better for anybody.
Which you would know.
If you knew anything about drug addiction or being poor.


So, why is mandatory drug testing only "guilty until proven innocent" when applied to Union workers and government benefit recipients, but not to retail and fast food employees? Why should refusal to take a drug test be something that can leave me on the streets, penniless, but not be a concern for someone who either doesn't work, or can't keep their expenses lower than their income?

See, this is the part of the debate that nobody has an answer for: What sense does it make to have harsher rules in place for those that work, and more lenient for those who live off of taxpayer money?
Most people on welfare work, which makes me wonder why people act like they don't.

Probably makes it easier to treat them like dirt.


Ok, and the ones who do should be able to get their employers to vouch that they passed a drug screening, since they got hired.

The rest should be screened, just like the rest of us. If I have to be screened to flip burgers, then the minority of people who receive public assistance but do not work should be screened to keep collecting their pay as well.
Keltoi Samurai
Queen of Mercury
Keltoi Samurai
CuAnnan
FaceThatMeows
To be honest, I don't see a problem with this first statement. It's not necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent" accusation, since the people who are clean have nothing to hide.

That is necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent". You are forcing the innocent to prove they are innocent, thus placing the legal burden of proof on the innocent.
You know. In direct opposition with due process.

Don't use the word "necessary" until you understand it.

FaceThatMeows
However those who have a problem with drugs are strongly encouraged to clean themselves up if they want to take advantage of this system. Better for everybody.

It's not better for anybody.
Which you would know.
If you knew anything about drug addiction or being poor.


So, why is mandatory drug testing only "guilty until proven innocent" when applied to Union workers and government benefit recipients, but not to retail and fast food employees? Why should refusal to take a drug test be something that can leave me on the streets, penniless, but not be a concern for someone who either doesn't work, or can't keep their expenses lower than their income?

See, this is the part of the debate that nobody has an answer for: What sense does it make to have harsher rules in place for those that work, and more lenient for those who live off of taxpayer money?


You do realize that the majority of food stamp recipients are employed, right? Unfortunately, working in a minimum wage job does not put you above the poverty level so you need the public assistance to keep your family fed.


Quote:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP, the new name for food stamps), is one of the best lines of defense against hunger in the United States. The federally funded program helps working families, seniors and many others in need put food on their tables. But stereotypes about SNAP and who uses it persist.

Myth #1: People who get SNAP don’t work.

FACT: The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP—and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children—more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year."

Myth #2: SNAP is a drain on taxpayers.

FACT: Every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.73 in economic activity, according to Moody's economist Mark Zandi. SNAP not only helps low-income people buy groceries, it frees up cash for other expenses, such as medical care, clothing, home repairs and childcare. That benefits local businesses and their employees, which boosts the economy as a whole.

Myth #3: SNAP is rife with fraud and abuse.

FACT: “SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. SNAP fraud has actually been cut by three-quarters over the past 15 years, and the program’s error rate is at an all-time low of less than 3 percent. The introduction of EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards has dramatically reduced consumer fraud. According to the USDA, the small amount of fraud that continues is usually on the part of retailers, not consumers.

Myth #6: SNAP leads to unhealthy eating habits and obesity.

FACT: National studies show no significant link, positive or negative, between food stamps and healthy eating. Nor do they demonstrate a relationship between food stamps and weight gain.
hungercoalition.org


OK, so drug test the ones who are not employed, and have their employers submit the results of their employer-mandated drug screening for the ones who are employed.

Problem solved.


The only problem is that you think people who are too poor for food are spending money on drugs.

That is a ******** laugh.

The vast majority of people who use social programs are clean as was pointed out when Florida did drug testing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
Queen of Mercury
Robotic lalanono
Queen of Mercury
Robotic lalanono
Something does need to be done about this, but how do you recommend it get regulated?


I'm curious as to why you think this. Are you, like the OP, assuming they're doing it to get money for drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes?


Not at all. I, myself, have received food stamps in the past, which is why I will never look down my nose and act high and mighty when someone in front of me in line at the grocery store swipes their card. I remember feeling completely ashamed because of what I thought people must have assumed about me when I used it (especially since I'm also a WOC, and you know people just love blaming WOC for their problems because they dared to seek assistance). There are people out there that abuse the services, though, and I'm sure there is a way to make sure this doesn't happen if we could just figure it out. I asked the question, because I wonder how the OP thinks regulations should be carried out since she seems to think everything is black and white.


Thank you for clarifying. I use the example of a person 'selling' their benefit in order to get money to pay a bill. In my example its an electric bill. Are there those who abuse it? I'm sure there are, but I posted some myths and facts about it and its a myth that its such a huge problem.

Oh, I'm sure the number of people who receive assistance and abuse it is small, but I think even small problems need to be fixed before they become bigger problems...but again, it's not black and white. I'm lucky enough to have never had to make the tough decision of choosing whether I want to eat or pay rent...so with that in mind...I'm not sure what the answer to this problem is. sad

Fashionable Phantom

Queen of Mercury
FaceThatMeows
Queen of Mercury
SparkyKid3000
FaceThatMeows

Actually, I was thinking it might be more a form of tough love. Clean yourself up to qualify for the food stamp program, or face the consequences of your lifestyle. As I said earlier, it's not like there aren't other programs in place (shelters and food drives that operate on donations) to make sure these people don't starve.

You seem to be assuming everyone that does drugs has a problem. That's a mistake.


She's also assuming food banks have so much food that its over flowing and that shelters also have so much that they can feed millions every day. She is delusional, at best.


Actually, Queen of Mercury, if you paid attention to everything I've said, you'd see that I ended up conceding their points and agreeing with them. I was never out to prove anything.

My part in this discussion was over a while ago.

-waves bye-bye-


Someone clearly doesn't know what a public forum is. If you don't want your posts commented on, here's a novel idea; delete or edit them. Its not that hard. I did it with my first post. originally I agreed with the idea of drug testing, then after a little reflection, I realized its a bad idea and changed what I said.


I can change my mind. I can never change what I said. I can pretend I never said it, but what's the good in that?

Besides, I never said anything inherently bad, nor claimed anything I said to be my actual opinion. I was only asking people here to bring to the table reasons why a drug test as part of a pre-requisite to the food-stamp program is a bad idea. People gave good reasons. Eventually. It seems a lot of people here on Gaia go into a discussion in order to prove everybody they disagree with wrong. Philosophically that's a horrible attitude to have if you actually want to learn anything or get new ideas. It's kind of closed-minded.

Anyway, peace.
Keltoi Samurai
Queen of Mercury
Keltoi Samurai
CuAnnan
FaceThatMeows
To be honest, I don't see a problem with this first statement. It's not necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent" accusation, since the people who are clean have nothing to hide.

That is necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent". You are forcing the innocent to prove they are innocent, thus placing the legal burden of proof on the innocent.
You know. In direct opposition with due process.

Don't use the word "necessary" until you understand it.

FaceThatMeows
However those who have a problem with drugs are strongly encouraged to clean themselves up if they want to take advantage of this system. Better for everybody.

It's not better for anybody.
Which you would know.
If you knew anything about drug addiction or being poor.


So, why is mandatory drug testing only "guilty until proven innocent" when applied to Union workers and government benefit recipients, but not to retail and fast food employees? Why should refusal to take a drug test be something that can leave me on the streets, penniless, but not be a concern for someone who either doesn't work, or can't keep their expenses lower than their income?

See, this is the part of the debate that nobody has an answer for: What sense does it make to have harsher rules in place for those that work, and more lenient for those who live off of taxpayer money?


You do realize that the majority of food stamp recipients are employed, right? Unfortunately, working in a minimum wage job does not put you above the poverty level so you need the public assistance to keep your family fed.


Quote:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP, the new name for food stamps), is one of the best lines of defense against hunger in the United States. The federally funded program helps working families, seniors and many others in need put food on their tables. But stereotypes about SNAP and who uses it persist.

Myth #1: People who get SNAP don’t work.

FACT: The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP—and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children—more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year."

Myth #2: SNAP is a drain on taxpayers.

FACT: Every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.73 in economic activity, according to Moody's economist Mark Zandi. SNAP not only helps low-income people buy groceries, it frees up cash for other expenses, such as medical care, clothing, home repairs and childcare. That benefits local businesses and their employees, which boosts the economy as a whole.

Myth #3: SNAP is rife with fraud and abuse.

FACT: “SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. SNAP fraud has actually been cut by three-quarters over the past 15 years, and the program’s error rate is at an all-time low of less than 3 percent. The introduction of EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards has dramatically reduced consumer fraud. According to the USDA, the small amount of fraud that continues is usually on the part of retailers, not consumers.

Myth #6: SNAP leads to unhealthy eating habits and obesity.

FACT: National studies show no significant link, positive or negative, between food stamps and healthy eating. Nor do they demonstrate a relationship between food stamps and weight gain.
hungercoalition.org


OK, so drug test the ones who are not employed, and have their employers submit the results of their employer-mandated drug screening for the ones who are employed.

Problem solved.


You're assuming that a) just because a person is unemployed they're a criminal druggie, which stigmatizes the poor and that b) every employer drug tests. Many do not because the cost of the testing does not benefit them. Say a person uses drugs recreationally but they have an interview coming up. What are they going to do? Not use until after they know if they're hired. Pass the drug test and viola, no more worries. Most places that claim to do random testing don't. Prior to joining the Army, I worked at 3 different places that claimed to random test. At two of the places, there were employees who'd been there for 10+ years and had [b[never been randomly tested and didn't know a single person in the company who had been. At the third place, the only time they requested one was if someone was behaving a bit erratic at work and got injured.
Robotic lalanono
Queen of Mercury
Robotic lalanono
Queen of Mercury
Robotic lalanono
Something does need to be done about this, but how do you recommend it get regulated?


I'm curious as to why you think this. Are you, like the OP, assuming they're doing it to get money for drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes?


Not at all. I, myself, have received food stamps in the past, which is why I will never look down my nose and act high and mighty when someone in front of me in line at the grocery store swipes their card. I remember feeling completely ashamed because of what I thought people must have assumed about me when I used it (especially since I'm also a WOC, and you know people just love blaming WOC for their problems because they dared to seek assistance). There are people out there that abuse the services, though, and I'm sure there is a way to make sure this doesn't happen if we could just figure it out. I asked the question, because I wonder how the OP thinks regulations should be carried out since she seems to think everything is black and white.


Thank you for clarifying. I use the example of a person 'selling' their benefit in order to get money to pay a bill. In my example its an electric bill. Are there those who abuse it? I'm sure there are, but I posted some myths and facts about it and its a myth that its such a huge problem.

Oh, I'm sure the number of people who receive assistance and abuse it is small, but I think even small problems need to be fixed before they become bigger problems...but again, it's not black and white. I'm lucky enough to have never had to make the tough decision of choosing whether I want to eat or pay rent...so with that in mind...I'm not sure what the answer to this problem is. sad


I've been lucky as well. I've never been in that position before, but I know those who have. My girl was in that situation before we got together. So I'm able to see it from an angle of 'What would I do in that situation?'
Keltoi Samurai
Alchameer
Keltoi Samurai
CuAnnan
FaceThatMeows
To be honest, I don't see a problem with this first statement. It's not necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent" accusation, since the people who are clean have nothing to hide.

That is necessarily a "guilty until proven innocent". You are forcing the innocent to prove they are innocent, thus placing the legal burden of proof on the innocent.
You know. In direct opposition with due process.

Don't use the word "necessary" until you understand it.

FaceThatMeows
However those who have a problem with drugs are strongly encouraged to clean themselves up if they want to take advantage of this system. Better for everybody.

It's not better for anybody.
Which you would know.
If you knew anything about drug addiction or being poor.


So, why is mandatory drug testing only "guilty until proven innocent" when applied to Union workers and government benefit recipients, but not to retail and fast food employees? Why should refusal to take a drug test be something that can leave me on the streets, penniless, but not be a concern for someone who either doesn't work, or can't keep their expenses lower than their income?

See, this is the part of the debate that nobody has an answer for: What sense does it make to have harsher rules in place for those that work, and more lenient for those who live off of taxpayer money?


I feel I have an answer to your question. You don't have to assure people you are making poor life choices to buy food where as with unions and such you do. You are held to a MUCH higher standard when working in a union than someone else in the same field who isn't.


But unions and those on government benefits AREN'T held to a higher standard, they're held to a lower one by virtue of them being the ones that it's seen as wrong to drug test.


So every person applying for food stamps is allegedly using drugs is what I'm hearing from you. How many people do you know of on food stamps that also use drugs? Do you have any information that shows a large portion do? In my research it has been such a low amount that the money spent by the state to test each applicant ends up being wasted. If the number of people on food stamps were also on drugs, there probably would be mandatory testing. These people are trying to put food in their stomach. I think there could be some changes made to what can be purchased with food stamps, but I see no reason to starve someone for something that is to be assumed.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum