Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considering that most of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is taxes seems kind of silly to withdraw benefits from people because they are giving a big chunk of those benefits back to government in the form of cigarette taxes. I mean, you already ARE withdrawing a large part of their benefits in a way through those taxes, no need to go further.
I hold no brief for smoking or for smokers. Therefore I am sympathetic to the OP's idea.
However, one has to always look at the practicality of such ideas. How would the government determine if someone is a smoker? The investigative capacity of our various levels of government (in the aggregate) is already stretched thin. We don't need one more rule, especially a nearly impossible-to-enforce rule.
Having people sign an affidavit that they do not smoke would be pretty meaningless, because lots of people do not hesitate to cheat. Would we have a government employee smelling people's breath? Smokers' breath can be covered up with mouthwash and chewing gum (even if the suggestion itself weren't so ludicrous).
Also, smoking may not even be the most self-destructive behavior for which receiving welfare would free up money. Abuse of alcohol and use of illegal drugs are also very hazardous to health.
No, I'm afraid we are stuck with the possibility that any welfare safety net will be freeing up money to be used for unsavory purposes in the case of some people. The OP's idea is just not practical.
cigarette smokers? The premise being that if you can't afford to feed yourself you certainly can't afford to smoke.
I should clarify that I mean welfare-type benefits; monies paid by the taxpayers to people who supposedly could not support themselves otherwise.
The quick answer is that it is not government's business what anyone does, so long as that person does not violate another person's right to life, liberty, and property.
However, with time to think on various angles of the issue, the points to remember are that you are talking about taxpayer's money, which should not be spent indiscriminately. The constitution itself does not mention "provide the general welfare." It mentions "promote the general welfare." So beside the very legitimacy of welfare itself, it makes sense to put constraints on it. Drug testing of welfare recipients should also be mandatory. Oh, so person A does not like that at all? Then get a job. Next!
Someone said they can't buy cooked food? They buy the rotisserie chicken here in KS and some other pre-cooked, ready to eat items. They need to stop cash benefits altogether and give them a card that only allows certain items. These are people who cannot support themselves, think like kids, and with my kids, when I paid the bills, I decided what they could and could not buy. I see them using their Vision card and paying cash for the cigarettes and beer and in smaller towns, you know who is on welfare and who isn't. I have raw chicken, usually marked down, and they have their rotisserie chicken!
If the government is paying your bills, shouldn't they have a say in how you spend their money? At least when it comes to a completely unnecessary, expensive, and deadly habit.
Moderator cut: deleted quote
No. One problem with your assertion is that most people who are on government benefits contributed to the system before they got on benefits in the first place, therefore, we would be denying them money they contributed, at least partially. Secondly, I don't believe we have any right to attempt to control what is still a legal habit, at least not unless we control other habits, such as alcohol consumption, poor diet, unprotected sex, or reckless driving. Lastly, cigarette smoking is addictive, and it is very difficult for many smokers to stop once they start. Quitting is not simply a matter of willpower or convenience; the issue is much more complex than that. I believe offering incentives to quit, rather than punishment for continuing to smoke, is a more effective plan.
I learned a long time ago, it doesn't pay to make judgments without knowing the facts. Some people buy raw chicken, cut it up, cook it fresh. If you hit a sale, you buy a ton, freeze it and you eat several meals cheaply. It you are using SNAP benefits, you buy a rotisserie chicken - maybe because you don't have a reliable stove for cooking that raw chicken. Or maybe you have no idea how to cook that raw chicken. Of course, it's possible that the purchaser is simply too lazy to cook that raw chicken. But I don't know that.
Do I think the government needs to keep its nose out of my business? Yes. But I also think that in order to receive benefits, (barring, of course, those who are unable) one should have to do some productive work. Cleaning streets. Picking up litter in parks. Cleaning the hallways and common areas in the "projects" where the recipients are living. The elderly are excused. But they would probably be the first ones to volunteer for whatever work is proposed.
As for smokers, overeaters, alcoholics, these folks will find a way to feed their particular habit no matter where the money comes from. Cut off the benefits and prepare to be mugged. If there was an easy answer, we'd love to hear it.
In terms of government reach, this isn't anything dramatically new. The difference between this and something like SS is that they already control what the funds can be used for. You already can't use SNAP money to pay for cigarettes or alcohol.
The problem is that it's now determining what you can do with the money that didn't come from the government. That part is too slippery of a slope to start down. In theory, sure, it makes sense that we shouldn't be giving a person an extra $100/month if they're wasting $100/month on cigarettes because they can survive just fine if they stop smoking instead.
But whenever you consider a sacrifice of freedom, you must consider what the worst outcome could be. What if it applies to people receiving social security benefits? That means that as soon as you hit 65, you can only buy what the government allows you to buy. Taken a step further, what's to stop the future government from just increasing taxes and hand outs in order to stage a power grab. Now, you pretty much need to receive the money, and because of that, they get to control your spending.
I wish people wouldn't waste their money when they don't have enough to survive on their own, but attempting to pass a law against it won't likely stop anything. 1) Congress always ignores the unintended side effects and 2) People are amazing at coming up with new ways to make sure they get their vices.
Ultimately, this would probably just create a black market.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
