Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-29-2014, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,259 posts, read 64,384,306 times
Reputation: 73937

Advertisements

Drug abuse screening bill OK'd by Indiana House | Local - Home


I find it fascinating that people who are against it think kids "deserve" to have a treat now and then...which may be true, but why does that treat have to be taxpayer funded?

And why do we give "treats" in the form of body-polluting nasty chemical crap?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2014, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Taos NM
5,362 posts, read 5,139,050 times
Reputation: 6791
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
Drug abuse screening bill OK'd by Indiana House | Local - Home


I find it fascinating that people who are against it think kids "deserve" to have a treat now and then...which may be true, but why does that treat have to be taxpayer funded?

And why do we give "treats" in the form of body-polluting nasty chemical crap?
What Indiana is doing is fine. If they receive government money for food, then the government call tell them which foods are ok. Their own money is something else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,259 posts, read 64,384,306 times
Reputation: 73937
I think what they are doing is fantastic, how it should have been run from the beginning, and how other states should model their systems.

I wonder what this will do (as a side effect) to combat childhood obesity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 08:36 AM
 
13,511 posts, read 19,287,554 times
Reputation: 16581
I think it's the stupidest thing I've seen in awhile.
I can see many children going hungry because of it.
People on welfare can hardly afford the best quality, most nutritious food.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,259 posts, read 64,384,306 times
Reputation: 73937
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman View Post
I think it's the stupidest thing I've seen in awhile.
I can see many children going hungry because of it.
People on welfare can hardly afford the best quality, most nutritious food.
Please explain how not being allowed to buy poison processed crap that has little to no nutritional value will cause children to suffer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Currently living in Reddit
5,652 posts, read 6,990,032 times
Reputation: 7323
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman View Post
I think it's the stupidest thing I've seen in awhile.
I can see many children going hungry because of it.
People on welfare can hardly afford the best quality, most nutritious food.
I can't speak to rural areas, but in cities, the issue is not so much a poor family can't afford more nutritious food, it's that they don't have access to it. Often, whatever passes as a "supermarket" in poor urban areas is not what you find in the 'burbs. This is one area where targeted tax breaks/government support would actually make sense - incentives to build better food access in poor areas. Junk food consumption could go down, more jobs, less people on the dole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 08:50 AM
 
13,511 posts, read 19,287,554 times
Reputation: 16581
stan4...You're assuming that that's something they all do.
Why is that?
Is it because they fell on hard times, and need help? Is that why you figure they all eat processed crap?
Or maybe you think they are lesser people?
If you want to be angry at someone, why not be angry and make laws to stop the production and selling of those "crap" foods.
The little amount of money welfare recipients get shouldn't be contingent on drug tests and eating only what someone else decides they should.
Does it really, really bother you to see a child enjoying a popsicle on a hot day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 08:57 AM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
52,697 posts, read 34,572,254 times
Reputation: 29289
if parents can't come up with a lousy buck for a popsicle, maybe they shouldn't be buying any?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 09:08 AM
 
5,064 posts, read 5,731,609 times
Reputation: 4770
Quote:
Originally Posted by sskink View Post
I can't speak to rural areas, but in cities, the issue is not so much a poor family can't afford more nutritious food, it's that they don't have access to it. Often, whatever passes as a "supermarket" in poor urban areas is not what you find in the 'burbs. This is one area where targeted tax breaks/government support would actually make sense - incentives to build better food access in poor areas. Junk food consumption could go down, more jobs, less people on the dole.
Stores stock what the area demands. If the food stamp rules change, and most of the patrons are using food stamps, the stores will start carrying the new allowed items.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 09:38 AM
 
36,539 posts, read 30,879,493 times
Reputation: 32816
I don't understand why people are obsessed with what food stamp recipient's eat. I don't give a flip if they eat what I consider nutritious foods or if they survive on crackers and popsicles or if they buy lobster and steak and only eat for 2 days out of the month. They get X$/month. Let them worry about what foods they buy with it.

The gov. should not be legislating what people eat, be they on food stamps or paying for it themselves.

My aunt who was on the brink of Alzheimer's (though she was not on FS) would eat nothing but crackers and M&Ms. If you cooked her a meal she would not eat it. If an elderly person existing on SS and FS wants to eat crackers and M&Ms (or whatever) who the heck feels they have the right to tell them they must eat spinach and turnips?

Don't people have more important things to concern themselves with?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:01 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top