Congress targets welfare recipients with the "Needs not Weed" act

It's a nice way to encourage off-books barter and more use of the banks' ATM machines, but other than that the impact will be negligible. People can always trade allowed goods for cash or for prohibited goods. There's no better incentive for informal market entrepreneurship than denying someone something they want.

Nice job, Reps.

They don't care about the economic angle. They just hate the idea of "lazy" welfare recipients. Because if you're on welfare, it's just because you're lazy and won't get a job. To them, anything that kicks some people out of the program is a good thing. Or at least kick out the people they consider undeserving of it.

I would think that since most of these stores can't/aren't allowed to accept credit cards that the EBT's would be included as well.

Which is why I've seen articles detailing an uptick in crime because people know these stores are going to have a LOT of cash.

*shrugs*

There's always the Rick Scott angle as well - be a major shareholder of the company you hire to do the state's testing. (Oh, and then when people call you on it, sell your stake to your wife.)

While my son was growing up, as a single parent I was on and off welfare a few times. I have no problem having recreational drugs disallowed. Welfare isn't meant to pay for "recreational" items like pot or cigarettes or booze or dinners out.

I don't see drugs as falling under the purposes of food stamps, regardless. I don't think it'd make a ton of sense for people to be using food stamps for something like Advil, either, really. I don't have a big problem with food stamps being limited to stuff that's generally used as food. There are other programs that are either less specific or can be used for medication (in which case medical marijuana should definitely be covered).

I'm more bothered by restricting (or wanting to restrict) what food items people are allowed to get (like not wanting them to purchase junk food or birthday cakes). Either people qualify for food stamps or they don't. Unless children are being supported (in which case, I do think there should be a requirement that the kids get decent food), people can use their own judgment about what to eat. It's no one else's business.

Marijuana is not really a food item. It's also an item that tends to make you hungrier when they use it. I can totally understand not wanting people on food stamps to use their stamps to buy it.

So the law prevents you from using EBT at marijuana dispensaries, at stores that sell marijuana. There might not be a functional difference between this and "not being allowed to buy marijuana" depending on how these dispensaries are set up. For example there are states that have laws that say that liquor stores can only sell liquor. If a marijuana dispensary is legislated like that and can only sell marijuana, then "not being allowed to buy marijuana" and "not being allowed to use in a dispensary" is one in the same until the legislation changes.

But I've never been on food stamps before and I've got to wonder a bit on how they work. There's a bunch of laws about buying things like liquor and cigarettes... cigarettes, at least, I would not consider a food item. How do these EBT cards discriminate against what they're being spent for?

I don't see anything wrong with limiting allowed purchases to what the benefit is intended to cover, whether excluding liquor, weed, cigarettes or even non-nutritious junk food or expensive "luxury" foods. However, there's something about specifically naming a "Needs, not Weed" act that seems rather cringey and insulting to benefit recipients.

Fruitbat said:

I don't see anything wrong with limiting allowed purchases to what the benefit is intended to cover, whether excluding liquor, weed, cigarettes or even non-nutritious junk food or expensive "luxury" foods.

Click to expand...

I feel like there's a big difference between limiting food stamps to food items only (which excludes cigarettes, at least), and excluding things like "luxury" foods. Food is food, though some of it is going to be healthier or more practical. People on food stamps can exercise judgment in deciding how to best spend their food money or budgeting for special occasions just like anyone else, and I don't think it's anyone's place to judge. Worst case scenario, someone spends all their food stamp money on junk food and then doesn't have money left for other stuff, which is their prerogative. I'd be all for providing budgeting info to help people make economic choices, but even poor people can decide to get treats occasionally.

However, there's something about specifically naming a "Needs, not Weed" act that seems rather cringey and insulting to benefit recipients.

Click to expand...

Completely agreed on this.

Hapax Legomenon said:

Marijuana is not really a food item.

Click to expand...

They're an essential ingredient in many brownie recipes.

I really think these anti-drug welfare initiatives are about shaming welfare recipients and putting them in "their place."

What if we just gave people on welfare plain old cash and let them decide how to take it to market? You know, if you want to spend your welfare money on Pabst Blue Ribbon and Ho-Ho's, how is that my concern? What if you bought a legal pot brownie off a food truck? End of the world, right?

And if you do something illegal with it, well, the law handles it the exact same way it does when someone not on welfare does something illegal with their money.

What floors me is that the notions I've just stated are considered really far out by the very people who pretend to value self-determination, freedom and small gub'ment.

What about all the cocaine that bailed-out Wallstreeters snort?

Devil Ledbetter said:

I really think these anti-drug welfare initiatives are about shaming welfare recipients and putting them in "their place."

Click to expand...

Okay, again having been there, I don't see this as a demeaning or controlling measure. This is not money people have earned (other than they may have paid their taxes like everyone else, including those not on welfare). This is money given them by the government - and there is not an entity on earth that receives government funds without strings attached. The marijuana thing - just an addendum to the list of things already specified as not being eligible for purchase. Until it was legalized, there was no reason to include it specifically. Much ado about nothing.

I worked at the welfare department in WA state for 17 years, including being a Food Stamp worker and some time investigating fraud.

Have you ever tried to survive on the amount of food you can buy for what you (and your family, if you have any) can get each month in food stamp benefits? Here's a handy calculator that can tell you what you'd qualify for: http://foodhelp.wa.gov/bf_benefit_estimator.htm

Here's what I know about people on welfare: they do what they can to survive. They live with relatives or try to get on subsidized housing (there's a 4-5 year wait in the Seattle area and if you're single, you're out of luck). They work under the table. Sometimes they sell dope to make money to buy diapers or bus passes. Sometimes they have friends, relatives or pimps with more money than they have, and those people get them things (like nice jeans, or trips to Florida to attend their grandmother's funeral). There's a thriving market for EBT cards -- you hand over your card to someone who will give you 1/3-1/2 the face value in cash.

But there are also people who actually do live on only what they get from welfare. If those people have a prescription for medical marijuana, what are they supposed to do to pay for it? To say nothing of how can they even afford it -- I know a ton of people with good jobs who can't afford to buy marijuana that would help their medical problems.

Dave Reichert is a politician. He made his name as a sheriff by chasing down a serial killer for 20 years until someone else finally got enough evidence to arrest and convict him. Dave wrote a book about it and ran for office -- and got elected. My cynical impression is that his "Needs not Weed" bill is more about getting attention than anything else -- it would not surprise me in the least were he to run for President.

Marginalized and impoverished people will continue to find ways to work around the system as they can -- if they survive.

shadowwalker said:

Okay, again having been there, I don't see this as a demeaning or controlling measure. This is not money people have earned (other than they may have paid their taxes like everyone else, including those not on welfare). This is money given them by the government - and there is not an entity on earth that receives government funds without strings attached. The marijuana thing - just an addendum to the list of things already specified as not being eligible for purchase. Until it was legalized, there was no reason to include it specifically. Much ado about nothing.

Click to expand...

Hm, I've been on disability in Alberta. It was to cover food, shelter, clothing. You could buy drugs and alcohol, but the only string attached was that you had to see a doctor who would have to report on your condition if they noticed deteoration or what not. Welfare here is similar, although the amounts given are a third less (1500 a month versus 500 a month.) Welfare includes access to resources to help you get a job.

The worst part of dickering with all the stipulations and strings attached is that you can set it all up with the infrastructure but have no one to enforce it.

shadowwalker said:

Okay, again having been there, I don't see this as a demeaning or controlling measure. This is not money people have earned (other than they may have paid their taxes like everyone else, including those not on welfare). This is money given them by the government - and there is not an entity on earth that receives government funds without strings attached. The marijuana thing - just an addendum to the list of things already specified as not being eligible for purchase. Until it was legalized, there was no reason to include it specifically. Much ado about nothing.

Click to expand...

What are the strings attached but social engineering? We as a society say "Cigarettes are legal. Alcohol is legal. Pot, in some places/circumstances is legal, ordering a delivery pizza is legal." But if you're on welfare, you have to spend your money on what we deem is healthy and socially acceptable for poor people.

I really dislike the opportunistic approach of social engineering for people who need financial assistance. Oh, you got laid off and now you need government help? Well, let us just tell you exactly how you can live your life.

It reminds me of this line from The Emperor's New Groove.

I'm not sure how the current programs do work. My only personal experience with it was that I got WIC for my foster babies but that's been over a dozen years ago. If anyone's interested, that's only for pregnant or nursing women, infants and children under six, I believe. Foster parents qualify regardless of their income, it's a benefit that comes with the little ones in foster care. But otherwise I believe you can have a significantly higher income than is needed for food stamps and still qualify.

Anyway, they'd give me a set of coupons every month for each specific food item I was allowed, which varied by the children's ages. For example, it included formula for babies. Any choices were spelled out on the coupon (like one pound of my choice of cheese, block or sliced, for example). Also, if I remember right, I couldn't use all the coupons at once, they were rationed throughout the month. It was all basic, nutritious food like beans, peanut butter, milk, fruit juice, cheese, certain cereals, formula, baby food. It was just supplemental and not intended to cover all of their food costs as it was, so it didn't include any provision for extras like sweets.

I assume if you get some kind of monthly check, you can spend that at your discretion but food stamps (or the card they use now) is more limited. Does anyone know what restrictions they do place on it nowadays (U.S.)?

Devil Ledbetter said:

What are the strings attached but social engineering? We as a society say "Cigarettes are legal. Alcohol is legal. Pot, in some places/circumstances is legal, ordering a delivery pizza is legal." But if you're on welfare, you have to spend your money on what we deem is healthy and socially acceptable for poor people.

I really dislike the opportunistic approach of social engineering for people who need financial assistance. Oh, you got laid off and now you need government help? Well, let us just tell you exactly how you can live your life.

Click to expand...

No, they're not telling anyone how to live their life. They're stating how these temporary funds can be used. That's what welfare is supposed to be - a temporary measure for times of need. It's not supposed to be a way of life.

There are programs to help people get off welfare, find new jobs, get an education so they qualify for a different job, pay for child care, yada yada yada. All of it designed to get people in a position so they can be self-sufficient and run their own lives.

I'm not sure about now, but when I was an eligibility worker, you couldn't use food stamp benefits for any non-food item, soda, alcohol, etc. And food banks don't supply toilet paper, shampoo or soap. I remember doing a home visit and watching a woman washing her laundry in the kitchen sink with no soap, by candlelight, while her two toddlers huddled in a sleeping bag on the floor (they had no furniture) -- her electricity had been shut off.

ETA: For a few years, I was the caseworker who was supposed to help my clients get jobs and get off welfare. I had a caseload of over 500 people. Around 25% of them could be exempted from participating because of disability (either their own, or that of one or more of their children -- we got those people onto federal programs like Social Security Disability), or drug/alcohol addiction (we tried to get those people into treatment, but the waiting lists were long). Around 50% were exempted because they couldn't get daycare, even though the state paid for it -- there were simply not enough daycares that would take the pittance the state pays. About 10% simply ignored the letters we sent telling them they had to come in and participate in job finding classes (we would terminate their benefits, they would be back within days applying for emergency assistance, which they would then qualify for). Around 10% got into school or internships. The other 5% would work their asses off, writing resumes, calling employers, going to interviews - and around 7-10 of them would get a job each month (this was in the mid-80s when unemployment was low). At least one person per month would bitch at me about the fucked up welfare system and I would hand them an application to be a welfare worker and they would end up getting hired and sitting in the next cubicle.

Yeah, that's what I recalled too Karen, that they even have some restrictions on what foods you can buy with food stamps and that soda was one of the things not allowed. They don't give out much, that's for sure.

shadowwalker said:

No, they're not telling anyone how to live their life. They're stating how these temporary funds can be used. That's what welfare is supposed to be - a temporary measure for times of need. It's not supposed to be a way of life.

There are programs to help people get off welfare, find new jobs, get an education so they qualify for a different job, pay for child care, yada yada yada. All of it designed to get people in a position so they can be self-sufficient and run their own lives.

Click to expand...

I just find it arrogant of the government to assume that just because someone needs temporary financial assistant, that person must have no idea how to grocery shop and zero money management skills. How does micromanaging their grocery list help?

As Karen pointed out, the government won't even let them buy soap. They prescribe a one-size-fits-all "path" that is supposed to get them off welfare, leaving no room for the recipient to creatively make their own way with temporary financial help.

Yeah, there are no services for teaching people about nutrition or money-management (though I think some high schools have classes in that now, but they sure didn't when I was in school). In fact, my co-workers were just as apt to borrow money for a yogurt at lunch as a client was.