> Not exactly siding with the companies here, since they are only doing this for profits and not any positive goal. But just the core idea of saying food stamps can't be used on something.

The program has always placed restrictions on what you are allowed to purchase with food stamps.

For instance, already prepared food from a supermarket deli is certainly food, but doesn't qualify for purchase.

Found this in a quick search, I know it's a random site and not an extensive review of data but could be a useful heuristic for discussion: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181211103139.h...

Summary from the link:

"It is well known that poorer Americans are more likely to be obese or suffer from diabetes; there is a strong negative correlation between household income and both obesity and diabetes. This negative correlation, however, has only developed in the past 30 years, according to researchers. Since 1990, the rise of obesity and diabetes was fastest among the poorest US regions."

So the decision to not allow total junk food appears to be a good one from possible data. Education about the low nutritional value and health harm of overconsumption of sugar-based drinks and foods could also help.

Personally I would not have a problem with diet and sugar-free drinks and foods being eligible for food stamps.

> as long as it is food and stuff available at a normal grocery store (so not including alcohol).

Not to dive too far down the “is a burrito a sandwich” rabbit hole, but it is interesting to think about this—a bottle of soda and a bottle of wine really aren’t that far apart: caloric, low-nutrient beverages whose primary purpose is pleasure and that cause some subset of the population to be unable to moderate their intake. Not advocating for government sponsored wine so much as exploring the idea of “what is food?” Soda barely qualifies, in my view. Really beer or wine may actually be a bit more food-like.

That said I agree that strict lifestyle prescriptions for people getting assistance are more often a kind of moral high horse than a useful policy.

You have to pare away a lot of context and experience for these to look similar. Like if you were explaining human food to an alien the alien might make this mistake. But if you've ever lived in a human society you couldn't.

Because hardcore alcoholics exist who will start to die if they go cold turkey on alcohol, I think allowing alcohol arguably makes more sense than soda.

Of course even better would be public funding to medically supervise those alcoholics, but maybe that won't work for the ones that aren't ready to quit, so some form of basic public assistance to afford alcohol might still make sense. I'm not sure. But I am sure that nobody dies from abruptly quitting soda.

I honestly didnt really expect that people would latch onto the alcohol part of this so much.

> That said I agree that strict lifestyle prescriptions for people getting assistance are more often a kind of moral high horse than a useful policy.

Honestly, yeah. Just look at the comments.

So many of us take it for granted that if we want to "waste" money on a candy bar, or some other stupid little thing that gives us a few minutes of joy... we just can and barely give it a second thought.

You actually got me thinking looking at some of the nutrition labels on some of the alcohol I have in my fridge and honestly, I could see the argument. At the end of the day it should the their decision and trying to draw arbitrary lines due to health or whatever just isn't helping anyone, likely just leading to embarrassment or anger when they accidently add something to their cart that isnt covered.

> Honestly, yeah. Just look at the comments.

Guilty. I don't feel strongly enough about this to really give anybody a hard time that uses their food stamps for it.. it's their choice, I'll roll my eyes and move on. It's just an opinion I have on the matter. I don't think what people buy with their food stamps is anywhere near a big enough problem to prioritize over most other things.

> At the same time I feel like people should be able to make their own decisions

But it's everyone who chips in for food stamps and healthcare.

I also chip in for the roads but I don't get to tell you where you can drive.

Driving on public roads is highly regulated.

But importantly, we don't regulate your destination. We all pay to maintain the roads, even for the bum who exclusively uses the road to drive to the liquor store and the strip club and the casino.

The correct amount of "waste" for any system is not zero.

> But importantly, we don't regulate your destination.

Roads and cars aren’t food. I am not sure what the merits of this analogy are beyond the fact that both are publicly provided goods funded by taxes which use is regulated by the government by virtue of that fact.

Oh, oh! I finally get to chip in with my experiences, since I lived with folks on the food stamp programs and still have neighbors reliant upon it for basic sustenance.

On the topic of “treats”, like soda or candy bars, the general takeaway I have after my experiences is that these should be allowed in moderation (say, a fixed price cap per period for non-nutritious treats like candy and soda), but that the actual implementation doesn’t allow for that sort of granularity in most states (and those that can, often aren’t allowed to due to the rules governing the food stamps programs). Everyone should be able to treat themselves, after all, regardless of income.

The problem that arises with a lack of granularity is dependence and abuse: sugar is highly addictive, which sodas are almost entirely comprised of (after water), and alcohol/tobacco are also addictive and habit-forming. So forced within the constraints of the program and its funding, the decision was made to just flatly ban the use of food stamp money for those goods. It’s the same rationale that prohibits the use of food stamps for prepared foods, like a deli sandwich (don’t want folks eating out at restaurants, even though for disabled folks on food stamps, they may be unable to prepare healthy food themselves).

Which is all a roundabout way of saying: welcome to what happens when your country doesn’t meaningfully continue regulating and modernizing its assistance programs to fit with changing market conditions. The soda companies see the potential cash on the table with food stamps for themselves, and obviously want to take taxpayer money to inflate their revenues somewhat. A reasonable government would push back given the glut of studies about sugary drinks and foods and their health consequences, maybe capitulating or compromising in the form of a “spending cap” on those goods from a food stamps budget (say, 5%). Combined with an incoming administration that’s both nakedly hostile to the poor and wholly pro-business, and this will almost certainly go through.

As always, the answer is moderation. If you’re dependent upon the government for necessities to survive, then the government should have a say in what that money can be spent on. Food Stamps absolutely has room for modernization and improvement, but it’s far more granular when you get into the issues at hand.

On food stamps now, and totally agree. I don't need the government to pay for Coke or booze. I need food and appreciate the program greatly.

> At the same time I feel like people should be able to make their own decisions and if you are already having a hard time, why not be able to get a small treat with a beer or something?

Fixed that for ya.

Beer and Soda are small treats.

Correct. So why is OP excluding alcohol.

If you are torn what food restrictions then why are you in support of alcohol restrictions? Many normal grocery stores have alcohol after all.

Presumably for the same reason that we extensively regulate alcohol transactions made with cash, despite them being sold in the same stores as food and normal beverages. The same can't be said of Coke.

Sure technically a lot of stores sell it, but I think there is a clear distinction between alcohol and almost anything else at the store given that it requires special permits, has age restrictions, and a lot of red tape surrounding it.

I feel like it is an easy argument to make to say, if you can safely make the assumption that it is a consumable item and any random grocery store would sell it. It should be covered. Alcohol (especially depending on the state you live in if they severely restrict licenses) does not fit that category.

> there is a clear distinction between alcohol and almost anything else at the store given that it requires special permits, has age restrictions, and a lot of red tape surrounding it

This varies state to state.

People would buy healthier food if they can afford it (both time and money). So, either make healthier food cheaper and allow them to cook it, or give them prepared healthy food.

I doubt it. Eating healthy is already cheap and easy (rice & legumes as a base, fresh or frozen veggies based on what is cheapest at the time). It just doesn’t taste as good and gets boring fast.

why is alcohol ok to be treated differently in your opinion? UPDATE: nvm, you answered it already.

> At the same time I feel like people should be able to make their own decisions and if you are already having a hard time, why not be able to get a small treat with a soda or something?

Is this satire? "The government should pay for your diabetes syrup cause you're having a hard time and want a small treat?" Sorry no, that is akin to tax payer funded booze, cigarettes, or drugs.

> "The government should pay for your diabetes syrup cause you're having a hard time and want a small treat?"

If you're on food stamps? Yes. Next question.