Food Stamp Reform: Alcohol & Tobacco Restrictions

How do you know they are on food stamps?

 

Pretty sure you can’t buy alcohol or tobacco with food stamps.

 

You can buy Red Bull. I had a part time employee doing it. They definitely need to tighten down on what can and can't be purchased, imo.

 

I disagree. I think if the gov is gonna give transfers they should NOT be earmarked. It should be cash.

 

If it's a free for all I'm fine with it. Not the way id go but so be it. But if you're gonna restrict it I'd rather it be to WIC items. At least WIC items as they used to be, no clue if it's still basically essentials.

I believe it classifies Red Bull as a vitamin or supplement. Which is pretty funny.

 

coulda bought that for pennies on the dollar from a crackhead.

 

Here is the list of what you can buy according to the USDA

Any food for the household, such as:

• Fruits and vegetables;
• Meat, poultry, and fish;
• Dairy products;
• Breads and cereals;
• Other foods such as snack foods and non-alcoholic beverages; and
• Seeds and plants, which produce food for the household to eat.

Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:

• Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes, or tobacco
• Vitamins, medicines, and supplements. If an item has a Supplement Facts label, it is considered a supplement and is not eligible for SNAP purchase.
• Live animals (except shellfish, fish removed from water, and animals slaughtered prior to pick-up from the store).
• Foods that are hot at the point of sale
• Any nonfood items such as:
  • Pet foods
  • Cleaning supplies, paper products, and other household supplies.
  • Hygiene items, cosmetics

What Can SNAP Buy? | Food and Nutrition Service

 

Subscribe to read | Financial Times


The effectiveness of cash transfers is also in part a reminder that, most of the time, for most of us, individuals are pretty good judges of how to spend their own money. Not that this means that cash transfers are the only lever governments should reach for.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that cash transfers are so effective, states do very little of them, particularly within their own borders. Why not? One reason is simple politics: when I told a US friend the subject of this week’s column, they laughed mirthlessly. They then told me that while free school lunches might well be less effective than increasing welfare payments, these lunches are a popular government programme, while welfare is not. Political parties of any number of hues have, at one time or another, found success running on the idea that there are a large number of “undeserving” voters whose spending habits need to be checked, monitored or tackled. Very few politicians are willing to concede that many social problems can be sharply curbed simply by increasing the amount of cash people have, rather than through invasive state programmes.

Another is that states are preoccupied with the handful of people who are not well served by cash transfers: what you might call the “power users” of government services. One study in New Zealand found that a fifth of the population accounted for 54 per cent of all cigarettes smoked, 57 per cent of overnight stays in hospitals and 81 per cent of criminal convictions. While most jobseekers would not, if given unconditional cash transfers, live on benefits forever or spend their money on so-called “temptation goods” like alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs, a minority would.

So, who should states run their services for? The majority who would be better off with cash transfers, or the minority who require more intensive support? We see this with highly conditional benefits — which studies show consistently decrease the number of people who are long-term unemployed but with the consequence that more of them end up in lower-paid and less secure jobs than they held before. Welfare policies are constructed with the needs of “power users” in mind, rather than what might benefit the majority.

 

I don’t mind that one. Lots of people drink that shit for a little pep before work. Nothing like cigarettes or alcohol.

 

You also have to follow the $$ trail of donations from companies that benefit from cash transfers for things like EBT. Kellogs, Nabisco, Conagra, General Mills, etc. They benefit greatly from people being able to buy what they want

 

I guess I see what you're saying, though it just seems wrong for govt Red Bull subsidies. Don't think I can support it. Not a necessity.

 

My apologies. I misread your OP. Not sure how that could possibly be restricted. How can the government keep poor people from spending their cash on whatever they want?

 

Black markets

 

what about soda? Or products full of high fructose corn syrup? What makes Red Bull worse than those? Where do you draw the line for “necessity?”

 

My opinion has always been if it's govt funded it should be basic WIC stuff.
I'd go as far as WIC grocery stores in food deserts.