sleeping_gecko

Unfortunately for this man's plans, gravity had taken it's toll.

/Morgan Freeman voice-over

As someone working in a grocery store...

Yeah, there's a ton of "edible, foodlike substances" with zero nutritional value and significant health risks that are approved for foodstamp purchase. In my state (Indiana), it's everything in the grocery store, aside from non-food items and hot deli food.

To an outsider, I'm sure it seems crazy.

We bought our first home when we were full-time college students working in the evenings/weekends. Bought a home downtown in our town (Terre Haute, IN) for under $20k, had to re-wire, patch the roof, and do a lot of cosmetic stuff inside. It's in a bad neighborhood. (In fact, the wiring was stripped out by meth heads, hence the rewiring)

Even though we only lived there for a few years before relocating (job change, wouldn't have bought a home if we knew we'd move so soon), it was hard to say goodbye to that house. It's not just the boards, nails, and property value, it's the life you've lived there.

Edit to clarify: I'm not saying you don't/can't understand, just that I know (some of) the feels those homeowners experience, even from a shorter time frame.

Just don't paint an X over anybody else's name...

As someone who has known several people who were habitual drug abusers while they were on gov't assistance, I really would like to support such testing, as it seems (at first glance) like a good idea. You have to pass a drug test to get benefits. Sure.

But, without even considering the kids of drug abusing folks (who would then be doubly punished by having douchebag parents + no food), it's just plain impractical.

Tl;dr-I agree. People on benefits shouldn't be getting high, but there's no feasible way to stop it.