[nozzlegear]

> Not sure why you're being down voted. SNAP was bleeding us on the front end by subsidizing sugar water mega corps and on the backend by subsidizing the collosal medical bills that come from the overweight, diabetic millions.

Letting people starve is a better solution than letting them drink soda and potentially develop diabetes over the long term? Preposterous. I don't understand why the common sentiment is that everyone who uses SNAP must enter into a contract with the state to lose weight and only eat heads of iceberg lettuce, lest they be labeled leeches.

[SoftTalker]

It's not one extreme or the other. There's a reasonable middle where SNAP can't be used for soda or candy, etc.

But such regulations are easily subverted and ultimately may not make a lot of difference. If people want to live on Dr. Pepper and cigarettes they will find a way to do that.

[nozzlegear]

I personally agree it shouldn't be one extreme or the other, but the person I was replying to was defending a comment about the suspension of SNAP. My wife and I used SNAP when we first moved in together and she couldn't find a job, so it annoys me when I see people imply that SNAP users just need to make better choices, be less lazy or eat healthier.

[8note]

forcing moralisms aint gonna do it either.

people shouldnt be prevented from ever drinking doctor pepper because they are poor.

snap should reclaim their money from dr pepper if peopleare spending too much on it, or they should be pushed on making doctor pepper healthier if thats what people are spending snap money on.