> These feel like sadistic ways to punish people for being poor.

I think I read that we estimate about 1% (and that's at the upper range) of foodstamps/SNAP/EBT/etc are used for fraud. It's a pretty small number but I think a lot of people think it's much higher. We tend to over index on these things and forget to consider the 99% that are being used probably as intended.

What do you mean by saying punishing them? Poor people needs food, clothing, housing and education, these are essentials. You give them the essentials and they should be able to figure out the others when they manage to get a job.

It's everyone's best interest to make sure that they get on board of a better life as quickly as possible. You spread the money on multiple fronts, it just slows down and wastes the money.

For sure we can debate what's "essential" but I really don't think cigarettes and alchohols are among them, unless stapled by a medical doctor.

> What do you mean by saying punishing them?

Taking agency away from them, by forbidding behavior you deem inappropriate.

The most effective programs are the conditional cash transfer ones and they are extremely successful in bootstrapping families out of poverty even in the poorest places of the poorest countries, right? For the Brazilian one I am most familiar with, it was estimated that for every dollar invested in it, 2.5 would return to the government as taxes in 10 years.

Nobody is forbidding behavior they deem inappropriate, they're refusing to finance behavior they deem inappropriate, big difference. And by "deem inappropriate" we don't just mean "dislike it", we mean "not within the scope of the stated reason you requested this money in the first place." "You can't buy lottery tickets with food stamps" is not the same as "you're not allowed to play lottery if you're on food stamps" and it's not the same as disallowing e.g sex out of wedlock while on food stamps.

Though I don’t find myself in agreement with this position, this is a particularly clear and well-articulated statement of the position. Upvoted for clarity of thinking and communication.

This is hardly sadism. If you can buy alcohol with food coupons you are not bettering disenfranchised people’s lives.

> not bettering disenfranchised people’s lives

I personally find that even at a high income relative to the general populations a few drinks at the end of the day can absolutely better my life. If I was disenfranchised I can only imagine this would be even more true.

I would hope that if someone was giving money to disadvantaged people on my behalf that would also include the ability to buy themselves a drink or a joint in states where that's allowed.

Why not just offer the money for a drink yourself? There's no need to involve others, especially at gunpoint of the IRS man, in your dream to pay the disenfranchised to get high and drink.

You mean poor people should have no right to have a glass of wine at the end of a stressful day, or to use wine for cooking a nice meal, or use a beer for a stew (it'll soften the meat)? There is a lot of judgement going on here and I wonder if it's not something that comes from a puritanical mindset where pleasure should be denied to those deemed unworthy.

Beggars can't be choosers. If they want a glass of wine, then they can earn more money to pay for it. Otherwise they can enjoy the free food generously given. They are not "unworthy", but they are also not entitled to anything they want for free.

They don't even have to do that, just buy yeast and some juice/grains, let it sit in a jug you got from some foodproduct on stamps whatever. Tobacco you can grow from seed gathered from a field. It requires work, not money.

Of course they should be allowed to, if they can afford it.

Alternatively: give the poor coupons instead of cash so that their landlord can't just take it from them.

So they will be well fed and clothed on the street?