[hashishen]

there is a difference between discouraging bad decisions and encouraging good ones. this resolution falls into the former which is a collective punishment more than anything else since the health of those affected isn't the driving factor here. a better solution would be if healthy items like produce were given incentive to be purchased over these, like exclusive discounting or something similar.

[ndriscoll]

Like making it so that you have to pay full price for candy and soda, but letting you buy produce for free with your SNAP benefits? It's not like beneficiaries are banned from buying soda. They just can't use their benefits to do it (and since money is fungible, it's not really even taking anything away unless they had more than they need to buy actual groceries).

As someone who buys soda maybe once a year or two and candy only to give out on Halloween, I don't understand how this is a point of contention. No one should be buying this stuff with enough regularity for it to affect their budget. Why would we subsidize it? That is encouraging people to buy it. We shouldn't subsidize it for the same reasons we shouldn't subsidize cigarettes and alcohol.

Or more to the point, SNAP is for food. Candy and soda are not food. Unless you're Michael Phelps and need 10,000 calories per day, they have no place in anyone's diet.

[hollerith]

>Candy and soda are not food. Unless you're Michael Phelps and need 10,000 calories per day

Or a farmer.