Your arguments are SO convincing. There is an asshole here: you apparently unable to post without shitting out your mouth out the same time.

Purdy as fuck is what she is.

It's not hard at all in the age of the computer if the will were actually there.

Confused? You mean I'm not toeing the party line? Oh my!

I don't think it's such a slippery slope that someone on the dole can't buy recreational drugs AT ALL. Seems like a very clear line to me. Now I'm not one for random testing, but I've got no problem with auditing randomly the people in the programs to see where their money is going.

I think offering them is good, but there aren't near enough strings attached.

Depends on what you mean by kicking them, I guess. Why should they do whatever they want?

Nope, and Nope. Alcohol is a drug, not food. Yes, moral significance does, it's only moral significance that has us provide food stamps in the first place.

Nope, but I certainly have no problem with random testing of their purchases and booting the boozers and smokers.

Yes, because alcohol is one of the three needs - or four now I guess - food, clothing, shelter, and now booze.

Heh, and those who aren't alcoholic as well.

Kind of irrelevant when you've got your hand out.

Who knows? Nobody does really.

It's not sarcasm.

The invasion occurred when food stamps were accepted, silly. They aren't totally "private citizens" anymore.

Eating well in this sense means eating expensive items, silly person.

So it's an addiction? Why should your weakness be subsidized?

He should appreciate it. There are people abusing it, taking up the spaces he might need.

No, it says you have no sense of proportion at all.

As Mark said, this is in practice unenforceable unless you are a recognizable celebrity.