I keep looking at topics like this to see who’s against this and what they would propose instead. It sounds like a good idea to me.

I’m not even against poor people on publicly funded food programmes having access to sugary food. Like juice has a lot of sugar and I’m fine with taxpayer money going to that, but soda has no real health benefit. I think sugary food in excess is as bad as alcohol and tobacco, and in fact worse than some recreational drugs because we know the drugs are bad, but not enough people are saying that, or are aware that the sugar is bad, too. Or like boxed meals like Kraft Dinner or Hamburger Helper. It’s trash, but it’s quick and easy for working families. I’d rather people buy pasta and rice and learn to actually cook (and it’s cheaper!) but I understand not everyone has the time for that, nor the inclination to learn cooking.

I’m fine with a small percentage of my cheque going to poor people so they can eat. We give much more to billionaires and we really can’t control that. So I’m fine with my money going to poor people. And I wouldn’t tell someone else how to live their life, even if they are on government assistance and I’m helping fund it. However, I wouldn’t want that money I have to give going to contributing to hurting people, like candy and soda do. So I’m fine with that — does that make me an asshole? I’m not gonna yell at someone in the store buying candy on a benefits card, but when I see someone buying a box mix, or the long line at the slough trough (any fast food burger place), I just wish more people knew how to cook a good meal. Especially these days with YouTube, people around the world will show you how to cook the dishes they love.

The result list should be: bread, corn, vodka, cigarettes. In different words – essentials.