I personally believe that mandatory drug testing of benefit recipients is not a bad idea. Why, though, would one chose to direct such an idea only at one economic class of individuals when more than just the underprivileged persons’ benefits are handed to them by the taxpayer. To make things fair, (because we just love equality, don’t we?), why not mandate a hair follicle from every elected official and judge, and every government paid employee? Or is it only the poor’s drug-related activity that is disturbing to some? (Yes, I know, some positions require testing).

Rena, when over 40 million American are supplementing their grocery bill by food stamps, (a number highly relative to the rate of unemployment in this nation) with all do respect, who are you to even suggest what they can and cannot buy? (Though, you are not the only one to suggest such, an ex-congresswomen posed the same suggestion. My response to her was the same as to you). Their children should not have a sip of soda, taste of jerky, or a piece of candy because one or both parents lost their jobs? (No candy cane for you this year, kiddo)! I highly doubt that is what you suggested in you comment. Once again, is it only the poor’s diet that is disturbing, or should we also mandate what every tax-paid employee eats.

Friday past, I treated my kids to a supreme pizza AND a two-liter of soda AND even a movie which totaled a whole nine bucks! I don’t see a problem with that. And if one wanted to do that for their kids on food stamps (which, no, I do not receive) I wouldn’t have a problem with that either. I certainly would not have a problem for a food stamp recipient’s child getting some candy for Christmas, Valentine’s Day, or even passing it out at Halloween.