Sure, I'd give. No question. I'd give.

Give them a fish and they have one meal. Teach them to fish and they have many meals.

I would most definitely give the money to both. The money that goes to the family will benefit several people. And while it is not preferable to help a crack addict feed his/her addiction, giving them the money to buy it could prevent them from taking other undesirable measures to buy the crack themselves, such as robbery or prostitution. It is similar to the approach some cities with heroin problems have taken (giving out free, sterile syringes) to keep addicts from sharing needles and spreading deadly diseases.

Yes, I would.

The crack addict will find a way to buy crack anyway -- because no one is more single-minded than an addict -- so you might as well give the starving family the money.

A thing is hardly ever all good or all bad, anyway....

If I knew where the family was, I'd bring the food directly to them... no cash, no donations, no freaking rules on helping someone out... is the program run by the government?

No. I could not willingly give money to a crackhead.

Everyone should have enough to eat, educate themselves, and stay healthy. No ifs ands or buts.

Yes - without a second thought. And also get the crack addict some help. There's a reason humans can feel compassion, and that's so we can help others. I will always endeavour to - and hopefully there are enough of us to win over the ones who don't feel it...

I see alot of people saying "no, but I would make the family dinner" or "no, but I would teach the family how to make money to buy their own dinner", because they don't want any of their money to go to people that they have judged to be BAD. Are you all doing that now? There are plenty of programs out there, starving for volunteers. Find one and walk the walk, instead of just talking the talk.

Yes. You may not be able to help the addict, but you can help the family.

I believe there is something inherent in giving that we cannot tell the recipient what to do with the gift. Otherwise it's more like a grant or a loan with a really lax repayment plan.

Yes.

No! Feeding the family is no doubt commendable and would make me feel good and help a family but drugs do real harm to the individual who does them and the people around them and I couldn't be responsible for harming someone.

Of course. Who am I to judge what people do with the money I give them?

yes w/out a second thought! that person who will buy crack will somehow get a hold of it with or w/out my help anyhow.

Yes I'm a former addict.
There is life after crack. A good healthy life. The crack people aren't as necessarily as damaged as you think. The can and will recover, or they will die. Either way, I would not punish the people who can't feed the children. Feed the children.

No, I wouldn't. I would hope and pray that somehow that family would find another source of food. In all likelihood, they would find it. I would not want to give money to someone who would use it for crack. It is likely they would get it from someone else, but I would not contribute to the demise of that person.

Of course, yes. We must fund those who take advantage in order to help those who don’t.

This is obviously about taxes and I believe taxes ARE a necessary evil. This isn’t and shouldn’t be a country of every man for himself. It’s just not. I wouldn’t want to live in that country. Good or bad…and I know we haven’t gotten it perfect yet and may never do so…I would rather live in a country that values humanity. Most often, humanity costs money. In Massachusetts next month we are voting on whether or not to abolish state income tax. I will be voting no, we shouldn’t.

As a child, I grew up in the welfare system and again, good or bad, I respect it as a human necessity that must be available for those who need it. So yes, we must fund those who take advantage in order to help those who don’t. And Jennifer #297 – it still costs money to educate people. Tax money.

Eep, I hope you don't actually have to make a decision like this.

That said, having been one of those kids whose family was living in poverty, homeless, and not sure where to get the next meal... yeah, I'd give the money to both. I say this having had a mother who heavily abused drugs - an addict will *find* a way to get their fix, but the people who actually need the money, who could use it to pay for food or shelter or whatever - they might not.

I would do it, if I had the money.

I know there are easy parrallels to be drawn to taxes and stuff, but I would be really interested in hearing what Dooce was actually asking about. We can assume, but you know what happens then. ;-)

But, since there are already 600+ comments on this post, the likelyhood she'll read mine is pretty slim, so who knows if she'll get back to us on the basis of the question.

Yes

If the family is just going to use the money to buy food with it, then I would go around the system and donate food to the needy family. That way no money exchanges hands and the crackhead doesn't get his crack.

Yes. In a heartbeat. Yes.

Yes, I would give money to feed the family, a crackhead will always find the money anyway right?

On second thought, I think you should pitch this to the House . . .

Yes I would. I would be more concerned about the hungry family.
Screw the crackhead... If they want to buy crack, be my guest.

Absolutely. The negative of the drug use by an individual does not negate the postitive affect of food for a hungry family. And then I would take strides to ensure this family not only has the food they need but gains the skills they can use to earn money for all of their needs. Actually, this isn't hypothetical take the drug user out of the picture and I have done exactly this many times through my church donations (and yes I am one of those cruel, heartless conservatives)

I wouldn't give the money. Instead I would invite the family to eat at my house and share my meals. I don't think that handouts really help anyone. While they are there I would help them find a way to earn money. In the case of the crack head with out the money, they may go with out or they choose to break the law to get their drugs. I would then hope that there is a cop doing their job that our tax dollars pay for they the crack head gets what they deserve and get caught and either go to jail or rehab.

If your 'opportunity to donate' means you have to borrow the money, it's no longer a donation. It turns into a liability for both (or all three) sides which is mostly definitely the opposite of a donation.

For example, my mother said she would take out a loan to help me afford to live in a place of my own as an alternative to having two guy craigslist roommates (who are obviously undiscovered murderers and rapists through my mom's eyes.) Who is to say that when I have a nice place and am living by myself, I'm less likely to be taken advantage of? There is no way I would take her up on that offer, given I'm on my own and have been for years. I'm competent and have the capacity to deal with the 'hardship' and must live this life as it unfolds.

Throwing money at a problem (whether you have the funds or not) never fixes the real problem. I kept trying for a while, but it never worked out. When money, or food, or alcohol, or crack, or any addiction seems like it's the only option and the only answer, then it's of the utmost importance to look through it to the deeper problems and address those instead. If you're in a situation to give, go ahead and give what you have, but money only goes so far. Information and initiative, however, have the power to change this world.

That hungry family probably has more problems than just an empty pantry. Fortunately, you have the abilities to help solve those problems more than does your Benjamin Franklin. It's about time to pony up.

Most likely no.

I would find a way to go around the ridiculous requirement of paying the crackhead. It is my money and I can do with it what I choose. I choose to not help the crackhead buy drugs. In one example of circumvention, I could leave a bag of groceries on the front porch for the family. Hey, if the crackhead wants a bag of groceries then I can leave one for the crackhead too. But not money. I do not trust others abilities to manage their money. And if it is for people that I do not know and there is ridiculous red tape tied to it, I would not involve myself in the mess. I am selfish like that. I know my shortcomings.

Also, if I felt that the parents were mismanaging their money, I would rather take just the kids out to eat and let the adults suffer for their stupid actions. That is just a side note. Let people learn from stupid mistakes, children are another matter though, many times they are in situations that they can not control and have no way of getting out of.

I may not be able to control how others manage their money, time or talents...but I can make sure that I don't offer them a crutch that allows them to hobble along longer when they should be learning to manage their money, time or talents differently.

297 - Jennifer. Nailed it. Teach them all a skill and enable them to start earning their own money. THAT is "teaching them to fish", not buying groceries, which is a temporary fix.

I would give the money. The drug addict is going to get their hands on the crack whether I give the money or not. If I don't give the money, a family goes hungry, but the addict still gets their crack somewhere.

Once you give a gift, it is no longer yours, it is their's to do what they wish with it. So yes, I would give the money.

I frequently saw a homeless women pushing her cart while driving to work. Living in the northeast and it being winter it was damn cold out (minus 0 degrees). I stopped and bought mittens and a hat and kept them in the car until I saw her again. I called out to her, she came over, I gave her the hat/mittens and she threw them in the cart! Not exactly what I expected, but they were no longer mine. And I'd do it again.

No. No. No.
We could find a way to feed the family without feeding the habit.

Nice try H. Apple to oranges.

In this black and white scenario:

NO. I'd tell them to both get a job.

They live in the land of opportunity, not a socialistic country.

I would be pissed off if it came as a package deal like that. But I would do it. And then afterward I would find some way to try to deal with the crackhead. Report them? Something. But making that needy innocent family suffer because of the mistakes that someone else made is not acceptable to me. And is my giving of money (or not) to the crackhead going to make any difference in whether they do crack or not? No. They will find a way whether I give them the money or not.

I just read someone else's comment about just buying both families groceries. That is a better plan.

Yes.

No, I wouldn't give the money. What would be wrong with keeping the money THAT I WORKED HARD FOR and inviting the poor family over for a good home-cooked meal? In your scenario, for every family I help, I also help destroy one. Sounds like a very flawed system. Just my two cents.

I don't even see how this would be an issue for anyone. Give the money without a second thought.

No way. We need to be good stewards of our money and donating to a crack head and family is a very short term solution to a long term problem. Donate your time and resources to real solutions, like the non-profit rehab, your local hospital foundation, the non-profit job corps, your local women's shelter. If anything - invite the family AND the crack-addict over for dinner and make something good. Don't just throw money at them and say "ok, i did my deed." Now, if you're talking about taxes, that's another story...would we have a choice after legislation is passed?

BTW - I'm a walk the walk person, I volunteer at a local hospice (you'd be surprised the # of people who don't want to deal with dying citizens) and I donate to specific causes. I also work at an organization that has a large number of non-profits as clients and let me tell you that the people at the Alzheimers Association and the Autism Society care a lot more about Alzheimer care/research and Autism care/research than some thrown together gov't program.

I'd buy groceries for the family. It's the same mentality I use when helping someone begging on the street - offer to buy them a meal instead of throwing them some money. Maybe it's because I'm a control freak, but I want to know that I've actually done some good rather than contributed to someone's downward spiral.

That's true #264. Anonymous. Some will, some won't. Some people would beg, borrow or steal to feed their children, some won't. But they shouldn't have to make that choice and I want to live in a country that will help them not have to do so.

My mother raised us alone when our father disappeared and this was 30 years ago when programs weren't as developed as they are now. She hocked her jewelry for groceries, clothing, whatever she could sell. Welfare didn't cover extras so occasionally she shoplifted small Christmas gifts for us. She did what she had to because she loved her children as much as anyone else with money did and it wasn't their fault she didn't have any. As soon as the youngest of them went to school, she got whatever work she could find. THESE are the people that need to be helped with tax dollars and if some crackholes benefit sometimes, so be it.

***264. Anonymous said:
why is it that we KNOW the crack head will find the crack anyway but we don't assume the same of the hungry family?
10.02.08 - 08:56 PM ***

Crack dealers have hungry families as well.

Yes. I'd rather feed the kids that need food. The person who wants crack will get crack either way and possibly by doing something illegal and/or harmful in the process. In this way, they are getting the crack they'd get anyway, but without hurting anyone and the family in needs gets what they need to survive.

And to #326 ... we are not morons. I think we all understand that Heather may be looking at a larger issue with this question. And yet, we think it is an interesting point of debate. I doubt that a single person who is participating in the discussion does not see how these principles could be expanded to other (political and/or social) issues. Do not insult us. We are participating in this conversation of our own free will, interested to see where Heather goes with this, and interested in using our own brains to extrapolate this idea to other issues in the world today. Why is it necessary to be a jackass? Do you think you are the only person in the world with a brain? You don't have to like Heather's political beliefs, or like to read about anyone's political agenda. So don't. But many of us are interested.

What a dumb question! And what dumb answers! No wonder the U.S. is in such a fix.

I love your answer Sarah. I agree completely and feel hopeful to see that there are many who do feel like you and I.

***561. Sarah said:

It would be very interesting to also know the political affiliation of each poster. I was guessing those who said no would be republicans, then I noticed in post 300 that is indeed the case at least for one.
I would give the money. Now let me pose something else. If you were going to give a family $100.00 knowing that only $25 of it was actually going to buy food for the hungry children and the rest was going to spent on something else (maybe drugs, maybe alcohol, maybe something frivolous). Would you still give? My answer is yes because that is $40 worth of food those children did not have before.
There are many more scenarios to consider. If you gave a family $100 knowing they are going to spend it eating at Fast Food places instead of making those dollars stretch at the grocery store, would you still give? I would hope so.
I do understand teaching them a job so they can earn money. If I had to guess the folks saying that have never been hungry or feared not being able to feed a child the next day (I have). Teach them the job, it will take awhile for money to start coming in. In the mean time, feed the child who has no choice in this situation.
These attitudes are what is wrong with our country today, in my opinion.

I would absolutely do it. A family in need shouldn't suffer because someone else is making bad choices. There's already enough of that in our society.

I don't know the solution to the bigger problem, but I am more than a little disturbed by everyone's coments about the person who would be buying the crack. So many, "screw the crackhead", "who cares about the crackhead", "let them mess up their own life". What if it was one in the same? What if that "crackhead" was a young mother to four who was abused as a child and got involved with the wrong people and life has spiraled out of control? As for drug screening before handing out welfare, how much money would that cost? And then what if they came up positive? Would you push them aside, not help their family? Or are you suggesting their children be taken away and put into an already overwhelmed system? Again, I don't know what the solution is and I haven't got enough tim to explore this further here. But read these comments, I see the empathy for the family in need of food, but why are we all so quick to condemn the drug addict.
Also, I want to say, that years ago I worked at a detox facility for homeless women with children (in Utah Heather!) and these women were good women. Women who cared for their children. Women who needed help from strangers.
Oh, I wish I could write more, but off to my own babes..

So I've been thinking about this for awhile. My best friend's brother was a heroin addict. After watching her family deal with that, I couldn't imagine doing *anything* to support a similar habit. What is that one hit they bought with your money led to their death? What if they hurt somebody while high off that hit? Should I even worry about these things?

On the other hand, hunger is inexcusable and if I could help, I would be heartless not to. Completely heartless. And if that were me or my family, I know I'd want somebody to help.

Then I started thinking about something I read once. It was some maxim about how the most honest form of philanthropy/caring for your fellow humankind is to give totally anonymously, without knowing what the money will be used for. The idea is simply giving because to share wealth is the right thing to do.

So should the government make me share that wealth or decide how to spend it? Or should that be up to the individual? Isn't the decision to give, the willingness to give, central to the very concept? If that's taken away, what's the point?

I guess the long and short is you are making me think and I appreciate that.

Feeding the hungry is one of the most important tasks we human beings face.

Enabling crack addicts is completely unacceptable.

The answer here is ingenuity. Find another way to feed the child.

There is ALWAYS another way to do the right thing.

For more ways to feed hungry children, visit my blog--specifically the posts this week about charity focus groups and the hurricane devastation in Haiti. I'm pretty sure none of the groups that I mention are buying crack.

Yes, I would give them the money.

So I pose this question to everyone as well:

Let's look at this from a different angle- What if you were that family that received that monetary donation and you knew that the person providing this assistance also funded a crack addict who maybe lived next door and the chances were high that he would turn around and harm his family, himself, or the general public, maybe even your family? Would you accept or find another means to feed your family?

yes.

I'm not sure what I would do but maybe if you use these folks the crack family would never know? :)

www.GivingAnon.org

This is about taxes. And, I totally agree with Heather. Just because some people abuse the system...and I am so tired of hearing about it ("my taxes are not going to go to the lazy, etc.") does not mean that people in real need: the blind/deaf/mentally challenged and specifically, CHILDREN WHO HAVE NO CHOICE OR CONTROL ON OR OF THE MATTER should suffer. I really don't want this beautiful country I love to turn into a 3rd world country with no middle class...pretty much every 1st world country has FAR HIGHER taxes than us. And yes, people abuse the system there in sweden, and *gasp* they are white! NO! YES but the people who really need and deserve the help (CHILDREN) should not suffer because of this. I agree with Heather: if I ever make more than 250,000 then I think I can give a little extra...I can afford it. On a side note a lot of the comments that approach this from a strictly theoretical position are very interesting.

I'm only using the anonymous this time, to prevent possible identification by any of my clients... since my feelings are less than PC.

Sure I would. A child shouldn't have to go hungry, and the crack abuser, providing they stay put and load up on drugs, are hurting no one but themself. A victimless crime, they are only hurting themself. A great book to read with similar thought-provoking questions is "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society".

If this is in regard to the bailout, does anyone really think that the family going through tough times will benefit or that the family who lost their house is going to get it back? Honestly? Face it, the bailout is going to the banks. The banks are not going to turn around and help you get what you lost back. So the crack addict and the crack dealer gets what they want and it's all paid for by the everyone including the hungry family. Nothing gets fixed.

Let the crack addict and the crack dealer pay for their own mistakes and we can deal with helping just the hungry family.

Give the money. The crack heads will find a way to get crack with or without you, the hungry will continue to be hungry without you and what good is that?

I would say absolutely NO.

I was talking to someone yesterday, who said if the government took that 700billion and spread it out amongst all the taxpayers, it would equal to about $220k per person. And what would most people do with the money? Probably pay down their debts and/or houses or buy a house. Hmmmm....sounds like a better way to bailout to me.

It sounds a lot like the welfare system. Some will abuse it and others use it for the intended purpose in a way that actually helps them survive. I would give the money, because just like the welfare system, I would rather help those in real need and allow others to abuse it, than to not help those who need it.

Sure! That addict is going to find the fix whether it's from me or not. I don't feel bad about that, it's their choice. But this scenario doesn't seem very based in reality. I hope I'm never confronted with it!

I'd give the money, absolutely.

1. Why should the poor family suffer because of someone else's drug problem?

2. I would make peace with the crack money by viewing it as a form of harm reduction. That's a hit the addicted person won't have to steal, mug or suck body parts for. I'm willing to live with that.

I'd take the money to buy the hungry family food.

I don't think I would, but not because I'm not a bleeding heart (and proud to be) - I wouldn't want to be responsible for the addict's OD if tragedy were to strike.

No, but presented with the scenario I would find out if the adult family members had skills that would make them employable by me or someone I knew. What I would spend to donate to them for food could quickly be earned doing a lot of different kinds of work (household, labor, etc). Give a man a fish and all that.

Donating the money could potentially hurt more people than not donating the money, and is only a temporary solution even if the drugs weren't part of the scenario. If I could donate food, clothing, necessities, time, a job recommendation, then yes. But to give cash, no.

Donate! Without a shred of doubt.

Well... yes. I'd rather my money feed a family for a week and one person not be robbed tonight because the crackhead got a hand out.

What I'm annoyed by right now is all the people who are saying that they'd buy groceries for the family or they'd "teach them how to get a job". Really? Then why aren't you? Beyond bringing a can of peas that's been at the back of your kitchen cabinet for two years to your works annual can drive, what do you do to try to better your community? Probably nothing. So give your money. It's all you have to offer.

I know it's all I have to offer.

Being someone who grew up very poor with hard-working parents who did not smoke, drink or use drugs; and sometimes needing the help of charity in order to eat; and also having a brother who is now an alcoholic and meth addict; give the money & never give up hope.

Absolutely and here's why, not giving money to the person to buy crack is not going to stop them from buying crack. As the wife of an addict I can tell you that withholding money is not going to stop them, they will just do something else to get it, like break into your car and steal your radio or break into your house and steal your stuff.

So, If the only way you could give money to a worthy cause was to also give money to the person to buy crack I would totally do it. In a wierd way you are sort of helping two people, the person who needs the money for food and the person who no longer has to loose their car stereo to support the addicts habit.

Yes.

You have to hope our law enforcement is doing all they can to fight the war on drugs.

A child should never starve. We who are able should do all we can to prevent it.

YES,
I would give the money.
BTW, it feels really good to see that most people who left comments would do this.

But..
I really do not see how this is related to the bailout.
Bailout is a totally different story.

One moron gave money to another moron to buy a house he did not deserve.
When the first moron stopped paying (which was obvious from the beginning), third moron is about to give money to the first two.

The problem is that the money was TAKEN from the fourth moron, who HAS BEEN paying his mortgage and HAS BEEN paying his taxes!!

The fourth moron is me, of course...

If I have some extra on me, I give money to those who seem to need it. My family can't stand it and always say they will buy beer and cigarettes, or use it for drugs. I have no way of knowing how the money will be used. When I give it, it is theirs and no longer mine. I hope they will use it wisely.

As everyone has said, this is a tough question. I've been reading through the comments and people bring up interesting points but I, myself, would give the money.

That crackhead is going to get the money or the crack anyway he can - crack is too addictive and not something you can just "skip" for a day or hour or minute.

That family may find other ways to get the food but who knows how/if/why. I'd prefer to give them a step forward for one more day than the children be hungry and the parents be more stressed than they most likely already are.

You can't fix everything in the world, but you can try to help parts of it.

(Yes, I realize I sound SICKENINGLY optimistic and liberal, but I've also BEEN THERE when it comes to wondering where the next meal or meals are going to come from. Even when I'M having money problems, I'd STILL donate to someone worse off.)

Nope.

I could give you a long dissertation about my reasons, but am sure everyone's much relieved to hear that I won't. Because my instant, no-hesitation answer is yes. Of course. You have a chance to feea kid? Well, any person who's starving, really. Do good when you can.

I'd like to ask another question - to the people who said no or had to think about it: why wouldn't you?

Yes.

I know this is a metaphor for something completely different, but I really dislike when people think that welfare is some sort of evil liberal ideology. The welfare system isn't perfect, but hopefully we'd all help someone in need with a donation or (gasp!) food stamps, regardless of political feelings. Then again, I'm a social work student. Guess I'm kind of biased towards helping those in need instead of kicking them to the curb.

Yes, provided the person buying the crack was already an addict, not a first-time user.

i couldnt do it. there are ways other than money to help people. and providing money for a crackhead will inevitably end up hurting someone else. maybe even the children of the family you're feeding.

I just want to say how much it amuses me that 99% of the commentors don't realize you're talking about the bailout plan.

Also, Obama/Biden '08

It's not a fair question...or else, there is not enough information. However, if I had to answer just based on what you asked, then the answer is 'no'. No, I would find a different way to help the desperate family instead.

Yes... but the scenario would be harder/impossible if you knew that the crack user would die from that crack... um.. that's too far, isn't it!

#720, Lisa - I saw that email too and someone's math is wrong. It is not $220k a person, more like $500 a person. The bailout is required so that banks can find a way to refinance people so that they can keep their mortgages - or at least thats what they should do. Everyone's upset about the greedy Wall Street guys getting all the money, but the fact is that our society will rapidly enter a depression if all of our banks go bankrupt. They are doing it more to prevent a panic than anything else.

NO

Lene

I said no because I have had the opportunity. We all have. There ARE hungry people in this world and I have never given them money. So how could I turn around and then say yes I would. I haven't therefore I wouldn't.

Yes.

Frankly, I don't care if someone does crack. It's their body. Child poverty is a far more terrible thing then someone doing drugs. (Since it's probably relevant, I'm a liberal Canadian.)

Yes I would. If the other individual decides to harm him/herself with crack, that was still their decision.

But I think I know where you're going with this. Let's change the scenario. Let's say you're given the opportunity to donate some money to a desperate family who would use it to feed their children, but were only able to do so if you donated the same amount of money to someone who would use it to fund burning down a man's house and killing his family.

In that scenario. No. I'm not going to help feed one family at the cost of the death of another.

If we're talking about government welfare, the problem isn't so much that money goes to people who use it for crack instead of food (as the government has no incentive to ensure the money goes to good use), but the real problem is 60% of the money that is supposedly welfare funds (VERY conservative number) doesn't go to either of the person in need or the crack fiend.

Of course I would! Yeah, crack is whack and all that (and I apologize, I'm sure someone has posted that already), but I really look at it as doing 2 good deeds. The addict WILL find a way to get their fix, and at least this time he or she will not be stealing, doing violence to others or selling themselves to do so. Win win.

Yep.

Yes. We cannot eliminate welfare just because people abuse the system.

For sure. Drug addicts often find a way to get the money anyway (I know I sound like a jerk). It would be worth it to feed the family. After 700 comments you probably have your answer

I'd give the money, for the children. The crackhead will find a way to get high with or without my money. The family will a much more difficult time finding food.

YES. Good lord. If we spent a fraction of the time we currently use wittering on about some imaginary crack addict who may or may not be taking us for a ride actually helping people we would cure disease, hunger, poverty, and DEATH.

Everybody's so afraid of being taken for a ride. Everybody's so afraid somebody out there is doing them wrong. Everybody out there thinks they got what they got because they earned it and everybody else is scamming them. I'm DONE with this smug crap. I'm sorry, but it makes me insane. And to the people saying this creates dependence, let me ask you, have you ever been on welfare? Ever needed money?

Nobody waxes poetic about the benefits of poverty unless it's over a full dinner plate. It's only a useful life lesson when it's no longer going on. The privilege. The assumptions. YES, to dooce's question, a thousand times, and if I get taken, so what. I'd rather get taken than parade around showing off how superior I am for knowing so much better than that CRACK ADDICT. My god.

A.

Yes.

I have a feeling there will be a follow up to this and am interested to see what it is.

Absolutely. The crack head is going to find a way to get crack regardless of what you do with the other half of the money.

Yes.
No questions asked.

I'd donate it to both of them. I can't control (and don't want to control people) what someone does...as much I'd hate that the money was going towards their crack habit. It's not right to withhold help for the family because of someone else.

No, I would not give money to the family and the crack buyer. There's got to be a better solution than that, so I would work hard to find it. There's rarely only one way to do something, whether it's helping a starving family, or whatever analogy is being made with this question.

I've been through a bit of the comments here, and I need to impose a question:

Does everyone here go on the assumption that this crack feind is your friendly neighborhood professional, that has a weekend problem with the pipe? That's not reality. More often than not, this is someone who beats his wife, doesn't have a job though he is perfectly capable, milks the system, and is most likely a convicted felon.

"It's their body." Yes, and you can scar it, tattoo it, burn it, posion it however you want on your own time and money. It's absolutely true that it's their body, but it's the effect that they have on families, on society, on crime rates that is so damning.

I agree with #17- and #19... poor #19 they must have a really hard life to have that much anger and hate inside of them.

BUT, if you multiply this by 100 or 10,000 I would have to say no, I couldnt do it.

Jessica (#690)

Apparently, I think that not everyone DOES/DID understand that she was looking at a larger issue - THUS my comment. I'm not the only one who made this comment either - so why do you feel the need to single me out? Did I strike a nerve with you somehow or are you one of those who has to attack anyone who disagrees with Heather? If you find my comment insulting, perhaps you should ask yourself why.

If I'm coming off as a jackass, so be it. I have that right. I am one of the people who logs on here everyday, who participates in getting this blogs views on the rise so that sponsors pay for Heather to sit at home and figure out where my tax money should go while I'm at work every day. So yeah - I think I can say what I want and if that makes me a jackass? Jackass, I am.

I, too, am interested in where this all goes. I don't have to be interested for the same reasons that you are in order to have an opinion. So stick with talking to/responding to/ communicating with people on here that will better contribute to what YOU want to get out of this and maybe you'll be happier. I can read and respond in any manner I choose, whether it be political or not. I don't need you to tell me what to do.

And in answer to your question do I think I'm the only one with a brain? When I posted my original comment - I was beginning to wonder. Now that you've so graciously written a nice comment with such big ole words, I can rest easy knowing I'm not alone in my brain-owning. Thanks!!

"And to #326 ... we are not morons. I think we all understand that Heather may be looking at a larger issue with this question. And yet, we think it is an interesting point of debate. I doubt that a single person who is participating in the discussion does not see how these principles could be expanded to other (political and/or social) issues. Do not insult us. We are participating in this conversation of our own free will, interested to see where Heather goes with this, and interested in using our own brains to extrapolate this idea to other issues in the world today. Why is it necessary to be a jackass? Do you think you are the only person in the world with a brain? You don't have to like Heather's political beliefs, or like to read about anyone's political agenda. So don't. But many of us are interested."

Oh, sweetie. Again with the politics?

I don't know what it says about me that I didn't even blink before coming to the answer. Yes, I would feed the starving family and let the crack addict die (by providing them with crack). Hunger is rarely a choice and drugs are, so the choice was made for me. Your questions wasn't what you would do instead but what would you do if those were your options. So again. Feed the hungry, kill the addict.

Uh, I already donate to poor hungry families. In fact I believe I donated more dollars to charity this last year than Joe Biden and I make way less than he does. You know - walk the walk.

If 2 people are faced with a decision, and 1 person makes an intelligent, educated decision and the other makes a greedy, impulsive one, why should the first person feed the second when their funds inevitably run dry? Tell me why I am being punished for buying a lesser home and locking in a 30-year fixed rate 3 years ago when my peers were buying beyond their means and are now SOL?

I'm disappointed that so many people here are referring to a chemical addiction as a mere habit...

Of course. I am reminded of a book I read where a woman gave money to a homeless girl, and after watching her knew she would be using it to buy drugs. She said that as a mother she had to give the girl money and the chance to get a better life, and if she used it instead for drugs, at least she was buying them with money instead of getting them in other horrible ways.

If we are fortunate enough to help, we choose to help. The person taking the money also has the choice of what to do with the money, or how to better their situation.

The problem with politics and our country today is that most people on tv, talking about the election, are completely disconnected with what it is like to be in such a dire situation. I know what it's like to have to live off of the generosity of family. I am lucky enough to have a family that is generous. I see people every day who don't have health insurance, can't afford to go to the doctor for themselves or their children, who can't afford the gas it takes to get to work, who have realized by now that a bus isn't what an employer calls "reliable transportation". So many people near all of us are suffering to live, and so many of us are blind to that fact, or blame it on the people themselves.

A family that needs money to eat is very well a family with piling medical bills. A family full of hardworking people who work so much that they can't take time off to go to school, or try to better their situation.

The question you now post should be "After thinking this over, how many of you will actually go give a needy family money or groceries?"

this a ridiculous question. find someone to help that doesn't involve hurting someone else. there are an infinite amount of opportunities to help without causing harm.

A. Yes I would.

B. Go read 119! Drug screen welfare recipiants! GENIUS! I'm all for that. Even random screening is a detterant. Ask most of the folks in the military..which I was.

812, as am i.

perhaps for different reasons.

I didn't go through each and every comment of course, however. A crackhead is going to get crack any way they can, beg, borrow, steal, mame or kill.....
A hungry family most likely will not.

Saving a starving child or family will give them hope of a brighter future.

Let the crackhead have his/her fix, they would't have gotten it if different, more distructive way if not.

Nurishing a young soul at that cost is worth it, not everyone in this world is as dark and greedy as it may look to them at the moment

Yes I would. I would not punish the family in need in order to deny the addict.

And it really makes me sad to see how many people say teach the parent a skill. Sure, that would be great if life was that simple. I went to college. I have skills. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to be able to find a job that pays enough to feed, clothe, and house my family. Have a little compassion.

#719:

Great question!

Absolutely yes, I would and here's why: The child has little to no control over his or her hunger and need. The crack head, while him or her is probably addicted, still made a bad choice at one point. The child did not. An addict will always find a way to feed their addiction.

Love, love, love your blog. (Which should be evident by the use of 3 'loves')

Yes.

Yes, without hesitation.

Assuming I knew neither party - no way! There are too many good organizations where I could give all the money and it woudld all be used to feed children. As long as we're making up scenarios, just suppose you did it, and the crackhead got high, got in his car and killed a family with small children or went to rob someone's house and killed the family.(Maybe even the very same family you had just fed) Just sayin - unlikely, yeah, but so is this whole story.

Now, if I knew the family that was hungry, it would be harder to say no. But I'm pretty crafty about coming up with ways around rules, so I think I could do the same here and figure out some way to get them fed without giving money to the crackhead.

Yes I would. Taking a drug, while an addiction, is a choice, if the person chooses to use the money to buy crack they have made the choice. Hunger and poverty are not choices. If money could help a desperate family, it is a no brainer.

anyone sitting on their ass right now, in front of a computer, anonymously, or with your pseudonym behind which you can still remain completely anonymous, can claim they would help hungry children.

and they can damn that mean old crackhead. and come up with other obsurd scenarios in which the crackhead meets his demise, and the triumphant housewife feeds the needy children.

this problem is bigger than a blog response. and it is a two-sided coin. if your left wing, it's this way, if your right wing, it's that way.

Under no circumstances would I give the money.
I live downtown in a BIG City....and I have
witnessed first hand what handouts create...

If you supply money to a drug user the ripple effect
travels deep into the very fabric of society. It creates
the very situations in which children
need to beg for food. Perhaps if the money was not available, and the drugs were unavailable the "high" individual would then have to face the person in the mirror and and actually be present and hear the cries for food and love that are being voiced by their children.....or any child for that matter.

By giving a handout you create the need for more hands.

Now having said all of that I believe in and support schools and organizations that have education programs, summer camps and breakfast programs....you see there is a smart way to get help out to those who need it most.

That's a tough thought provocating scenario. I love it!

But, my answer would be, without a doubt, yes!

It's definitely worth it in my book.

Absolutely. If the presence of evil keeps us from doing good, then evil wins.

Yes.

What's faster than a heartbeat? A nano-second?

A fraction of time that is as short as a Higgs Boson is small?

Well, that's how fast I'd give that money to the family that desperately needed it, even if I had to give the same amount to addicted people that would blow it on drugs.

I rather help one person than no one - and I can do it reasonably guilt-free knowing that what the other people do is their own choice.

you know, really, many times it's more than just a crackhead who just has a drug problem. it's a societal thing. it's a "way of life" thing.

your money isn't going to help these people. it will only make you sleep better at night, and it will only give you that sinse of "i'm better because i care."

i want to help people. people who really just need help. i would love to show people that, as humans, sometimes we do care about one another. i'd prfer to get my hands dirty in the process.

you can write a check, sitting in your suv, and then rush off to the nail salon because in the process you just chipped your polish. and then you can smile at the world and say you helped someone.

are you helping them for them, or are you helping them for you?

I am purposely NOT reading any responses that came before mine so I am not influenced by other's opinions. Here is my gut reaction. If my sister was the part of the family that needed a handout and would use it for food and not for drugs, I would not want her opportunity to obtain assistance to be taken from her because of another's misuse of that assistance. Now I'm going to read what the REST of you wrote.

Wow. I really can't believe someone seriously advocated using violence against the "crackhead". Just sad.

Yes, but it would hurt to give to the addict.

I used to pass several "regulars" on my walk to work up Park Ave. One of them was a woman with a small boy. One day after giving her $5, I saw her in the drugstore buying cigarettes, while the kid played by himself in the aisle.

Made me want to kick her in the shins and run off with the kid.

What if they spent it on butt crack? Like at a strip club?

yes, I have to say I would. it wouldn't be easy, but I wouldn't want to judge the drug user and would definitely want to help the needy family.

haha! buttcrack.

a sound investment, for sure.

for indulging this inane argument.

Here's a better one:

A crack dealer, an Islamic extremist and Sara Palin walk into a bar....

teach a man to fish...

Can't you just buy food for the family in need and not give a donation of cash?

Here is my life motto:
If you see a homeless on the street, as a good person my role is to give him some money, now what he does with the money is up to him and his own karma.

I would donate the money - then call the police.

I find the answers here just as interesting than the question. :) Of course this question was inspired by the VP debate last and those calling Heather out on it like it’s a bad thing are being just a little too self righteous. This sort of trade off happens every day and it’s not likely to change any time soon.

Quick story—had a friend that, though she was a nice enough person to chat with, was not good at making sure her kids got fed. So on the weekends I would have them stay at my house and I’d feed them and her and basically take over. Yes, I was enabling her to be a lazy and bad mother (they had the money—she’d just blow it on other things) but in the end how can you make an innocent child pay for the bad choices of those who should know better?

Would I give the money? Yes I would to feed a child who can’t fend for themselves.

My immediate reaction was that, yes, I would still do it. Cuz, there is still a family in need, regardless. And, think of survival of the fittest and how that affects the potential outcome...

Hmm...Well my initial reaction to this is, Yes. You must relieve suffering if you have the opportunity.

But, I have a feeling this is a parable, isn't it. You're going to tell me that I somehow have to vote for McCain/Palin or something even more heinous that giving someone money to buy crack.

The only thing this question is loaded with is the obvious desire for more page impressions on ads. Don't spend it all in once place, Heather (a crack den, for instance).

Jesus loves me this I know... for the bible tells me so... little ones need food to grow.. give the guy crack and let him blow... yes, Jesus loves me...

Oh, sorry... got carried away with the Jesus crap.

Sure, I'd give them all lots of money. Here... let me write them a check right now.

i really do just love how some people are adding little hints just to make sure we all know that they would never need such assistance. they are the kind of people who are suffering in that "we didn't take the summer cruise this year, but the ski trip is totally on" kind of way.

you give to these people, to be a step above them.

i've never given any real sum of money to charity. i've put my spare change in those jars with the pictures of sick kids on them, mostly in the hope that those children would get better. and a small part of me wants to stop seeing the pictures of sick kids when i pay for my gas. to be honest. i'd rather donate my time to people in need.

I'd offer each a ride to the nearest food shelter and addiction center, respectively...leaving my money & a few canned goods with the food center.

I would not. Like a few others have said, I don't think that donating money in either scenario would be productive in solving any problems. I encounter dozens of homeless people every day. Some whom panhandle with babies or small children. I have chosen not to give money to homeless people. I always give my leftovers, and sometimes will buy them a sandwich, but I never give money. I prefer to donate my money to charities such as United Way, or to donate time or money or food to the homeless shelter through my church.

For the overwhelming majority of those who responded yes... can we assume you are always handing out money to those you see in need? What are you currently doing to make sure children are not going hungry? Because my experience is that 95% of people are not handing out money to the people on the street.

And - atleast in big cities (I am in Chicago), there is absolutely no excuse for the homeless, especially homeless children, to go hungry. There are so many programs in place to avoid this. Therefore, I would rather donate to these established programs, which in turn help to avoid the above mentioned scenario. My donation goes further that way.

To those who've said that crack only hurts the crackhead, then you've never had one in your family. The drug (any of them) hurts not only the user but everyone around them, including their own kids. After years of being taken advantage of by my crackhead sister whose "kids were hungry", I no longer give cash to crackheads or to hungry families. I'll give food or transportation to a needy family or person any day of the week. I'll go with them to pay a bill to keep the lights on. But I will never give them cash. It's hard enough to support my own clean-living family. I don't have the extra time or money to waste on people who care about nothing but destroying themselves and everyone else they come into contact with.

I think I would have to take the family and buy them some groceries and if the crack addicts wanted food, I would buy that also.

Yes.

Yes, without a doubt.

Rosane.

Hard question but I would have to give the money.

Without hesitation I would give the money. How can anyone ignore hungry children? Or hungry senior citizens? Or hungry middle-agers? Or hungry 20-somethings? Or hungry...