Something to chew on
Indulge me for a second and consider this 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 you knew would use it to buy crack. Would you do it?
You must have a dooce® Community account to leave a comment.
If you've already registered, login.
If this is your first time posting here, snag a free account.
Heather talks about public tantrums (from kids) on today's Momversation.
- Bedtime, Leta lingering defiantly in the hallway. Jon: "If you want fart stories, you better get in bed RIGHT NOW."
- RIP Louis Mortimer Armstrong: http://bit.ly/1R4tv6
- Hugs and kisses to you, too! RT: @Monkey_Tree: @dooce he probably committed suicide because he was tired of LISTENING TO YOU WHINE.
902. Logan said:
I love that Democrats/liberals are saying that Republicans/conversatives have a selfish way of giving because they want to know what is going to happen with their donated money or have "strings attached." They say you should just give the money without a second thought. Well, of course they do that so they can feel good about themselves and remain ignorant to what might actually happen with the money, which releases them from feeling guilty if it doesn't go to something truly helpful (i.e. parent's bad habits). That's selfish. That's just wanting to feel good about yourself, not truly caring about the family who needs help. If I were going to donate money to someone of course I would want to know for sure that it was going towards something good, that would help them, because I WANT TO HELP their situation. It's not for my own ego. Throwing money at someone and not caring what they use it for, then feeling good about it is a selfish, ego-boosting act. Plain and simple. I don't see how that doesn't make sense to some people.
903. Laura June said:
LOL @ #326. "CHEW ON THIS!" What a brilliant piece of oratorical insight Melissa. Do stop by and share your considered opinions again.
It seems Republicans would be happiest living in a feudal state where the government serves only to legitimize their individual 'right' to accrue as much personal wealth and power as possible while holding no responsibility whatsoever towards their fellow citizens. It's like a party of would-be warlords. Scary.
904. Allison said:
I'd give the money, and here's why-my philosophy on giving is kind of like those really bad T-shirts you see in Army Surplus Stores that say "Kill 'Em All: Let God Sort it Out", only since I'm not a racist homophobe, I say GIVE what (money/time/resources) you can (and you KNOW you CAN) and God will deal with the judgement. We are not a family of abundant means but we have never turned away an opportunity to give because we "knew" how the hobo was going to spend the $20. And the $200 to the waitress with the stalled car who could have been feeding us a complete line of bullroar? Between her and her conscience/higher power. We do this: Give and don't look back.
I think the problem for most of us privileged enough to wile away our afternoon hours reading about other people's lives (a privilege I enjoy heartily) is that we think we'd never be caught with our hand out. The truth is, many of us are one catastrophic illness or addiction away from homelessness. I've stood all day with my baby in the county health clinic for immunizations our health plan wouldn't cover.. I've also given the very shoes off my feet to a woman far worse off than I am. A friend of mine was a well-respected surgeon, became addicted to painkillers and was homeless for years. We don't know, but we like to pretend that we do so we don't have to feel, and don't have to part with our precious prize, don't have to "perpetutate the problem." Teaching a hungry family a trade? Please. Call me next time you're drowning and I'll sign you up for swim lessons at the Y.
905. Rebecca said:
Assuming I had money to give and would not be taking food off of my own family's table: Yes. I would give the family and the crack addict money *in the form of gift cards to the local grocery store. I’m guessing, the family who doesn't have money to feed their hungry children more than likely have a budgeting problem, or they spend what money they do have on movies, games, eating out, and other unnecessary entertainment [that we in America can't seem to live without]! Also, the crack addict is undoubtedly dying of malnutrition and needs to buy food more than they need crack. As I see it; this would be a win-win situation!
906. Heather said:
To buy cocaine of course. Which could then be cut with baking soda, doubling the value. Split into bags and sold for double return on investment.
Then the original amount given to the hungry family and the crackhead gets his crack too.
Its the teach a man to fish model.
907. Joshua Longbrake said:
Yes.
908. Lani said:
If (and I use that term lightly) I had the money to provide food for seven of my children and the eighth (a crack addict seven months ago) would spend his on drugs, there is no question I would care for the seven by feeding them and let the eighth enjoy one more binge. Why should the others suffer for one man's sin? Sounds a lot like the times in elementary school where the entire class had to miss recess because of one kids misbehavior. It breeds a "survival of the fittest" "lord of the Flies" mentality.
909. Saple said:
Yes
910. april said:
Yes, yes and yes.
911. fe-lady said:
I need a definition of "starving" and "poor"-
And yeah it IS funny that most if not all don't see the big pix in your question.
912. Cat said:
Yes... if I could afford it.
913. Logan said:
p.s. I also totally agree with #660 i.e.
I'm not going to just give money to a family who obviously doesn't know how to manage it in the first place, then walk away and trust them to do the right thing with it. If they knew how to manage money, they probably wouldn't be in the situation they are in the first place. And it's not about how much money they make. Yes, lots of people make very little money and are poor even though they work hard. They can still learn how to MANAGE that money to make sure their family has such a necessary basic like FOOD.
914. Anonymous said:
Why not just donate to your local food bank?
915. Holly said:
Yes.
916. Logan said:
another p.s. The philosophies I'm spouting out are just about money. I would and have helped people in other ways, by giving of my time and talents, no questions asked or judgements placed. It's just that money by itself doesn't solve anything.
917. Liz said:
Yes. You get one out of two things right; not a bad average for a normal day. Someone in need is helped; and someone else is perhaps prevented from robbing another person to get the money...
918. Katherine said:
No issue for me. Give the money to the needy family, they need help and children are at risk. The crack addict, while now is desparate, started taking drugs by choice. Give them the money with a card for rehab facility. But again adult and their choice. Can't stop them, they can only hit bottom and then ask for help.
919. Analiza said:
I'd buy them food. Why risk it but why starve the family?
920. Anonymous said:
having been on both sides of this spectrum (I now have 20 months of sobriety) I would def give the $$...
No family should go hungry & giving the $$ to the addict would save them from doing the god-awful things that have to be done for "just one more".
921. Jenny said:
Of course.
Re: "sounds like welfare to me." Um, yes. Welfare helps people who need it. Including you, should you ever need it, should you ever find yourself in a place where you "obviously can't manage your money" because of a layoff, a catastrophic illness, a deep depression, or a natural disaster. God forbid.
922. Britt said:
I would donate to a different program that didn't support the person that bought crack.
But I don't think you're talking about donations. I think you're talking about the government taking money from people to support both families who need it and people on crack. I love helping people, but I think it should be a choice, not an obligation. I don't think I deserve to go to jail if I don't pay money for programs helping other people.
Anyway, I know you see things differently than me, and this is no personal slam. It's just how I feel about the matter. But I'm still a big fan of yours. : )
923. Anonymous said:
Liberals want to just feel good about what they are doing. They want to keep people slaves to the gov't and handouts. Republicans want to help people by helping them help themselves. You stupid, blind liberals can roll your eyes at that but it is the truth. Sorry. You tell people they can't help themselves and therefore need the gov't. Stupid stupid libs!
924. Kat C said:
Yes.
And yes to #70.
925. jennielynn said:
Yes. Drives my husband crazy too. He'll shake his head and tell me the guy I just slipped a five to is going to buy liquor or drugs. I don't care. If I was sleeping on cement, I'd probably want a drink as well.
926. Kristine said:
Yes, I would give the money.
Perhaps the family is a hardworking family of 4 where the father works nights and the mother works days because they can't afford daycare. They make just over minimum wage each. The mother just got over breast cancer and their employers don't provide insurance so they are in over their head in debt. Their parents are getting older and they have to look out for them also, too bad their pensions were lost :(
With the economy as it is, they are scared they might be laid off and where would they be then? They are trying to make it work and are barely scraping by since the cost of food and gas have increased.
They are GOOD people who would give their left arm to help others if they were in a position to do so. I wish I could say that this was a far fetched portrait, but its not.
How can people be so selfish? I just don't understand it.
927. SusannahS said:
Absolutely, no questions asked.
928. Anonymous said:
No. I believe people should take responsibility for their actions. If their children are hungry, there are things they can do to fix that.
I have a cold hard belief that you shouldn't have any kids you can't afford to raise. You should prepare for the "what ifs." It's not my responsibility to feed your kids.
Of course, I also have the belief that it does take a village to raise a child. But a family should be self sufficient.
I'm aware of my own catch 22s, believe me. :)
929. lisa said:
i would donate the money to both... i strongly believe in karma and everything will work itself out in the end.
930. crkhed888 said:
WAT'S WRONG WITHE CRACKK?!!111
931. Melissa said:
Yes give to the hungry family regardless.
932. jenn said:
Yes, unequivocally.
933. Kirsty said:
#273: Working with crack addicts on probation, I have seen that poor family in Target with the father stealing the baby formula... because he and his wife spent all of their welfare money on crack.
I would NOT donate the money because I would never willingly give money to a drug addict. Buy the family food, yes. Take them out to dinner, sure. Pick up parcels at the Food Bank for them, no problem. I would not hand over the cash though.
To those who say that crack addicts only hurt themselves, you obviously don't have first hand experience with these addicts. They can absolutely destroy the lives of the people around them.
934. Kristi said:
Without a seconds hesitation.
935. Kelli said:
Yes, i would. Why let a family go hungry because another person chooses to use drugs to feed an addiction, hopefully with that donation to the drug addict will be an invitation to the local drug rehab center.
I am assuming this is related to the debate regarding public welfare. A system that while has its flaws(what gov't program doesn't) helps hundreds of thousands of families that are trying to scrape by. I deal with families on a daily basis that use the state welfare system, most use it as it is intended but there are certainly others that abuse the system. But how do you justify not helping law abiding citizens who need a little help providing for their families because a very small percentage abuse the system.
936. Des said:
I saw this linked on my friend's blog, and thought it was very interesting. Here's my response:
Yes. Generally, the amount of happiness gained from feeding a band of starving children far outweighs the negative effects of enabling a single person to abuse drugs.
It might be different in a worst-case scenario (i.e. the family can survive, albeit frugally until someone else makes a donation, while that particular fix will definitely kill the crackhead) but that's extreme. We should also consider the aftermath (will the family only be fed for a night - is there not something better you can do, like guide the breadwinner towards a job? What if the crackhead sells his goods to hundreds of school-children?), but if we restrict the hypothetical results (the family is fed, and the crackhead stumbles around in a drug-induced haze), my decision stands.
On a purely subjective note, it also depends on how much the donation in question is. If it's an enormous amount, I'd say no, but that doesn't affect the objective moral obligations involved - it only reflects my opinion, as a poor, miserly student.
937. Lesley said:
I'm afraid I can't indulge you because the question relates to the bail out where one isn't a necessity for the other. Congress doesn't have to guarantee the homes and assets of the CEO crooks. It's choosing to. Many investors and financial analysts think the bail out is more of a handout for the crooks than it is a rescue plan for home owners and the economy at large. And the IMF is predicting a major recession for the US despite the bailout.
So, I can't indulge you...sorry.
938. Carlee said:
Nope. I would buy food for the family. Problem solved.
939. John Boyer said:
yes - It's a win-win. The hungry family gets food and the crackhead gets crack.
940. Rhyanna said:
I wanted to comment on the pic of you and Coco, or rather, the text underneath it..
I made my dog watch with me, and every time Palin said Ahmijinidad, I made Clover kick me in the face. I swear at one point, Palin said "Imadinnerjacket"
941. Anonymous said:
I would buy food for the family that needed it rather than give money.
942. Anonymous said:
If this is a thinly veiled reference to welfare, then wouldn't a better question be, "Would you rob an honest citizen of their hard-earned money with the threat of jail in order to give money to a family with hungry children for one day and to also give money to a crack-head to buy crack?" Cause that's what the government does. It robs hard-working law-abiding citizens and pisses away the money and never really affects any signigicant change. Hey! I know! Let's do the same thing with health-care! Let's steal more money from the hard-working backbone of the country so that no one can afford health insurance and then provide everyone with insufficient and inadequate medical care. That's a great idea. It's worked so well with retirement, i.e. social security. I just can't wait until I work harder for less money so that the government can steal my money and give it to other people who neglected to plan for their retirement. I just don't get how people justify such submission to the government. I mean, honestly, why would people want to give MORE money to the government for the government to fuck up? The government isn't going to provide good healthcare for anyone. Money is freedom and by allowing the government to take your money under the guise of helping the less fortunate, you are surrendering your freedom and allowing yourself to become more dependent on a government that does not care about you and will continue to exploit your good nature in order to further it's own agenda, i.e. war and corrupt contracts with vendors and the hundreds of other programs of waste that are inherrent in buracracy.
943. Crystal said:
Yes, I would give the money. I don't care if it's only a "quick fix" for both families. The right thing to do is do the best you can, and feeding one family is the best you can do within the questions constraints.
944. Holland said:
Nope, I'd give money to a shelter that helps crack heads and poor families alike.
I have first hand experience with welfare and while not everyone abuses it, far too many do. I'm guessing that is what you were getting at...
945. Summer said:
Wow. There are some really opinionated people out there! Way to take a simple moral question and make it into something it's not. Seriously people.
For the record, my answer would be yes.
946. jcm said:
the question is no good, if I am _donating_ money I can choose where it goes...and I do
unlike taxes where the money is taken from me and applied to god only knows what
the fallacy is that people won't donate money unless it is taken from them by the government which is proven false over and over every national disaster...the government has proven time and time again it is poor at handling money, so why encourage it
instead ask for lower taxes and then choose were your money goes via local charity
947. Jane said:
For those who say they would prefer to give on an idividual basis.....here you go. Individuals.
http://www.modestneeds.org/
948. Holland said:
PS - Why don't you post something proactive instead of pushing your political agenda on people, which sounds like something your family tried to do to you and you didn't like so what makes you think everyone else does?
Try this for starters:
http://www.freerice.com/
949. John Boyer said:
And if this is a veiled reference to welfare I still would. As long as the go'ment leaves me enough cash to buy my own food and crack I'm fine w/high taxes.
950. Amy said:
Yes.
951. ...loveMaegan said:
yep.
952. Jen said:
Yes, of course I would give the family the money. Am I supposed to punish the family who needs food just because of someone else's bad choice?
953. erose said:
I would donate. I would hate the idea that part of my money would be used for crack, but it would be worth it to help the poor family. I live in a large city and am often approached by people asking for money, telling me their awful stories. I usually give money. It's possible that I'm being conned, but the possiblity of helping someone who needs it is more important to me.
954. Alisha said:
You know what I always do.....if a "homeless" person asks me for $$, I offer to go BUY THEM some food and bring to them. Usually, they say FORGET it! ;) But, in this case, if the children were hungry, I would do it.
955. Lulu said:
FUCK YES!!
At least the kids get to eat.
Friggen parents will overdose and die anyway.
http://wwww.lulusaysit.com/
956. gorky said:
Nope. I wouldn't "donate" the money. I'd buy somebody food. Don't need the tax break.
But Wall Street is a crackhead and - this bailout - will change nothing. Wall Street will still be a crackhead and the family won't get any food anyway. Anyone thinking the "bailout" changes the cards on the table is a fool.
957. Sherri said:
Yes. Any decent human being would feed those kids. Kids are not responsible for adult actions, they should not be punished. Anyone saying no needs to see that by saying no you make kids suffer. And about the welfare system, yes there are people taking advantage, but no matter what no child should be punished for that. It is our responsability to make sure no child suffers, and we as Americans are failing those children. We need to do something about it. One child lost is one child too many.
958. Ms. Karen said:
I'd skip donating money directly and take everyone to the grocery store.
Is that cheating? I've never been particularly good at following directions. Sorry.
959. Katie said:
I don't donate money unless I will benefit me in some way. Otherwise its just throwing money away. People who aren't responsible enough to care for their families (and I'm assuming that this is a family with children) get no sympathy from me. If kids are going hungry then the parents have failed and the children should be removed from the home with no second chances. So-called "desperate" situations are easily avoidable and those who are so careless with their lives deserve nothing.
960. Jess Sanders said:
Yes! I am not going to try to save a crackhead from him/herself at the expense of a starving child.
Optimistically - Maybe it will help said crackhead reach the bottom faster and look for a way out?
961. katieb said:
yes. no doubt.
962. Kate said:
Yes, I would. I can't even consider the other option.
963. vintagelilliput said:
I can't tell from your post...but is the crack addict part of the desperate family?
If so, I'd go shopping and give them food.
If they are not part of the same family, then I'd give them some money...
964. cP said:
I'd give the money and pray for the money to be used for good in both cases (ya never know, the parents of the starving chirrin' could be crack addicts). Give it to God and He'll take care of the rest. ;)
965. sherri said:
959. Katie said:
I don't donate money unless I will benefit me in some way. Otherwise its just throwing money away. People who aren't responsible enough to care for their families (and I'm assuming that this is a family with children) get no sympathy from me. If kids are going hungry then the parents have failed and the children should be removed from the home with no second chances. So-called "desperate" situations are easily avoidable and those who are so careless with their lives deserve nothing.
What are you kidding me you would only donate if it benefited you in some way. OMG. Tell that to families who have lost their jobs, they are irresonsible, and deserve to have their kids taken away. Don't make sweeping judgment like that, yes their are some people who take advantage, but most just need help, and that doesn't mean they don't love their kids. Desperate situation are not avoidable. People lose their jobs, people lose their lives, things like that are not avoidable. By the way who would get your sympathy, and what people who you believe deserves something? Kids no matter what the situation is, deserves everything we have.
966. Smith said:
So I take it that many think you're really asking would you bail out the poor family who is being foreclosed on if it meant you have to also bailout the greedy businesses that caused the foreclosure mess?
Yes
967. ben bernanke said:
let them feast on Spencer's teeth! I am a FURIOUS magician!
968. Melissia said:
The collateral damage of the decision is far outweighed by the good done. Hmmm, sounds like logic I have heard before from someone you despise. The problem with your scenario is it has no basis in reality. Each of us has the ability to make a difference in our own communities by looking around and seeing who needs our help. It does not have to be like this election is to me, a decision on what will do the least harm. Giving money to the government instead of doing the work ourselves in our own communities is the least efficient of all methods.
Melissia
969. Hope said:
I think what you are getting at is: The Crackhead's family is hungry. We have one in my husband's family. This individual has called us for money several times, asking for several thousand dollars (that we don't have).
The solution: Buy them money cards to thier local grocery store. Everyone has them now. Buy the cards in the same amount of money that you planned to donate.
That way the family has food to eat, and the Crackhead doesn't get thier drugs.
Can you tell I have been in this situation for 15 years?
970. Kimmyk said:
I would give the money. There's nothing worse than going hungry. And there is absolutely no justification for children to have to suffer that, when it is within someone's means to help them. And if that means a crackhead gets their crack, so beit.
971. Kelley said:
Yes, I would give the money to both in a heartbeat. Who wouldn't want to help a family feed their children?
It's awful to think about giving money to a drug addict, but shit, I'd rather willingly give him my money than have him steal from me.
Which is, you know, what they do when they don't have money.
972. Sprite's Keeper said:
No. I would give food to the hungry family, not money. I refuse to knowingly give money to a crack addict, whether or not a little bit of good is riding on it.
973. Katie said:
Sherri965,
Any children involved do deserve help which is why they should be given to a family who can take care of them properly. People who lose their jobs just need to find new ones. People who get sick should have taken better care of themselves. I don't believe in that "bad things happen to go people" crap. People should exercise the control they have over their lives and stop whining!
974. Miss Anthropy said:
Fuck 'em all!
Let the poor family starve.
Let the crackhead pay for his own fix.
This of course could be because, on Thursday, I dropped all my tax paperwork off at the accountant's office. Actually, I hate poor people and crackheads. So the answer is the same whenever it is asked.
Angela
Will work to keep red-light-beggars away from my fucking car.
975. Anna said:
#581 Melissa - Just a note that it is "your" not "you're." I'm all for friendly (and not-so-friendly) banter, but please use proper grammar when insulting. It will continue to solidify your spot as "one who is smarter than those she insults."
976. nicole said:
if this question really is about the bailout, I have a hard time seeing foreclosed families as fault-less. They chose to get into a mortgage that was pushing the limits, they got in over their heads, and chose awful adjustable-rate mortgages that went through the roof. I do not feel sorry for them in the slightest. People in this country live WAY beyond their means and think they all deserve better than what they can actually afford.
I am a college graduate with a good job. You know what I feel pressured to have, to live comparably to my peers and family? A home around $200k. You know what I can afford? a trailer. So be it.
977. TED said:
The premise of your question is so flawed as to make most of the answers meaningless, but I'd say no. I'd also say that most of us are far too willing to accept flawed premises. Find a way to do the good thing without doing the bad thing.
If everyone on here who's saying yes really means it, then I would have to presume that they're all giving lots of money to hunger relief, because right now, it's pretty easy to give money to someone who needs food without giving money to someone who'll use it to buy crack. Surely you're not more likely to give money that's only used half for good than to give money that's all used for good.
978. trish said:
If I had the money, yes I would. The person who's buying crack is going most likely going going to continue down his path, so what's a little more crack. Besides, the crack fiend is not what I would consider innocent. It's not like I'm kicking a dog that doesn't know what it's done. I'm feeding a habit, and I also get to feed a family. KIDS. I would think of the kids.
And to respond to commenter #300 (since it's the comment right above where I type in my comment), maybe it is only a quick fix, but that's what people need sometimes.
979. Britt said:
I have a brother who has suffered from an addiction to crack off and on for the last few years. Keeping that in my mind, I would still give the money. Because from experience I can say they will find a way to get the drugs anyway. May as well do a little good at the same time.
980. SL said:
Can you just give them some food? Or food coupons?
If it must be only money that you are giving, I'd say give 1/2 the original amount.
981. heSaid said:
Absolutely. It is simply math. Applied properly, $20 can feed a family in need pretty well, where as $20 in crack, isn't enough to get that kind of addict high. While this type of equation makes a few assumptions that I might not have full knowledge of, like the price of crack, or how much it takes to get high, the movies lead me to believe that the $20 to the crack addict would still require a night or two of illicit sex before having enough cash to get high on. So, I kinda don't feel like I am harming them much.
982. Sherri said:
973. Katie said:
Sherri965,
Any children involved do deserve help which is why they should be given to a family who can take care of them properly. People who lose their jobs just need to find new ones. People who get sick should have taken better care of themselves. I don't believe in that "bad things happen to go people" crap. People should exercise the control they have over their lives and stop whining!
Where do they find jobs, try coming down to southern Ohio, and Kentucky (Appalachia) and telling that to those people, better yet in Michigan. I am involved in foster care so I know all about putting kids with better families, some of those kids sould be with their parents, and we should be helping those parents, and the only way to do that is getting jobs back where they belong. And by the way bad things happen to good people, and I know from experience. My sister in law who was 32 yrs old died this year, and left 2 young kids. Their father left them when the going got tough, and made sure he abused them before leaving. Now my point is we tryed to get help from our government and charites and we couldn't until 2 weeks ago my mother in law got a letter saying my sister in law was now elidgeable for assistance, she had been dead since march. She died of brain cancer. Now they will help her after she has died, that is what our government has come too. And the kids are now living with their grandparents, and they can't even get help. SAD
983. The Bitch said:
Give it.
984. cindy w said:
Yes I would. And I don't understand the mentality of those who wouldn't.
But then, I will never understand people who have a complete and total lack of compassion. So I guess that's why.
985. Sybil said:
Easy, I'd go buy groceries and give the same amount to the crackhead as the needy family.
986. Jazzy said:
I would give the money...filled with guilt or not, I couldn't say no to a hungry child.
987. Crys said:
Wow, as I read through these comments that is all I can say. Teach a man to fish? Sometimes it doesn't work like that. What if he has been fishing for years and doesn't catch enough to feed said family? Screw them. Who cares? That is complete bullshit. I will feed them over and over, because that is the right thing to do! Hungry children are everyones' responsiblity. That is part of being a society, not a backwoods forrest dwelling extremsit. And if the crack addict buys crack??? So what? It is his/her money now. I for one DO give to charity and by the standards of most, I am not well off. This is what being a funtioning member of a society is. I would prefer someone not buy crack, but hey, you take the good and the bad (just like the facts of life, :) )!
988. Jenn said:
Yes.
And I take the phrase "bleeding-heart liberal" as a compliment, thankyouverymuch. Say it all you want, it just makes me more proud of who I am and what I believe.
989. Jessica said:
I would absolutely donate the money. I would also be absolutely opposed to being forced or required to donate the money.....it's interesting how every single one of us have the ability to make the choice to show love and generosity without the government telling us to do so.
990. cherise said:
Yes to both! And I would have no issues giving money for crack, as I would tell them to enjoy!
By time you are actually a crackhead, it is not like you choose to be an addict... addiction is bigger than a person.
991. Anonymous said:
In a heartbeat. I'd even slip the crackhead a few extra under the table. With any luck, he'd buy some low-quality New Mexico Red cut with clorox and OD. Thus lessening the burden on the taxpayer and freeing up more money to put into worthy causes.
My wife says she can hear my cackling all the way in the other room.
992. Miss Anthropy said:
All the people willing to donate to crackheads please e-mail me and I will send you my po box so that you can directly send me money.
If you don't I might rob the morally ethical starving family, rape their children and eat all the food they bought with your hypothetical money.
Miss Anthropy
WhiteChocolateJesus@gmail.com
993. Crystal said:
A person should give and not be concerned as to how the person will use the gift. I read a guidepost story once similar to this topic. The preacher's thought was: My moral dilema is do I give? The recipents moral dilema is how to use it.
994. jesse james said:
Heather,
I really don't like this post. The question reads to me like totally unchecked privilege (dare i mention what race would be most associated to this privilege? Let alone the race that would most likely be associated to crack?).
And more than anything, this scenario lets all of your readers reinforce all of the stereotypes that already go along with the two 'victim' situations presented here. So, we are given the pretend opportunity to help (save) the hungry, because hunger is a good kind of bad thing, while we'll also be forced to hurt the druggie, because crack is a bad kind of bad thing?
What is the purpose of playing crack and hunger against each other like this? What is this post for?
995. coastofcalifornia said:
Yes, yes. Compassion is a good thing.
996. Christy said:
My heart is bleeding because of all the comments saying "stupid condition" and "just get the parents a job". I understand that real life situations are more complicated than Heather's needfully-simplified analogy, but for the love. If you don't react to human plights with instant compassion, I believe something in you is broken. SO WHAT if you have no control over how your donation is used. For those of you who believe in God, what will you say at the judgment bar? "Sorry, dude, it's not my fault those kids' parents didn't have jobs"?
997. J. said:
No. But I would direct them to someone who could give them money - or food, shelter, etc. - and I would give my money to that organization, thereby avoiding the requisite payout to the crack user.
998. sherri said:
This is how I see things. I ask myself what would Jesus do. He would feed the hungry, help the helpless. We can not know for sure if the person on the street corner will by drugs or not, you should not base your choice on what ifs. You give not to receive, but to help. And if you need help hopefully those people can help you out when you are in need. You are judged by your deeds good and bad.
I give blindly, because you can never know for sure if they are feeding you a line. Even if its only $5, 10 or 20 $, I give what I can afford without my own kids suffering.
This is what I ( I did say I) believe.
999. Carlee said:
And I have to say, comment #113 is brilliant.
1000. Anonymous said:
Sure.
I have another question along these lines - how to help families who really need help? I find giving money to be problematic - it tends to invoke pity and is often more complicated than it seems.
Here's a scenario I've been struggling with: I walk by a busy bus stop on my nightly walks in the city. Often times I see a man waiting at the bus stop who looks very tired. And on this man's back is strapped a toddler who is always sleeping and hanging lopsided in a adhoc clock back pack. Its late - maybe 10, maybe 11. Being a mom of a toddler myself, I can't help thinking what I can do to help, it seems like the guy could use some help.
I have tried to engage him a couple times and say hello, but he mostly looks away. I have brought an old stroller with me - hoping to just leave it there - but on those days he's not there. Giving money to a stranger just seems weird. And leaving something at a crowded bus stop doesn't work either.
I know this makes me a nosey Nelly, but I would welcome any suggestions on how to lend a hand to people without creating a fuss.. I do contribute to local food banks and homeless initiatives and all... but would really like some strategies on what to do when confronted by these things individually. Any ideas or suggestions welcome.
1001. Kristin said:
Definitely. At first it seemed like a quandary but as I thought about it...the benefit would way outweigh the downside.
Surprised to see most people (up through the first page anyway....) agree.
1002. Anonymous said:
crack is wack
1003. Toni said:
Right on MommaStone.
1004. gingela5 said:
Can their be an option c? Like give the family a week's worth of food and the drug addict treatment? I think that's equal!
1005. Ann said:
How is this even a choice? Some dude doing crack isn't hurting anyone but himself. You'd deny someone's children food so that some idiot wouldn't hurt his lungs? Of course I'd give the money to the kids. I don't care what some other guy does with his money.
1006. Brookelyn said:
I would give the family enough money to feed them for 5 years. Thereby killing the crackhead and solving that problem. Then, with his (or her) leftover crack, I would sell that on the street and make my money back so I could do it all over again.
1007. Anonymous said:
Re-phrase the question:
If you had the money to give, and there were two families -- one that was starving and needed the money to buy food, and the other that was sick and needed the money to buy drugs, and the only way to help the starving family is to help the sick family, would you help the starving family?
Remember -- a drug addict starts out with a bad decision. But once it's an addiction, it's an illness, a physical and mental illness. Whether the drug is crack, meth, alcohol, cigarettes, heroin, or sleeping pills, an addict is physically and mentally ill. The drugs have affected the neurological processes to make them function so poorly that the addict can't make decisions that are in his/her best interests.
It's easy for those of us who are healthy to look at an alcoholic and say "well, shit, if you were a stronger person, you'd stop drinking." It's easy for those of us who are healthy to look at a crack addict and say "well, shit, if you'd never started smoking crack in the first place, you wouldn't be in this mess. And I'm not going to help you keep smoking crack by giving you money. Moreover, the only way you're ever going to get better is to stop smoking crack, so stop smoking crack and then I'll help you." But the person really just needs help to get better. Whether or not you're the person to help them is another story. An addict will make self-destructive decisions until they stop. Period. Nothing you do or say will make that any clearer to them. Thinking otherwise is an exercise in egoism.
As for the other comments, about whether or not the question is in regards to taxes vs. charity, and "teaching a man to fish" and all that gibberish, I don't think it really matters.
Here's a better question: Do we, as a society, have an obligation to help the sick to get well, whether that sickness is addiction or malnourishment? Do we, as a society, have an obligation to provide a bare minimum standard of living that includes food and health care? Conservatives have a good point about asking "where does that end?" If it's food and health care today, it's housing tomorrow, and then it's clothing, and then it's transportation. When do people become responsible for themselves? How do you define "needy"?
I'm a die-hard capitalist, but if we can tax ourselves for roads, and military spending, and public schools, and fire departments, I think we can tax ourselves for health insurance that covers both physical and mental illness, including addiction. You should be able to see a doctor whether or not you've got a fucking dime. And so long as our government -- that's the US government -- is spending money to pay farmers NOT to grow food, (a welfare program whcih Republicans favor, by the way) I'd rather pay them to grow the food and then provide it to the poorest of the poor. Or school lunches, anyway.
So there's my totally aimless rant. Carry on.
1008. NeoCleo said:
Yes.
Buying a family food or giving an addict money in both instances satisfies need, stills hunger, eases pain. Yes, my act enables the crackhead to indulge in self-destructive behavior, which also happens to be her/his privilege as a human. Who the hell am I to presume to know what's best for someone else in such a circumstance? I would give the money freely knowing that in both instances I acted with true charity.
When I give money to people there are no strings attached. Once it leaves my hands it no longer belongs to me--I keep the benefit of the act and they gain control of the money. Once conditions are attached to a charitible act it ceases to be charity and becomes social work. Social work is an honorable profession but it is not charity.
I recently spotted a kid standing at a major freeway offramp here in Sacramento with a sign. He was not old enough to be out of high school; younger than my precious nephews. A Thin, tiny kid with a mass of curly blond hair wearing battered plaid bermuda shorts, an oversize tee shirt, ratty tennis shoes and dirt. I rifled thru my handbag trying to beat the light, found two $5 bills and waved them frantically out my open car window until I got his attention. He came running up with a big, beautiful smile on his dirty face and I said pleadingly, "Kid, please get off the street as soon as you can and take care of yourself, okay?" He gazed at me with a clear-eyed, quizzical expression and said, "I'm TRYIN'to ma'am!!" I had time to say "I wish it could be more" and then the light changed. For all I know he spent the $10 bucks on dirty coke. I hope not. But whether he bought drugs, a meal, or found a place to flop for the night, my act of charity gave him autonomy to decide for himself. My reward was his smile and a brief but sweet neurochemical buzz courtesy of altruism.
1009. Karen P said:
Could I just use the money to help the hungry family start a garden or something and use the money to help the crack head get some real help? Does the money have to be used just for food and just for crack? Maybe I could just give the same value to the crack head in the form of vouchers that they could only spend at Wal-Mart?
1010. Jen said:
I would donate the money. What the crack-user does is their thing. Taking kharma and consequences (of the universe) into consideration, I would suppose that either choice you make will hurt the crack-user -- having the money to buy more crack being the least of them.
1011. Michelle said:
Absolutely. I would view it as helping good people survive, and helping shitty people slowly kill themselves.
1012. tn said:
I wouldn't donate a red cent in that scenario. Instead, I would purchase the food for both families and get it to them somehow. Sound harsh? Maybe, but I work too hard for my money to just give it to people who who'd use it to feed their habit instead of their stomach.
1013. Charli-tan said:
I haven't read through all the coments so if someone already said this I apologize, but #71 Toni, you can CERTAINLY overdose on the drug that way. In fact, smoking crack is one of the most dangerous ways to use it becasue you can't tell how much you have ingested, making it EASIER to OD!
1014. Coffee Bean said:
I don't know if you get to read all of your comments or not... I just wanted to let you know that I posted about this question on my, "The Uneducated Housewife's Guide to Politics." Actually, I quoted it. I also linked back to you. I consider myself to be a Conservative Republican and I am a Christian.
1015. BugHunter said:
Last time I handed money to a family who needed it to put food on the table, they installed Dish TV instead. Sadly, a very real and true story. The time before that, it was a big screen TV. So, what makes you think a family needing food for their children will spend money on food?
Burn me once, shame on...whatever.
1016. Jodie said:
Amazing number of giving people. I would buy food gift cards for both. You can always find a way to help others, there are many ways that don't cost a dime. Like volunteering at the Humane Society, Homeless shelter, Food bank, Hospital etc.
PS. I also read a number of comments that deserve to be driven over with your car, repeatedly.
1017. Cindy Z said:
I would go and buy food for the family instead of money.
1018. Anonymous said:
I am blown away by some of the downright cruel comments being posted. Lack of compassion and disdain for those you perceive as beneath you are horrible character flaws and you should be ashamed to be posting about it, not flaunting it. Katie #973 and numerous other posts like hers, I just want to throw up knowing there are heartless people like you in the world. I remember hearing that 25% of the human race are sociopaths. Thanks for proving it!
1019. krissykristan said:
No. When I first read this, I thought, "Yes. Yes, of course." But then I realized I face this decision almost every day when I pass the homeless on the street asking for money, and my answer is never "yes."
I live in Santa Monica, Calif., a predominantly affluent area (which results in numerous, well-funded social services) with a lot of tourist traffic. It's a draw for the down-and-out. There are just so many of them, at least two every 20 feet in shopping areas. How do I give to one and not another? So I don't give to the people with cardboard signs; I hope my tax money is in the hands of people who can better prevent its going toward the wrong channels than these scenarios allow me to do. So far, it seems to be, relative to other areas I've lived in.
I'm fortunate---extremely fortunate---to live in a place where elected officials continue to prioritize funding for addressing mental illness and homelessness, as well as other issues I consider important uses of our collective money and industriousness, and I'm proud to live here for that reason. I don't want to live anywhere that isn't the case. Then again, I do, and that's why I am more interested than ever in the people and outcome of this national election.
I guess my answer, in short, to that family would be this, "I'm not giving half of this money in my hand to you. I'm giving it all to these people over here who I trust will give it to you." But again, I'm fortunate to live in a place where that trust has been well-placed. Other places I've lived, I might have given a different answer.
1020. Sarah said:
Oh MY GOD! I love ya Heather but the startle post above this one scared me so bad I am now having contractions. FFS give a girl some warning!
1021. shannon said:
Absolutely. I didn't even hesitate in thinking about it. I have never batted an eye at the thought that, when I give someone on the street money, they might use it to buy drugs or alcohol. I can only imagine that if I were in their shoes - and there have been times in my life when that scenario was easier to imagine than it is now - I would be looking for escape as well. Does it solve the problem to hand over my pocket change? No, of course not. Does it help that person? Maybe. The answer probably depends on how you define "help."
I would hope that if I were ever truly faced with this "dilemma" I would be able to offer more than just money to both parties. Money rarely fixes all problems, but it sure does make it easier to address them.
1022. Heather R. said:
First of all, the post above this one was just mean. :)
This post, however, kind of bugs me. I know this is meant to raise debate on welfare. But if the situation described existed separately from welfare, it is what is known as a false dilemma. Yes the government takes our money and gives to people who deserve it . . . and who don't. But other than that, we have choices in real life. We aren't forced into situations like this if we want to give to charity outside of our taxes. We CAN give money to just the family. Or help in a soup kitchen. Or donate clothes to Goodwill. Or get to know the addict and try and find a way to help them constructively (I know, a difficult task if ever there was one). The government takes some of our money, spends it on undeserving people and projects, and (besides writing to congress) there isn't much we can do. Get over it. Do what you can with what you have. Believe me, there is a lot more to done then just through welfare.
1023. Sarah said:
Absolutely. The crack head is hurting him/herself and are using anyway. They'll find a way to buy it whether I give them the money or not. It's well worth it to feed the hungry family.
1024. Natasha said:
OF COURSE I WOULD! BUT, I would go beyond that and help the family in more lasting ways if possible so that I'd no longer have to donate money.
THIS is the Christian way.
Teach a man to fish and all that but GIVE him a fish first so he has the motivation.
1025. Bibi said:
Never. Crack is whack!
1026. Anita said:
I would donate. The good of helping the people who need help is greater than the damage that someone who is drug addicted would do. that's a hard sentence to write and make sense, but that's what I would do.
Good and bad happen. I am not going to stop doing good because bad is going to happen, too.
I would probably give about $100.
1027. Renee said:
Erg... this is a completely false analogy for the stock market bailout.
1028. kat said:
Absolutely! You'd help the people in need. The crack addict always has a choice whether to spend the money on crack or get off crack. It's all about choices. The best choice, of course would be to use the money for rehab. :-)
1029. lane said:
Yes. Absolutely.
1030. sarah said:
I'm baffled that so many are assuming this is about welfare.
The vast, vast (VAST!) majority of people on various forms of "welfare" are not buying drugs. Do you guys realize how much you get on public assistance? It's barely enough to buy meals for a month, much less drugs.
I have a master's degree in social service administration and work with lots of people on "welfare" so I'm not just saying this; I know it. There are tons of studies that back this up.
1031. kmbr said:
Yes. Unhesitatingly.
People need to eat. Crackheads need crack. Sometimes for the same reasons. Life is hard at the bottom of the barrel, and we all deal with it in our own way.
There will always be people who take advantage of a system. (See "Street, Wall: recent events). Our obligation as a civilization is to endeavor to take care of everyone, even people we don't like, or vehemently disagree with. (See above parenthetical)
Crack is a method of mentally escaping a reality one cannot control. Be pointlessly judgmental, or give people the tools to control their reality.
Back in my childhood catholic days, I was impressed by the saying "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me". Words to live by.
1032. jafer said:
No.
1033. Kristi said:
Without thinking twice.
1034. Lisa Ann said:
Jesus fed the 5000 when they were hungry. He didn't ask which of them were crack addicts or drank too much wine, or were too stupid to bring food with them. If you are going to quote the Bible, folks, read it. It's chock full of taking care of the poor and social justice issues, both in the old and new testaments. (for those quoting the Bible.)
For those who have never been hungry or needed to steal to survive to feed their family because their children were starving, and the food pantry was closed, and the food stamps had not yet come through, and you were too sick to work and had used up all your savings from when you were able to work, and have no access to QUALITY health care to get better enough to work...and to those have been inordinately blessed and able to work and go to school yet do not appreciate your blessings or the inordinate privileges the haves in our society enjoy compare to most of the not-haves in so many nations and in our own nation, yet are too damn selfish to share those things with others in dire need, I can't help you.
You see, sometimes it is not about politics. its just about humanity. many of us appear to have lost that.
But Karma is a funny and balancing thing. (thankfully!)
But Karma is a funny thing.
1035. Sandy said:
If there was absolutely no other way to get food on the table for that family, YES.
BUT, there always is another way. A better solution. It just takes creativity and commitment.
Otherwise, no bloody way.
1036. Muriel said:
I'm sure someone has already said this, but I wouldn't give money at all, since money is never the solution. (As we've seen time and time again.)
I would give them food, shelter - necessities. For the same reason that I won't give the homeless money; not because I'm cruel or cheap, but because food and opportunity is better than money.
Money should only help implement *programs of opportunity* that teach them about *opportunity.* Otherwise, the idea of shelling out cash has always proven to fail.
1037. Stephanie said:
Yup.
1038. Anonymous said:
I'd give food, not money. That's it.
1039. Jennifer said:
Give both families a food basket, then the crackhead would have to sell the food to get the money or trade it for crack--but at least all your money would buy food!
1040. maren said:
If this IS a political posting, may I add to the discourse? People, at least thoughtful people, tend to choose candidates based on their values. So if you value a society that takes care of its people, that helps those who cannot help themselves, the choice in this election seems clear.
In addition, a group of authors (which includes me) who have written books on business, leadership, social justice and community have banded together to talk about the leadership qualities that will best serve our country. This comes from people who have expertise in this arena. Please check it out: http://www.authors4obama.com
1041. Anonymous said:
Dang, Dooce, you have a great, generous readership overall, but those Republicans stand out like a sore and ugly thumb. 'Tis a pity.
I would give the money. Although I have to say I have recently discovered one of those places where you put together meals and freeze them and I would probably do that instead, just because they're so easy and delicious for someone like me, who has a car and a little free time. The crackhead might like it, too!
--Lisa
1042. Amy from KY said:
I would buy them food, rather than give them money. Giving money will enable an addict, whom will use the money improperly.
1043. MG said:
First, when I read this last night, there were only ~150 comments; now, there are over 1,000. Why does that amaze me so? I don't know...but it does.
Second, I'm calling bullshit on all of you "I would make the family dinner/give a basket of food or grocery gift cards" people. I'm in no position to debate the validity of the "conservatives donate more money annually than liberals do" comment, but I am confident that the vast majority of you have not and do not regularly go out of your way to attend personally to the needs of a hungry family. Perhaps you give through church, or the United Way, or to a local food bank, in hope that those agencies will verify need before providing their services...but you're not going down into the 'hood on a Wednesday night to drop off a casserole for Mom (who DOES work--full time as a teacher in a daycare center, no less--whose salary sort of covers the rent and utilities and gas, if by "sort of" you mean alternating months for paying the various utilities, or sending partial payments) and her four young kids.
There will always be people who take advantage and work the system. And there will, unfortunately, always be people who work hard, but do not earn enough to get by without some assistance. I'm pretty much the working poor myself, but I pay my taxes without complaining...just as I would if I made five or six times as much as I do now.
1044. christina said:
how ignorant are all of you who said yes? if you have a job that takes taxes out of your paycheck you already donate against your will to feed, house, clothe the druggies who are unwilling to get off drugs and make a better life for themselves. WAKE UP AMERICA... The more we continue to support these "poor" people the more people continue to take advantage of the system. Get a clue. If you work hard for your money you should be able to keep it. We've all heard the phrase "work harder..millions of people on welfare are depending on you" STOP THE MADNESS.
1045. Debi said:
If those are the only two options, yes. I would always help a hungry child, given the chance.
1046. Amanda said:
Why do we have to box ourselves into a situation where in order to alleviate one problem, we have to compromise something else? There has to be a better way. Are we just not willing to work to find it?
1047. kim said:
Under the assumption that there are NO other options to help the needy family but under these circumstances, absolutely I would. But I agree with the poster who indicated that if there are other ways that didn't involve this sort of condition, then the answer would be no.
However, I also agree that the crack addict will get their hit with or without me, but the family would still be hungry. I don't believe that the two counteract each other though - giving the money to the crack addict we ASSUME they use it for drugs, but even crack addicts get hungry, or need clothes, or cab fare, and sometimes they go to rehab and clean up their lives. A gift is a gift, and it shouldn't come with conditions on how to use it. The only way to do that is to make it a gift card to the grocery store. Hey, maybe that's the plan. Don't give cash, give it as a grocery gift card.
1048. Courtney said:
The video you put up was mean. :(
1049. alex said:
Wow. Now way can I read through more than 1000 comments, but thru the first several dozen, the attitude I'm seeing prevail is that of: the crack addict will get the drug any way they can (stealing, etc.) anyway but the poor, hungry family is reliant upon charity.
This makes victims of the poor family and a villian of the drug addict. I'm not sure either would appreciate those designations. I definitely don't agree with them.
As for what I would do; I think ultimately I would give the money, although mostly I prefer a more proactive approach than "throwing money" at a situation. Find the hungry family a means of sustaining themselves would be better. However, I know that sometimes a handout is the only solution to stave off immediate disaster and I wouldn't turn away if I was in a position to help that way, even if it meant perpetuating the crack addict's problem (also a short term damage).
1050. echoroc said:
Yah, sure. The family needs it, so does the crackhead and the crackhead will get crack some other way, anyhow.
And too #300 Snookie -- Spare us the sanctimony. You call yourself a Christian Republican - you don't believe in giving people anything! That would be *gasp* SOCIALISM! Beware the EVIL LIBERALS!
1051. Ashley said:
Heather -
I realize this is your site. You should be able to post whatever you want. But, the politically motivated name calling and "holier than thou" attitudes of many of your commenters are not the type of vibe I have been visiting your site over 3 years for.
I can't wait until the election is over and people can grow the hell up and act like adults. But until then, I am probably not going to continue participating in the commentary and discussion. I'm sure I am not the only one.
Dooce readers seem like a great group of people, and I usually love reading the comments and participating. But now I feel like you are throwing your conservative readers to the wolves (you no doubt saw what happened on the Palin thread.. why continue this?).
I had hoped this would be a place where people would be able have a civilized discussion. Instead, the democrats here assume all conservatives are dumb rednecks or cold-hearted rich people who hate everyone but themselves. I feel like most of the democrats on Dooce have an "elitist attitude", and don't seem to realize how rude and ignorant it is to judge people based on a comment on a blog. Its getting to the point where I'm not sure this divisive attitude will end after the election.
Anyways, sorry for the rant. I just wish this site was not politically driven at a time when sometimes I just need a break from the constant fighting, you know? More Chuck. Less Obama. Please.
1052. Anonymous said:
why don't you ask joe biden what he would do? he's a cheap SOB!
1053. Anonymous said:
Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, Barney Frank , William Ayers - all crooks! Fuck liberals, screw you Heather! You are a piece of garbage with a do nothing job! I can't wait for Obama to win and tax the shit out of small businesses and for your piece of shit website to crumble. Freaking marxist piece of white trash that you are!
1054. Anonymous said:
Dooce
you really need to keep blogging about dog shit because that is really your area of expertise. You have shit for brains when it comes to politics. YOu are a drooling fool over Obama and all things liberal! Stupid ass piece of white trash!
: )
1055. AJ said:
Crack is whack.
And no. I would not support someone else's bad choices in life, in both scenarios. The druggie could've chosen NOT to do drugs. The poor family could've chosen to NOT have children they could not feed.
1056. Lyla said:
I would. The family needs the help and it's not their fault the other person has an addiction. Plus, there's always the hope that the crack addict will use the money to begin seeking help, though not likely.
1057. Karissa said:
Oh, you mean the welfare system. I'm aware of it. Why do you ask?
1058. Ren said:
Yep. One lives longer, the other will die sooner.
1059. ambika said:
It's strange, I had this conversation the other day with my significant other--that I didn't understand the mentality of people who would sacrifice the 3 families that genuinely need the help they receive for the 1 that is manipulating the system.
As the child of a single, teenage mother who had no family support when she was trying to raise 2 children under the age of 3 entirely on her own, I know those programs aren't wasted. Obviously my perspective is skewed, but as the first person in my family to have gone to & completed college and now working in a field whose focus is on preventing the intergenerational transmission of poverty, it makes me crazy to see the word 'welfare' with a negative connotation. Or to see people promote money management as a means of stopping poverty.
1060. Daly said:
No. I'd find another way to help the needy family that doesn't require that I help the crack addict.
Almost every morning, when I'm sitting at a stop light on the way to work, bums ask me for money "to buy food". I offer them my lunch (seriously--it's ready to eat and they don't have to make the trek to a grocery store) and almost always, they never accept my offer. Some are grateful, others are probably skeptical that the food is poisoned and the majority refuse, only wanting cash to buy crack or alcohol. They can get food at a shelter which is the least of their concern when they're addicts.
1061. Anonymous said:
It's a double edged sword.
In one hand, you can feed a family, provide for children a basic life essential that most of us on this site take for granted anyway. In the other hand, you could keep your money and not enable a crackhead to harm themselves (with your help, anyway) or their families. Those who say the crackhead is only harming himself aren't thinking about the bigger picture. Do crackheads not have families or, heaven forbid, children? Are crackheads not part of society? Are crackheads not often the ones to blame for crime, which they commit to support their habits? The idea that the crackhead only hurts himself is ridiculous.
I don't believe it's always cut and dry; I live in shades of gray far more often than black and white. Teach a man to fish? That's not always plausible or possible. Like someone else said, if that is YOUR answer, "Don't ask me for help when you're drowning; I'll simply let you know where you can get some swimming lessons."
Welfare was designed as a stepping stone between rock bottom and the bottom step, not as a hammock between two shady trees, where people can get comfortable and relax. It's designed to get people on their feet. It is abused and that makes it an inperfect system.
This is a heavy question. I honestly don't know at this point. How do you help one succeed while at the same time enabling one to suffer? But how do you watch someone go hungry because others have drug addictions?
I don't really understand how people can be SO one way with this. How is it not an impossible question for you, too?
1062. Emma said:
I've already answered this but another answer made me think about my choice...
This was my original answer -
400. Emma said:
"I'd probably do it because the people really need to feed their children and the drug addicts would find a way to buy crack anyway and at least this way they're not hurting anyone to get the money, I suppose."
And this was the comment that made me think in a different way -
25. kalen said:
"no.
think of it this way - you give money to someone you know would use it for crack & during a binge one night, they run into the family you helped feed. they are high & out of it and in a daze, they crash their car into the family as they cross the street, or their drug dealer fires & kills one of the children during an argument, etc.
butterfly effect.
one cancels out the other."
So the idea of the butterfly effect got me thinking. I based my original answer on the idea that letting the people buy their crack would stop them from doing something bad in order to get the money to buy the crack. But kalen made me think about something bad that might happen because they had used their crack a.k.a the butterfly effect.
I think my answer would now be no because of this.
But I'd still like to know what your answer would be Heather?
(sorry for answering twice!)
1063. Amanda said:
Short answer - probably yes.
But behind the starving family and the crack addict will be another starving family, one which I cannot help because I have previously spent all of my resources buying the crack addict crack so I could feed one family.
And I refuse to feel guilty for questioning this flawed system and believing that throwing more money at it does not inherently fix the problem. Should we support social systems such as welfare? Yes, probably. Should we be smarter about it? Absolutely.
1064. jen said:
yes.
and then i'm hoping that there are other resources available to help the family, and the person using crack. but i'm not so sure, in this economy and culture of "me, me, me", how much longer that help will be available.
1065. Sarah said:
No, yes. Dems, Repubs. Liberals, Conservs. I'm so fed up.
I am amazed at the roads that people have gone down with this question. Perhaps you meant to fire up the lefts and hammer on the rights. Maybe you wanted to do the opposite. Maybe you just wanted to start a dialog (one you don't actually seem to be participating in.) Either way, how is this helping?
How about we start applying a new label?
How about American.
Feed the family with a meal made of your own two hands, try to help the crack head if you can. Channel some of this energy into something worthwhile, like hugging your kid or petting your dog or bolstering a friend.
Heather, I enjoy your blog but I do think you're better at being funny. Maybe you are feeling that because you are semi-famous you are making a statement and serving your cause. But, making people laugh serves a cause too, a greater one imo. I think we can all use some laughs.
1066. tana said:
Absolutely with no hesitation. My responsibility is to help those when I am given an opportunity. It is not my responsibility what the crack heads do with the money. And the hungry people shouldn't suffer because of someone else's redonkulously stupid mistakes.
1067. Anonymous said:
My husband had the perfect solution. Pay the family their money for food. Give the crack head double that amount and hope they overdose. Two problems solved.
1068. molo said:
The crackhead will get crack no matter what and may commit a crime or certainly harm against someone to get the money for the crack.
I would definitely give the money to the family in need, and giving the money to the crack head would be painful, but it may actually prevent a crime to do so. Or so says my rationale.
1069. Janet said:
Arggh. Was almost ready to head back to bed and I watched that dumb video from Friday's post.
1070. Anonymous said:
You are some hateful wench. I just watched the video of the girl on the bike and practically had a heart attack!!!
Keep up the great work dooce!
1071. neverbeenbarbie said:
Yes, absolutely. Should one family suffer for another one's sins?
1072. Anonymous said:
Oh yeah Dooce. That video you put up? It woke my 20 month old son from his nap not 30 minutes after he went down. His naps are normally 2 hours, so as you can imagine in about 3 hours the shit is gonna hit the fan and I blame you for it. I've been a loyal reader for FOUR years but lately your blog has gone to shit.
I see lot's of comments here but YOU'RE not saying anything. You just can't start crap like this up without putting your two cents worth in. If you don't leave a comment, you're starting fights here on your blog for no other reason than to sit by and watch or prove your own stupid point.
Is that what you REALLY want your blog to be about???
1073. Jen said:
Yes.
1074. Anonymous said:
Yes. Without question - the family needs the food. If the others choose to use it on drugs, it's not my place to judge them.
1075. Becky said:
Yes.
And to #96: If your family is hungry and your pantry is bare, I will open my pantry to you and share what I have.
1076. Jennifer V said:
I think you're probably interested in tying this to politics -- as in a bill that has something really good and something kind of cruddy bundled together, and in order to pass the "good" part you have to accept the bad (or the concessions you had to make to the other party), or else wait until the bill meets your expectations ((which might be never.)
As far as politics go, it would be a case by case basis for me on whether I could accept some "crap" in order to get my favorite thing passed.
As far as this question goes...if a person came to me and said that I could give $100 to a needy family if I also gave $100 to Crazy Eyes down the block, it might be very easy to just walk away and give nothing to anybody; the ramifications of giving $$ to crackheads would worry me.
But if the family had cute kids with big sad eyes, or an adorable dog, I might just cave in and give them the $$ and hope that CrackHead Joe wouldn't use it for harm, and would just use up and curl up in a doorway somewhere like usual.
It's hard to predict what people will do with the $$ you give them. I'd be helping society (albeit in a very small way) by giving to the needy family, and hurting it too by giving to the crackhead. I don't know if the two would EXACTLY cancel out, but certainly it would make me uneasy knowing that I'd contributed to a person's downfall even while contributing to someone else's salvation. I could hope that by helping a FAMILY I'd be giving hope and/or assistance to multiple people, and by giving $$ to the crackhead I'd only be hurting ONE person. Of course, I'm assuming that the crackhead doesn't do harm to anyone while on the crack I've so thoughtfully provided.
It's an interesting question...I look forward to seeing what you do with the answers!
1077. debi said:
Yes I would. If kids were involved. I was a drug addict many years ago. People helped me. I got it together and it's been 20 yrs since those days. Some people won't change but you can't let the kids go hungry.
1078. steph said:
Yeah, I'd feed them. It's hard to teach people job skills when the economy's in the toilet unemployment is so high, don't you think?
1079. Gry said:
Yes
1080. omar said:
yes.
the family that needs the help will greatly benefit, and the one that wants the drug will harm themselves in one way or the other no matter what you do. they are free to do as they wish, and at some point they will hopefully realize what they have done wrong.
1081. Judy said:
Obviously many of you have never played "What if...?" You can't come up with alternative answers, that defeats the purpose of the question! ;-)
I would do it, yes. I'm not nearly as knowledgable about this financial mess as some people so I'm not qualified to speak to whatever metaphor others are alluding to. But if it were as simple as, would I give money to a family for food if it meant I also had to give money to a crackhead, yes.
It's sad to say, but even being "middle class" isn't protection from hunger, lack of proper medical care, limited education options, etc. anymore. I know, I'm there due to a series of things including going bankrupt to get the treatment our autistic son needed and hubby being laid-off completely unexpectedly and basically having to start over again at a new company.
And as far as qualifying for social services or food stamps or even WIC, you have to be practically living in your car to qualify.
1082. Beth said:
Yes, I would.
They're both feeding themselves with what they need survive another day, and I wouldn't judge them for their choice.
What if the family bought thirty bags of Cheetos and ten cases of Coke with the money? How different is it now?
1083. Buy Blu-Ray DVD Players said:
I'd vote for Obama. thats who id give the money to.
1084. Miss B said:
here's a question for all the people saying they wouldn't give money to either the family or the crackhead, but would instead cook for the family every day, or teach them a marketable job skill, or what-have-you -- do any of you actually do that sort of thing, in real life? honestly, i'd like to see how many of you that responded that way actually spend any real face-time helping people/families in need -- so if you don't do it now, for real, then why would you do it hypothetically?
1085. Polly*Ester said:
Yes. No child should go hungry. If you're loaning money, I'd sure like enough to stay home with my daughter until she starts school. She's 3 in December so $100,000 would do me just fine until she's 6. LOL
1086. Anonymous said:
Nope. That would be the easy way... My conscience would be clear since I "helped". I'd be all full of self-righteousness without getting emotionally involved.
I if I really gave a dang I'd actually get my hands dirty by getting involved in their lives, not just handing them cash. How about inviting them over for dinner, and lunch, and breakfast for starters? Yeah, even the crackheads. Don't they need food, too?
Giving cash would only make both families worse... Even the non-crack family.
There's an old story that goes along the lines of:
If you give someone $X.xx a day for thirty days then the first few days they're really greatful. Then they move into expecting it. Then they get angry when you stop.
1087. Rachel said:
Yes.
1088. ellew said:
yes. help trumps vice.
1089. Theresa said:
I have not read a majority of these comments, but I would donate an equal amount in gift cards. The hungry can still eat while the addict has to consider whether food or drugs are more important that day.
1090. Laura B said:
You Americans are so weird.
1091. echoroc said:
I can't believe people are so rude to Heather, honestly. I bet not one of you assholes would ever dare say those things to her face.
Heather - I think you're fabulous, I love your blog and I've read every post since the beginning. I feel like I found a kindred spirit and I think it's important for you to continue writing about political things if that's what is motivating you these days.
More people ought to be paying attention and, yes, FIGHTING, about the state of the nation. We would all be in better shape if more people paid attention like this all the time.
Thanks, Heather.
1092. mike said:
How much does crack cost?
post 1086 hints at something I think most people won't acknowledge or address-- that guilt is often a primary motivator for "doing good" or giving, and even more importantly, that handing out money is a intellectually and emotionally slothful way to try to help someone. I think some people genuinely care and that's why they give, but that doesn't excuse them from said sloth. If I'm going to give money I'd much rather give it to an organization that will provide said food for short term relief in addition to helping address the root of the problem.
(Yes, money is never the problem, which is why throwing money at people who are in need is not a real solution-- it's a bandaid at best.)
But to answer the original question... if that was my *only* option to help someone in need, then yes. But the question feels like it's set up to justify taxation in the name of helping others, which is far from actually "giving" or being charitable (use of force robs it of any virtue), let alone an efficient use of those resources for helping people.
It is sad that we live in a world that is selfish enough that do-gooders would resort to force to try to make others do something to help those in need.
1093. Carolyn said:
Absolutely. Otherwise you've got a cynical justification for getting rid of welfare. Denying the needy because of the abuses of a few.
1094. amy said:
yes, i'd give the money.
1095. Susan said:
Comments from the anonymous people spewing hatred are either from trolls who love to stir it up or from very sad, pathetic people who are very afraid they don't control their own world. Either way, the comments should just be ignored and I hope Heather doesn't ever take them to heart.
Comments like 1051 Ashley just confuse me because on one hand she says it's Heather's blog but then tells Heather to only post the stuff Ashley wants to read. Since it's Heather's blog why not just ignore what you don't want and read what you want? Surely there are a lot of other blogs you could read and comment positively on. Then those blogs might (or might not) become more popular than Heather's. And surely you can't expect Heather to please only you. Based on the comments there are many, many people who want to engage in this back and forth. And there are some very intelligent comments lurking there in the chatter.
You can disagree with Heather and challenge her point of view but asking her to only post what interests you seems kind of silly. Have you own blog if you want to control the content.
1096. Anonymous said:
THIS is why I vote republican. You don't HAVE to help both.
1097. Shawn Hansen said:
I agree with those who see the question as an examination of our current welfare system. Would I do it? Yes, but only because one can buy far more food than crack with the same amount of money. (At least I think that's the state of the "economy" right now: perhaps that'll change in January if the government doesn't.)
My note to #300: What do you think Jesus would say to you Christian Republicans about the way America's leaders have behaved these last 8 years? What bible verse is that, exactly? (Laughing at your self-righteousness)
1098. Anonymous said:
#1097 Shawn
you are a complete moron - who has the majority in congress? Democrats. What do you think Jesus would say about Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Kennedy??? All crooks. All made money off of Fannie Mae (throw Obama in to that mix too). You stupid ass liberals need to do a little examination. You aren't too bright, are you?
1099. phhhst said:
Doocedude - I only skimmed about 1% of the comments, but does anyone else think you are making an analogy to the bailout?? My gut opinion is that the bailout is fuckwad and no one in Congress wants to be the one to call it, because if they are wrong and the economy crumbles without the bailout, they don't want it on their watch. But to me it has the feel both of going to war as well as supporting the patriot act. The greedy hustlers have been hustling along and they always figured Bush and buds would bail them out in the end. It would have been nice if the smartypants in Washington could have figured a way to help the hungry family and insist the crack addict get to rehab.
1100. Renee phillips said:
I would, but for different reasons than I see in the first 50 answers.
Crack is a symptom of a larger problem. Preventing a crack addict from getting a fix for one day is unlikely to solve the issues that got them addicted in the first place. In fact, the numbness of drug use is the *best* feeling that many addicts get.
Feeding a hungry family (for longer than just one meal) will have positive effects.
1101. Renee phillips said:
I would, but for different reasons than I see in the first 50 answers.
Crack is a symptom of a larger problem. Preventing a crack addict from getting a fix for one day is unlikely to solve the issues that got them addicted in the first place. In fact, the numbness of drug use is the *best* feeling that many addicts get.
Feeding a hungry family (for longer than just one meal) will have positive effects.
1102. PoorBritney said:
The bigger question Ms. Armstrong, is- how did I get sucked into this blog that has no subjects even related to my interests yet... I find myself reading it every damn day.
It's what you call "sticky", yet I dont know why it's sticky.
All I know is I find myself curious about what Chuck's up to or what blouse you wore. It's not right I tell you.
I dont like children, yet I'm curious as to what yours is up to. I dont go to church and I'm not morman, yet I'm curious about your family's reaction to any religious post you may do.
I find myself curious about if your hubby enjoyed his trip to TN. I enjoy gazing at a stupid picture of shot glasses, that normally means nothing, yet on here, it's interesting.
What was the question?
1103. Anita said:
I think that is the choice that people make when they donate cash to an organization.
I think the only way to get around your cash being spent in a way you don't want it to is to volunteer. Volunteer your time and energy and it will help so much and is "crack" free (depending on your pants of course ;>)
I donate my time as I don't have any spare cash (less than spare actually), and I feel it gives me a sense of connectedness to my community and helps me as a person to be more tolerant and make a positive impact.
I also think about what must be SO TERRIBLE that a person has to turn to lysol, hairspray, gross alcohol, aftershave, gas, paint, and yes crack in order to escape it?
And is a parents addiction/pain the child's fault? Should they suffer for it? There are many "richer" people in my town who actually think that those children are worthless and get angry whenever money is spent on them, and even speed up their cars to hit them or scare them. They say "where are the parents? it's their problem", and yes that's true....but when the parents aren't there, it's our job as a community to help that child.
1104. Pink said:
#300 has it right. The family will still be hungry the next day and the crackhead will still need his fix.
It's not wise to create a culture of dependency. One day, the dependents will outweigh the independents (read: givers), and then where is said society? Dependent. Miserable. Hungry. Drug addicted.
1105. Anonymous said:
I'd give the money. Once I make a gift, if it is truly a gift, I'll have let it go completely and will have no control over how it is spent.
1106. Kim said:
I'd be looking for a charity that wasn't so stupidly f#$@ed up as to be offering to feed the hungry with a ridiculous stipulation about crack contributions.
Let's have a real world conundrum.
1107. wicked opinion said:
I am a single parent who has done any number of things that others would deem unacceptable or morally corrupt in the name of providing for my child. Just in the last 10 years, I have noticed a major rise in the amount of "casual breeders". These are people who blithely skip around popping out kids when they don't have the intention, intelligence or resources to care for them. They then insist that the rest of society become responsible for these children. I have one child because I cannot afford any more children and I care for her myself, with help from my family. I may have made a different decision at the time of her birth if I knew that I would not have that support system. My own birth mother made the incredibly wrenching, yet most wonderful decision to place me with a family that desperately wanted a child and had the resources, both financial and otherwise, to raise a child when she didn't. Both of these scenarios are an example of being a brother's keeper - the parents unable to care for their kids are just as unthinking and self-indulgent as a crack addict. Don't give me that innocent children crap - those parents are responsible for doing whatever it takes to keep their kids fed - just like me. I am not responsible for those kids and neither is anyone else. Don't keep enabling people and perhaps, one day, they will enable themselves.
1108. Vix said:
I would have to give the money. Coming from a rather poor family, I know firsthand that not being able to feed your kids is about the worst thing in the world. While on the one hand, it's definitely not good to be feeding someone else's bad habits, I think in this kind of instance it would be worth it just to know that one family able to feed their kids for one more day.
1109. Shawn Hansen said:
@1098: a card-holding member-in-good-standing of The Ministry of Truth. (Um, so you don't get lost, that's a reference to Orwell.)
Am I a moron? Let's see. I managed to answer the question. I wasn't afraid to use my name. I can actually write in complete sentences and punctuate them.
Yes, I guess I am.
If only you were armed: I'd have a battle of wits with you.
1110. Megan said:
of course.
1111. Megan said:
# 70
spot on.
1112. Kristi said:
It is so much more complex than yes or no.
No family should be going hungry, but in the case I guess I could always donate to a food bank or some other cause.
I just don't have enough money to give even 20$ to a crack addict. I can't take that money away from my daughter and I, knowing it will be spent like that.
1113. renee said:
absolutely yes, whithout hesitation. i am actually surprised that people find this question at all complex, as i find it startlingly simple. if i could insure that hungry children would be fed, i would buy the crack myself and deliver it to this other family.
1114. Stephanie said:
FIrst I need to know, how much is crack?
1115. M. Pence said:
Yes.
There will always be hope for both, the family and the crack addict. Maybe this time they won't spend it on crack. Maybe this time they'll frighten themselves into getting clean.
Maybe I've too much faith in humanity, but, there ya go.
1116. MacChick said:
I would rather feed both their needs than none at all. I cannot make people's choices for them, so I will help whom I can and when I can.
1117. Pink said:
In addition, Heather, I HAVE been addicted to crack-cocaine. It's not pretty. $100.00 a day is a drop in the bucket for your average user.
That said, I encourage you to watch Maury Povich for a week or 2. Yes, I said Maury. Trash TV. For us, one, it's a springboard for excellent moral and social conversations between my teenage daughter and me. Secondly, it's an awesome social commentary on the day-to-day "culture of poverty." This shit doesn't fall out of the sky from nowhere.
Specifically watch for the 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 year-olds who want to have babies. And I quote, "I don't need to worry about what my momma thinks (note, no reference given to a 'daddy'), or my baby's daddy, welfare will give me everything I need including Pampers."
Think I am kidding? Watch for yourself. That type of thinking comes from SOMEWHERE.
1118. James John Malcolm said:
I think I would.
Something for you to chew on: would you rather have the good qualities of bad people or the bad qualities of good people?
1119. Anonymous from LA said:
This question is loaded, but I understand it is one of those "should we give people welfare even though we know that some recipients will misuse it" questions.
The answer is yes.
My mom received welfare for my siblings and I and she was not on drugs, did not have too many children from multiple fathers, etc. In fact few of my neighbors fit into the Black welfare queen stereotype. I am now a professional with two degrees and no children :) :(. I will be glad when society realizes the need to take care of its poorest in order to break the cycle of poverty instead of using said poor as scapegoats for problems they do not create.
1120. Amanda said:
A simple yes or no would suffice. So my answer is Yes. I think that the needy family outweighs any hesitance I have about the person buying the crack. So ...YEP. I sure would.
1121. Mandy said:
I've only skimmed the comments to about #100 so this has probably already been said but I don't understand why you HAVE to give to the crack addict as well. Surely, being the donater, isn't it your choice? This is based on my understanding of the scenario that they are two seperate (but perhaps related) families and that the family who really needs money for food feels responsible for or loyalty toward the crack addict; That they will only accept your offer on the condition you give to the addict as well. I would only give to the family who needed the food - take it or leave it, it's their choice.
1122. Mandy said:
I've just been reading more comments and realise now that maybe you used the scenario as an analogy rather than expressing a personal conundrum.
In light of this my earlier response seems pretty condescending and paternalistic.
It's not an easy one. I work in the drug and alcohol sector in Melbourne Australia (where the main problem drugs are herion and ICE, but still alcohol is #1). While I think our welfare system (especially our public healthcare) is better than the US - there are still many people who are homeless and have no hope - you have to wonder what comes first, the drugs or the hopelessness? Society needs to look after these people and find a way to break the cycle.
1123. Anonymous said:
How much does crack go for?
1124. mike said:
You're a tall glass of water, aren't you spencer? (I need your teeth for the federal reserve...)
1125. Steph said:
Uhhh...teach a man to fish?
The answer is no, no I wouldn't. But it's not necessary to let the family go hungry. I can teach the family members to earn their own living, give them work temporarily, or share my food for a while.
Under no circumstances do I put money in a drug pusher's pocket.
1126. Andi said:
I not only would give the money to the crackhead in order for the family to eat, I'd buy the shit for him myself.
1127. Anonymous said:
Kill the crack addict and let the desperate family starve to death for having children they can't feed. Problem solved.
Why should we be socially responsible when THEY are not being responsible for themselves?
I'd rather give my money to cancer and Alzheimer's research.
1128. Melissia said:
I think the comments on this post are very interesting. I just came back to make two points.
I have lived with a crackhead (my brother) who I loved dearly but who made my teenage life HELL. Giving my brother another hit so he could wake our family up in the middle of the night and threaten to kill my mother(who was a single parent) is not a good solution to the problem of drug addiction or hunger. Drug abuse harms more than the user.
Second, if you know the people who live around you I have found it is easy to do what you can to help people. A neighbor down the street regularly has her power cutoff due to not paying the bill. Her kids spend a lot of time at my house and we always feed them. My husband and I both had adults in our lives who let us come to their houses to crash who would feed us and talk to us. It made a huge difference in our lives.
If we are as Obama says the change we have been waiting for, then how come we are not finding new answers to these questions? How come the answer is still forcible taxation to inefficient government?
Melissia
1129. Judy said:
Well, if the crack person LIVES IN THE SAME HOUSE (or otherwise has access to the food money), I say no go. Unless you had some way of being sure the money was used for the purchase of "food" (can you actually buy what they need without handing over cash?) Also, if it's still the living in the same house situation, I think they need help with fixing that, too. Maybe I'm way off base...
1130. Anonymous said:
Or another. If you could feed a family in need but also had to give equal amounts of money to ten individuals who would use it to buy crack? It's a little more accurate for the welfare question you pose.
1131. Carrie said:
Sure. Nothing wrong with a little crack here and there. In all seriousness, they are going to buy it one way or another, might as well keep them from robbing someone for some night while feeding another family at the same time.
1132. Inthru said:
The question is asking me if I had the opportunity to help a family and a crackhead. I don't see it that way. Taxes are sort of obligatory, aren't they? I've been on welfare, the office where they make you go downtown to sign up for it is a horrible place to be and I don't wish being that needy on anyone. I've also been unfortunately involved with people who used crack. They fucking suck.
I have not been in a position where I would consider giving money directly to a family to feed their children an "opportunity." Parenting is really a chore and maybe oughtn't be romanticized and upheld as a noble thing. The kids can't really help it once they're born, but being fed is so basic that it doesn't begin to lift the ongoing burden. Are they being taught well? The cycle of poverty persists - I don't think feeding anyone for a day or a week really does the thing it needs to help. Money might as well go to the crackhead. And fuck you for that screamer in the post above. Really.
1133. Emily said:
#627: Your comment just jumped out at me. After teaching in an urban school for a year, I saw this sort of thing all the time. I was amazed when kids would come in without coats (in the middle of a snowy, cold winter), yet their parents would pick them up in brand new BMWs. It just boggled my mind.
It may seem harsh on the surface, but I agree that no one in this country is "poor" enough that they can absolutely not afford the necessities. Might it be a struggle? Sure, but I believe that it can be done.
1134. minisoda said:
Yes.
1135. That's Empress said:
Yup. No doubt. Lots of people are going to be in bad straits soon, and we need to work together to make sure we all survive. No moralizing needed, just compassion.
1136. Matthew said:
Yeah, I would do it, but how much money are we talking about?
1137. Emma said:
WWDD - What would Dooce do?
1138. Anonymous said:
Yes I would give the money. As for the crack head....that is their choice and I would give them the money to buy crack if it meant a child wouldn't have to suffer.
1139. Amy said:
At the very least, you've got people thinking. Maybe your intentions are obvious, or maybe we're wrong, but, girl, keep fighting. I admire your stamina; I was forced to give up on this country years ago.
Personally, I would DEFINITELY give the money. Couldn't help it. If I can help those who need it, I owe them that. It would only be a tiny repayment on the kindness I've received in my life.
1140. Rae said:
Since Crack can cost as little as ten dollars, sure why not.
1141. corine said:
of course I would.
1142. rebecca said:
I'm sorta depressed that some Americans don't seem to have a good handle on how our federal treasure is budgeted or spent.
1143. Rhonda said:
Some of your comment are horrendous. You wouldn't give money, instead you would have the family over for dinner. How sick. To make a family come to your house so you can watch them eat and feel all high and mighty that you are filling their stomachs. Some of you said that you would give them a grocery sack of food. Well, what if you chose something that the family doesn't eat? It would be wasted food. Or are they suppose to just eat it and be thankful. Some of you wouldn't give money but instead would give them resources to soup kitchens, food pantries, church organizations so they can get food there. Have any of you eaten that food? I have. It isn't nice fresh food, it is what the stores would throw away but instead they give it to the food banks so down and out people can have it first before it goes into the trash. Bags of rice with weevils in it, dented cans, stale bread, week old pastries, vegetables that are wilted/moldy, Yeah, num-num good stuff there. But hey, at least we didn't starve. As for teaching the family to fish instead of handing them one. Hey there are a lot of families out here that know how to fish, but it is really hard to catch one if we have ran out of hooks, line or your pole breaks. There are a lot of families out here that don't stand around waiting for a decent job to fall in their laps, there aren't many out there right now! It is freaking hard! Some of you sound so cold blooded and it breaks my heart. The majority of you said yes and that is the way it should be. Helping people is what it's all about.
1144. Amber said:
Yes. In this situation, the good out-weighs the bad. But who am I to judge which person needs my money more? I help those I can help if I can help them and I do my best not to decide their worthiness based on what I feel is important and what is not.
1145. Karen said:
I hope that every one of the people that say they would give the are currently participating financially in a food bank, womens' shelter, United Way or other worthy case. This is no hypothetical -- there are people starving down the street from where we all live.
1146. anonymous said:
Heather,
I do not enjoy the new direction of your blog, though I respect your decision to change direction according to your convictions.
After four years, I will no longer be reading dooce.com because it no longer serves the purpose for which I use it and is not relevant for me.
I sincerely thank you for four fun years.
1147. Kristi said:
Drug tests for those on welfare.
Random drug tests for those on welfare. For people who test positive implement some sort of rehabilitation if they want to keep receiving money.
It may be offensive, but the money is better spent on things other then lining drug dealers pockets. And there is no way to pretend like this isn't happening.
Doing drugs is a choice, addiction takes away the choice in the moment, but if we put the money into funding for residential rehab centers and the like over time the number of drug addicts will diminish and not as much money will need to be continually pumped into funding.
I say this as a recovered addict.
I understand it infringes on peoples rights, but sometimes we have to go ahead and do things that aren't "nice" for the better good.
And yes this issue is so much more complex, it deals with poverty, mental illness, addiction, children's rights, societal responsibility, and the many problems with govt funded programs, or lack there of.
1148. Nelly said:
My answer would be yes. Every time. Not only would I be helping a needy family - and my family's been there, while temporarily supporting a terrible habit, the addict may live another day to go on to get treatment.
1149. Overmatter said:
It's easy to say yes in theory, and in a sheltered, absolute, "book of questions at a dinner party" kind of world then of course I would, but in reality I've gotta admit that I have refused money to a woman claiming to need money to feed her family because I was pretty sure she really was going to use it for drugs. She's there a lot. She has track marks on her arms. On other days I've seen her arguing with her pimp. And so on. But still....I did make the choice not to find out if she really has a family and to figure out how to help them.
1150. Lauren said:
I would, but I wouldn't give them money - I would buy them their food to the full amount and then I would buy the crackhead their crack. Just to make sure it's going towards the real deal rather than it being some hoax or something else would wouldn't feed them.
1151. Rianna said:
If it were up to me willingly, I'd give the money.
But it's not - and that makes me angry, both with my government and with a culture of churches not doing its job of caring for widows and orphans and other poor souls.
1152. KK said:
yes. the good outweighs the bad.
1153. Jen said:
More to chew on...
Consider this scenario: you are given the opportunity to donate money to support your starving economy (jobs, healthcare, drug rehab, education, etc.) but in order to do this you had to give the same amount (well, actually a whole lot more) to gambling wallstreet investors... what would you do?
1154. Logan said:
#1143 Rhonda:
You think a STARVING family is going to reject food given to them just because it is something they don't like? I agree that soup kitchens and the like do not have the greatest quality of food, but if you're literally STARVING, you're not going to turn your nose up at a piece of bread because it's a little stale. And you can't assume that everyone who said they would have the family over for dinner would do so just to feel all "high and mighty" about themselves. I'm thinking that if that family is STARVING, they are probably also in the dark, or cold, and might appreciate someone else opening up their bright, warm home to them for an evening. It would also give both families a chance to have conversation, maybe about how the more fortunate family could help the less fortunate find jobs, or other opportunities. It could create a relationship, making the more fortunate family want to help out on a long-term basis, instead of just throwing money at them once and thinking they've saved them. Yes, these are just possible scenarios, but nothing more crazy sounding than the possible scenarios that the libs are throwing around... "well, if I give the crackhead money it will prevent him from robbing/hurting someone else to get it"..."maybe the crackhead will use my money to start getting clean"..."sure, give the crackhead money, he'll only hurt himself..." when many people who've actually lived with crackheads or have been crackheads have proved that most of these options aren't likely.
This is the point: Liberals and Conservatives, for the most part, want the same things, at least when it comes to everybody being able to afford health care, education, and life-sustaining essentials like food. We just have different opinions on how to achieve these goals successfully. And for you liberals who think we conservatives are INSANE for how we think, don't worry, we feel the exact same way about you!
1155. Logan said:
wow, I know I have commented way too many times on this thread, but I was just skimming through a chunk of comments I hadn't previously read, and I just have to say to #492 Colleen: I am in complete admiration of you. That was the best comment I've ever read! Thank you for sharing.
1156. Anonymous said:
Is this supposed to make me like the Wall Street bailout bill? The crackheads being on Wall Street, obviously. Except they call their crack "Credit Default Swaps" and "Carry Trade".
1157. Navi said:
I lost track of where the comment was but someone referenced programs bleeding heart liberals insist on keeping...
Foodstamps, Welfare, etc only go to the absolute poorest of our population. They are difficult to get. When I made about 300/month when I was waitressing for a friend between jobs I applied for welfare. I got less than $100 a month. the foodstamps were only a couple hundred a month. hardly enough to help the fact that I couldn't pay my rent. The only reason I was able to survive and get a home was because I started going to school and picked up a student job and lived in student aparments. I couldn't pay for the rental at the time. My husband and I had both lost our jobs, not because we didn't work hard but because of the economy. The government is not giving widespread handouts. not that this person would go through the thousands of comments and read it anyway, but maybe someone will.
1158. Anonymous said:
also, it seems that some people are thinking this crack head is a part of the family you mentioned. um, you didn't say that.
and foster care is often worse than the family you pull the children out of, they could be sentencing the children to an abusive home.
1159. workroom said:
instead of answering your question i'd like to talk about energy...
1160. Jen said:
Nope. I would donate that same money to my local soup kitchen/help for homeless center. I actually did that this week. Donate where you KNOW it is helping. And helping the right people!
1161. Wendy said:
I guess you have two options.
1) Give them the money and hope:
a) the kids actually get anything
b) the crackhead will overdose
c) all of the above;
2) Walk away and worry to yourself. Slip the kids something.
1162. danell said:
Why don't we work on creating a scenario where one doesn't have to give to the crackhead in order to give to the family in need? Seems like that help could go so much further if it didn't need to be split between those who use it well and those who are only abusing it.
1163. diana said:
the crackhead is in need as well. Not for crack obviously. So: Can I cook for the family and donate the money to a drug prevention programme? It's my money after all.
Oh, and to all those tax-moaners: Tax money is not your money. It's the society's money. No tax, no functioning society. The way it is spend? Well...that's what voting is for.
1164. diana said:
oh...and when it comes to getting a grip on yourself, making something of your life, taking responsability, creating opportunities, being just plain happy: It doesn't always work out. It just doesn't.
I prefer to help instead of letting someone drown.
1165. Jennifer Clark said:
Can't I just teach them both to fish?
1166. Sam said:
Navi,
I did read your comment. I think most people who've never had to ask for help don't really understand how hard it is to ask for help - and how hard it is to get. They see the small percentage of abusers - crack heads - and decide all recipients are losers. Our justice system is based on the premise that it is better 100 guilty people go free rather than 1 innocent person be convicted. The same should apply to welfare. Unfortunately, as DNA evidence is showing, a lot of innocent people are being convicted. And many deserving welfare recipients get a bad rap.
1167. Lydia said:
My lord there are some smug mother-effers commenting here. First, a lot of people who wouldn't give money are making remarks to the effect that the poor family obviously blew it in some way in order to need the help at all, and that one shouldn't "reward their bad judgment." It's great that some of you grew up in poverty and worked your respective ways to the top and can now judge the poor from your high horses, but not everyone who is struggling financially is doing so because they have spent frivolously. A lot of people are uninsured. A car accident or an illness can absolutely wipe out savings. A death in the family. Lightning striking. Lay-offs due to (hell) a terrible economic slump. Why assume that all poor families are being irresponsible?
Also, it's nice that everyone says "I would volunteers at a soup kitchen and cook for the family three times a week and drive them to shelters" and so on. You've got a lot of free time, eh? God forbid some of us, who can't take the time from work to participate in the wonderful volunteerism Republicans are so fond of trotting out, do what we can monetarily instead. Given the choice of giving some money and doing nothing at all, I'm going to give the money.
Yeesh.
1168. sanderai said:
nope. but i would go grocery shopping and pick up a little extra.
1169. Poo Master said:
Do I get to smoke some of that crack?
Why not just feed the desperate family a crack head problems solved the family eats and the guy no longer has a crack problem.
Vote Me For President.
1170. muskrat said:
sure.
1171. AmyG said:
Absolutely
1172. Chap said:
Zillions of comments; guess this is my futile act for today.
I've spent my adult life in the military. This kind of question, be it crack or worse or hunger or worse? Answering this question eleventy different ways, or figuring out how the question was answered and what to do about it?
That's my job. Wholesale, not retail.
1173. Anonymous said:
Dooce?
I keep coming back hoping that you will have come out from behind your rock and put your own two cents worth in here. But still, nothing.
Perhaps we've become somewhat of a joke to you? Sniggering at how YOU can make us all fight over something that you refuse to give your true opinion on. Are we here to make you laugh Dooce? Are we your little joke??
Perhaps you're having a competition with someone in your family about the number of comment's you can get on your blog? That's all this is, a blog. Like every other blog. You're not special, you just have more reader's than me.
That shouldn't mean that you can start bitch fights like this and not come in to calm the water's. Your reader's expect more and deserve more from YOU.
IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT FROM YOUR BLOG????
Close the comments and move on. Please.
1174. Laurie B said:
Who the hell is he? And why should that matter? Go ahead and tell him that he just doesn't exist in my world, or in the world of many of you readers. Take the puff out of his bloomers.
Give the money, give the money. For the junkies, give the money by way of giftcards. or just give them cash. We are each entitled to or own version of hell on earth or just plain hell. Sometimes I give, sometimes I am among them. Aren't you? Isn't he? Who's to judge? Don't we all have problems? I'm not anticipating the next life to figure mine out.
1175. cl said:
no. giving the crack addict money for drugs just makes his/her problems worse -- irrespective of what he/she might do while high. assume we feel sympathy for the addict who is unable to stop the drug use: our enabling him/her makes us PART of the problem. and in this case, you would just be making it worse -- even if it quenched hunger in the short term.
Work harder to FIX the problem (like the "teach the family to fish" people on this comment list). Take the time to find a solution that doesn't solve a problem by creating a worse one.
1176. robin @ caviar and codfish said:
Yes. People who do crack aren't villians, but they could do some pretty bad stuff in order to get it. I'd rather have them get some as a gift.
1177. C.M. Harris said:
"Would you do it?"
Of course. Why is this so hard for people?
1178. dcfullest said:
I have been rolling this one around for awhile.
You hold the family's fate in your hands as you decide to give them money for food. By giving it to them, you aren't enabling the person to by crack, it still lies in that person's hands. They can decide to buy crack or to do something different.
By not giving the family money for food, you negatively control their destiny. But the addict always controls their destiny.
1179. Anonymous said:
So, wait, let me make sure I got this right...the addict always controls their own destiny, but the family doesn't? The family needs you to control theirs? I don't see any logic in that whatsoever.
1180. Chris said:
Whoa, 1173 Anonymous, chill out. Like you said, it's a blog. Just pretend the comments are closed.
1181. Anonymous said:
Some are making a value judgment about these people: Just because they're using the money to buy food doesn't mean they're good people. Like I said, maybe they're low-life criminals who never have been responsible for their own fate and after the meal they rape the kids before bed. So give the $40 if it in fact goes to food but then hurry and do something to REALLY help the situation. Or maybe they're the best people in the world, almost as shiny and nice as us middle-class folks! Maybe the crack smoker is the "bad person" or maybe the crack smoker is, aside from a desire to purchase this drug at this time, what you'd consider a perfect person. assumptions are dumb!
1182. Nathan Pralle said:
Easy -- give the money to the poor to get food. Then both families are happy (albeit drugged, but....)
1183. Marymoon said:
Yes - but after giving the money I would lobby to correct the system that put the requirement on that the same amount of money must go to the drug addict as to the truly needy person.
I have a mentally retarded brother. I see first hand on a daily basis the amount of waste that goes on with our tax dollars to people who don't really need the money and are on the dole becasue they just simply don't want to work. Don't ask for more programs or tax us further to help those that need assistance. FIX the daggum programs we already have and get the people who don't need our resources off welfare so that more qualified, truly needy families can benefit.
1184. CapAce said:
Would give the money hoping that it would reach the family.If it doesn't, it wouldn't matter anyway.But ill go with the good side of hope.
1185. Liliana said:
Yes.
That being said, I am not one who believes the good deed outways the bad. I would do the "good deed" and accept the consequences of the "bad deed".
1186. Marlene said:
I'd buy food for both, crackheads often have families that need food, even more so. I wouldn't give either one the money in that case. I have done this, more than once.
1187. Anonymous said:
Sure, karmically that balances out!
But I think I'd have to - a hungry family trumps my anxiety about enabling a crackhead. I know people have ranted about a 'band-aid' method but that doesn't mean you let them go hungry for a night because it won't help things in the long-term. You can do both, y'know.
As for our unfortunate crackie, it would be enabling him or her but if they want crack they'll get it somehow (not using that as an excuse but I'm just sayin').
Overall I don't know how much impact my one night's worth of money will have, but I can't NOT help a hungry family out.
1188. Susie said:
Yes. It's true the hungry family will be hungry again when the money's gone, but for that moment, they'll be fed. As for the crack addict, my experience tells me that he/she will score somehow with or without me, so I don't have a problem with my money going there too. Perhaps my money will make that one score safer for the addict (no need to steal, sell his/her body, etc.), which isn't bad either.
I don't have time to read the thousand + comments, so I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but I'd like to add that I feel no sadder about the hungry person than I do about the addict. They are both human, both suffering.
1189. girlplease said:
The way I see it is...
give the crackhead the $
have someone rob the $ from the crackhead
give all of the $ to the family in need
See? Everybody wins.
1190. LBJ said:
A few things
-Welfare- I'm not a fan of welfare, I suppose no one is a "fan". Most recently, I recall being in line at the grocery store, the lady in front of us had two completely full carts, the total was some obscene amount, she paid with a govt. welfare card. No big deal, that's what it's for, she used it for food. We paid, got to the parking lot and saw the lady loading her groceries into her B-RAND new Suburban($40k+) that still had the dealer plates on it. I don't get that! However, it is necessary. I am one of the 'evil' people who don't believe I should have to pay for someone else's food/healthcare/etc. But to those who complain, consider the alternative. No welfare, leads to increased poverty, more crime. Now you need more law enforcement, more jails/institutions, more etc. Welfare, although it is expensive, and probably very poorly organized, it is probably a cheaper investment than the alternative, the lesser of two evils. I know, I'm the devil.
Bailout- I'm completely torn on this. Same premise though, I don't want to bailout Wall street because I'm a believer that the market will work itself out. I know, again, I'm evil. However, again I think it needs to be done. I say this with your retirement in mind. As of yet, mkts aren't re-actting fondly to the bailout, but the dollar is strengthing and long term this is an attempt to help out a questionable economy. The average citizen doesn't have the stomach for what riding out this cycle would take, so we make this attempt to bypass the down side of it. Will it work??? I have no idea, but it's an active attempt.
Would I give money to the family and the crackhead?
No, that's why we have welfare, homeless shelters, food shelves, drunk tanks, prisons, and court systems. I've already given to both parties in question. I believe we're better off pointing these people in the direction of a place/program that can help them then trying to throw some change at it and turning our head.
If you think I come across as insensitive and or cruel, I do apologize. But I don't think that feeling good about something that isn't a solution is worth while. Be it this hypothethical question or some other issue facing society, we need to attempt to solve problems not mask them.
1191. Rocky Turner said:
This is a very tough question. My first gut reaction is, "yes." Then my thought process went to me having the ability to donate $1000 to the "hungry" family. Would I give the "crack" family $1000? That's a hard pill to swallow.
I still would, but I would ask if it could be in groceries. If not? Then I still would. It would be the right thing to do.
1192. Anonymous said:
I'd give the money without hesitation.
1193. Anonymous said:
To Rhonda (1143):
You said, "You wouldn't give money, instead you would have the family over for dinner. How sick. To make a family come to your house so you can watch them eat and feel all high and mighty that you are filling their stomachs."
I agree. It would be sick if taken the way you read it. But the way it actually works is called "friendship". You have friends over for dinner. You share a meal and some laughs. The kids come over to visit and "help" you cook, so they take some home to share what they've made. You have "extra" that's going to go bad so they help you by taking it off your hands.
There's nothing high and mighty about sharing with friends.
1194. Trinity said:
Yes. I would.
It's none of my business if a Neo-Con hypocrite wants to destroy his body with crack or if he wants to buy a blowjob from the local gay prostitute, but if a family needs food---even if I can only help them for one day---that IS my business. It's EVERYONE's business. So, yes.
1195. Trinity said:
I find it really interesting that the ones who are putting up a fuss about welfare, taxes and their "hard earned" money, are also the ones who call themselves "Christian".
As an American, I'm proud to pay taxes. I'm proud to donate a portion of my hard-earned money to help those who need it. Yes, even though I'm not rich. And even if it means accidentally enabling some Republican's illicit-sex habit.
I'm proud to live in a country where, at least in theory, we don't put the poor out to starve and where, again at least in theory, we care about the poor instead of just telling them to "go out and get a job". Jesus never told them to go out and get a job. Indeed, he asked them to leave their jobs and homes and count on the charity of other people. Jesus cared about homeless people and he cared about the unemployed and he certainly would have cared about their children.
Christians just ain't what they used to be, are they?
I'm not rich or even well off but I've got what I need and I don't mind helping someone else's children attain the same when I can.
1196. Inthru said:
LBJ - "still had the dealer plates on it." Uh- my father sold cars and not very well, but we always had a brand new demo car. He did not own his own car and drove whatever was assigned to him from the lot until it was sold and then we got another one, a nice new car with dealer plates. Anyway, we were what you might call poor. We didn't have welfare but we did have some govt. cheese once in a while and qualified for the free school lunch programs.
I have been on assistance before and people love to decide why you don't deserve to be on it, like you can't buy the wrong foods or wear nice clothes. You have to look like shit (but not strung out!) just to go to the grocery store or else someone will butt in and say something stupid. If they don't say it to you, they will be talking about it to their friends, reinforcing their values and judgments. If you don't know the whole story, you are just making shit up to believe in. People do cheat, but it's quite difficult and demeaning to get in line to do so. They discourage it so well that it's a horrifying and humiliating experience to walk in there and admit you need help for the genuinely needy. The workers are burnt out and spiteful and downright bizarre to interact with at times. You wait a hundred years to get your name called, and if you forget something or have to go back, you can't just cut to the front of the line next time. They yell at you, they make you feel like dirt for bothering them, they have a lot to do and aren't courteous, and occasionally really stupid. You see people worse off than you, they just must be, and you feel guilt again for as long as you're there - this isn't me, this isn't how I was raised. Why am I here, and what am I going to do until I find a job if I walk out of here? It's crud. You could lose friends over being on welfare, you could be turned out of your family. Despite such, one likes to dress like a decent person when they leave the house and try to carry on their errands. It's hard enough to feel cast aside and low-down without strangers peeking into you and deeming you a liar, and telling all their friends what you did. You think because you pay taxes (I do too) that you own people who are riding on your dime, and that you can take a personal interest in gossiping about the contents of their shopping cart, what they wear and how they look and what they drive.
How dare anyone spy someone using welfare and decide that it's easy money, and that for some superficial reason presume to know better that they don't need to be on it.
And for anyone else hoping Dooce will cut in with some tie-breaker to explain some vague post she's hiding behind or whatever, you realize every time you click a page, her advertisers pay her. Right? It's not some hidden scheme to get people to post and argue more.
1197. Shawn said:
Absolutely. And if the crack head happens to OD and die from all the crack that they've bought, then they won't be consuming any more food and then there is more food for the rest of us, including the non crack addicted hungry family.
Social Darwinism.
1198. chickadeescout said:
Like others have said, I'm pretty sure this is an allusion to the welfare system, which -- since I pay taxes -- I have to participate in. Unless I want an armed standoff in New Hampshire.
In this scenario, though, going only on what you've spelled out, I wouldn't do it. I would buy food and give it to the family, or donate my time by helping them out with childcare, or pay for some doctor's visits, whatever they needed. Which, in our current system, is a viable choice "in addition to" (paying taxes and helping out), but, unfortunately, not an "instead of."
I don't think throwing money at a problem always helps, and I don't think it's reason enough to think we're "helping in whatever way we can." If we really cared, we wouldn't shrug it off and say the government should take care of them, and since we pay taxes we're doing our "fair share."
Someone said something about "it's not my job to decide if they're using the money the 'right' way," but I feel that enabling is almost always worse than giving nothing at all.
Some other commenters have also reasoned that it's better to fund the crack habit in order to prevent a mugging or robbery, which just sounds like taking the easy way out. If you fund a crack habit (or heroin, meth, etc), they're going to take the money for it and continue stealing. An addiction like that doesn't have a threshold; there's never a point at which it becomes "enough." That's part of what makes it an addiction. If you can get more of it, you will.
For the record, I'd buy food for the crackhead, too.
If I couldn't help either party individually, I'd go through independent non-profits -- maybe one that sets up soup kitchens in rural areas, or helps families out with medical bills or child care.