Reply #117: It goes back to the victorian prudery of the 'deserving poor'.

[juno jones]

To be deserving of aid, one must live according to the morals of the upperclass, most of whom don't live that way themselves. Charity is seen as an 'atonement' and they have to certain that all of that money is going to causes like food and shelter by which they assuage their consciences, as opposed to pleasures that they must publicly eschew.

Give us working folk a break, eh? Consider the hardship of working an exhausting shift on one's feet, often times living with injuries and illness that have gone untreated. Coming home after that to fix dinner and do housework. Add the stress of living in a poorer neighborhood with the cop helis flying low overhead every few hours reminding one of a war zone. AND factor in the strain of trying to raise your kids the right way in such a grinding enviroment, you need a a small pleasure. A smoke, a drink, a bongload.

More problems would be eliminated by adequately funding programs already in exisitance, such as medicare, public housing, education, and mental health services.

The Du'ers in the poverty forum have noted how people tend to lump all homeless together as 'mentally ill'. I would add that many do the same with 'drug addiction'. It's denegration plain and simple. As long as the poor and homeless are always 'the other' we never really have to deal with them, and once we fall thru the cracks to experience it ourselves we lose any voice...


Hey youse who think this is dandy! Go be puritans somewheres else. We are not here to live for your pleasure or by your morality.