I think hunger is the greatest human error we could possibly make. A crack head suffers, but no child should ever have to suffer for something they have no control over.

You asked a simple question, and rather than give you a diatribe, I'll answer it - yes. It would be worth it to help those who truly needed it.

Let them eat cake, and let them eat crack. If a family is desparate, they need our help, right? So we help them.

Depends on which you find more valuable: providing for those who have not, or withholding from those that shouldn't. Why do you ask?

I'd donate the money without hesitation. Drug addicts aren't lost causes and the snowball effect of keeping a family going trumps the negativity of a crackhead buying drugs. Something good WILL come of helping a family. A crackhead only hurts themselves.

I'm off to balance something on my head while I watch the debates!

This is a toughie because I've seen what crack can do first hand to a relative...

I would give the money. I couldn't control it either way since it's a gift. Like, you can't be mad at the bum on the street for going to buy alcohol with the money you drop in his cup b/c once you give it it's not yours anymore... I feel like the same kind of applies here.

Or I just sounded really stupid.

Yes I would.

If children are involved, yes. And then I would intervene through legal channels and my own resolve, because the crack addicted parent or relative connected to this family might be responsible for this family's desperation. Extract the children and remain involved. Child advocacy is what my life is all about.

Yup. And already have. Doesn't bother me.

Absolutely I would. Didn't even have to think about it really.

I think I would. You never know when a kind gesture changes the life of another.

Yes, without a second thought.

This is a tough question. I think I would do it because I would be feeding a family. The person who will buy crack will buy it no matter where they get the money from. People often steal things to buy drugs. At least, they wouldn't be committing another crime to get the drugs. You're not forcing it on them, and only they can or should decide what to put in their own body. I think the good you do outweighs the potential for bad.

Yes, without a thought, yes.

I would help them, too, and also without hesitation. No need to punish them for someone else's addiction.
Especially, but not only, if children are involved.

Yes. Absolutely.

Yes. I think the good outweighs the bad in this scenario.

False alternative. Why would you have to give the same money to the crack addict?

Yes, I would.

Yes. Chances are, the person on crack would find another way to get it-perhaps even stealing, or mugging, hurting someone else to get it- but that family will probably not have another option.

yes..

The amount of crack would be considerably smaller than the amount of food. While I'm not for supporting someone's fatal habit, if that's what they choose then I wouldn't knowingly let anyone starve just to prevent it, especially knowing that an addict will feed their addiction regardless. I don't think there's any canceling out - a good doesn't just erase a bad, but a bad doesn't erase a good either.

Yes I would give the money.

Yes.

Here is what would happen.

The hungry family would get food.

The crackhead would get crack.

The crackhead would not steal the money needed to buy the crack that you just paid for, thereby helping ANOTHER family that the crackhead didn't steal from.

So it's a TWO-FER! Two people win against the one crackhead who is now really high. Pros outweigh the cons. see? I can rationalize ANYTHING. It's a gift I have.

#36, because she is alluding to the welfare system.

I would feel terrible for the needy family, I would, but absolutely never in my life would I give money to support someones drug habit. DRUGS = GANG VIOLENCE = innocent victoms.

I will follow this up by saying I have been struggling with the thought of gang violence recenly. I think I have become prejudiced about anybody who resembles a gang member because of it. Maybe I am old, but I just don't get it. Why do we continue to let us kill each other over what useually ends up being drugs?

I totally would. You would be helping a needy family, and contributing to Darwinism in motion.

Bailout anyone?

My take is that the act of giving is the end itself and not a mean to justify the end (in this case the money to eat or the crack)
Giving to both is an act of kindness whether they decide to use it for money or crack but the basic assumption is that I am helping/giving to someone
I am not looking to sponsor someone's drug habit but I think giving is good for the giver and the receiver

Are we still talking donation? Or taxes?

Because a tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation," nor is it supposed to be spent on any specific benefactor, but toward the public good for which no specific benefits are obtained.

So are you talking about a donation for crackheads and starving families? Or taxes?

Yes, I would. The children would probably starve without help, and they can't help their situation. There isn't any guarantee that the crackhead will do harm while he's high.

Nope. Turn around and show grace to the family who doesn't have a dinner on the table around the corner. Too hypothetical and black and white. Not to be too nike, but just do it.

would definately give the money to feed the children. . no child should ever be hungry in this world. . no matter what

Yes, without hesitation. Helping a hungry family to eat is a bigger good than helping a crack addict get high is a bad. Also, I wish that UnbalancedLibra (#19) and his or her ilk would stop ranting about the guvmint and bleeding heart liberals. It's so 1994.

Assuming you had the money to give, it would take a real prick to say no... giving isn't about attaching strings, FFS. You give because it's the right thing to do, and what the recipient ultimately does with the gift doesn't involve or concern you.

If you had qualms about what the crack-smokers were going to do with the cash, then your gift isn't about doing what's right, or helping the family in need - it's more about your own ego.

I'd donate it. Why should the kids and the hungry family suffer because of the crack user? Also, in a glass half full, rose colored glasses with a sparkling rainbow overhead that has shooting stars zipping by leaving sparkling trails in their wake, point of view...perhaps, in this scenario, the crack user would take the money and NOT buy crack...*sigh* I like a happy ending.
Besides you said give the crack user the money, that's not giving him crack, I'd like to think there's always a choice, and it's not written in stone. What's that? Did I just hear birds start singing merrily as the sun set, a rosy ball of light on the horizon bringing with it the distant scent of flowers......music swells up...credits roll......
Yep, give the money, maybe the ending would be nicer than we think. *grins*

Yes.

No. I would do everything I could to ensure that a local food bank got food for the family, but I couldn't buy crack.

Oh, but kalen @25 - crack addicts don't generally own cars, and if they do, they don't drive them high. Crack addicts sit around when they're high, and drive when they need a fix. So think about THAT.

I would donate it. If I didnt donate it would be cold comfort to the family to know that it was because I was 'trying to do the right thing." Anyone who has seen their family go hungry knows there is oftent imes little room for moral high ground when your kids bellies are empty.

I would buy them a grocery store gift card or take them to the store and pay for what they needed.

Going over the comments, people have some interesting reasons for saying no - mostly very abstract (ie - butterfly effect), or providing solutions to the problem, which kind of defeats the purpose of the question.

I think it's better if people just say yes or no, without all the what-ifs and "ha! I've come up with a win-win solution!"

And also,
I like #51's reply the best :-P

A crack addict will always find a way to get what they want - those who are hungry usually suffer...so i would still donate the money and save the crack addict from having to steal from someone else for at least that one hit, and feed hunger at the same time.

Hello, 9th grade. What a childish mental exercise.

Yes I would. I see no point in punishing the hungry family because of the crack addict.

Oh yeah, followup: I'd donate money to the food bank, of course. A lot. And then I'd go donate to www.noonprop8.com

#70: very very well said.

Yes, I would. The positive of feeding a family is worth even a sacrifice like this, knowing you'd be feeding a crack addict's habit, too.

Yes, although I hope there is something left for people to give in the future. When and if my family ever needs it, I'm afraid the pantry will be bare.

Absolutely. If I give, I give freely with no stipulations, and preferably anonymously.

Yes. Children shouldn't suffer for adults bad choices.

I'd give it all to the crackie, there are too many starving kids, give your hard earned dosh to someone who'll really appreciate it, at least for the night.

Seriously though, why wouldn't you? I don't think anyone withholding money is going to cure someone's addiction, so why not help the family in need? It's not like you're forcing them to buy crack, that would be a different story.

Is it the bleeding heart liberals who are solely supporting this $700b bailout plan?

Yes, I would give the money, absolutely. I've seen friends and family on cocaine, and I'd rather see that than hunger. Sure, crack is BAD, but food is NECESSARY.

(Oh, and thanks, Dooce, for posting those photos of the Walkmen earlier. I've been listening to nothing but You & Me for the past couple of weeks.)

Yes. I'd definitely give the money anyway.

It's no different than people who need temporary welfare assistance, or similar assistance. There are a small few who will sell off what is bought with the bridge card or whatever, and purchase crack or other drugs, but the vast majority use it to feed themselves and their children during tough times.

It's worth the risk of feeding a few habits to make sure people are fed.

No. And I probably wouldn't donate the money to the family if it wasn't contingent on a crack addict receiving money, either.

Instead, I'd set the family up with something that could help them long-term: food stamps, a steady job, some form of residual income that would allow them to eat month after month. A donation can help a short-term problem, but the money eventually runs out.

i'd absolutely, of course, give my money. who knows if one of those children being fed will eventually grow up to change the negative state of drugs in our nation? (although it could always go the other way, obviously, and the drug addict could/may harm the innocent family while looking for even more money to support his/her habit.) however...watch a child starve NOW (while still feeding the druggie), or watch the child POSSIBLY die later after being robbed?? i'll save the kid NOW, and let the future work itself out.

what would YOU do, heather?

Yes.

Giving should be done because it should be done and not cheapened by you deciding who is worthwhile enough to receive before you hand over anything. The very worst of things happen when people presume they are somehow better than that person who needs help. Food or a fix is help. Short term help but you do that and then you look at the long term ways of helping them. Giving is the first step towards taking responsibility and making things better in society as a whole to my mind.

I just realised how angry I have been getting listening to people spewing bile about how they 'waste' money/taxes on these people lately. Every human is worthwhile.

I need to ask: is it just that you yourself are 100% sure the crack addict will buy crack with it, or is it a condition of the question that it DOES get bought?

There are other families you can donate $ to and will appreciate your $ without needing to donate to crackheads. So no.

If the family is in front of me I'll take them out to a good, filling dinner.

nothing to chew on ... absolutely NOT. I would not give money to a crack addict, EVER.

But .. I would go and buy food and bring it over to the family and make sure their kids had food to eat, everyday, 3 meals a day....

yes. no questions.

Nope. I wouldn't and that probably makes me a bad person. I WOULD however go and use that moeny towards the ACTUAL groceries and drop them off a the needy family's home. Screw the crack heads. No offense.

NO child should go hungry! I don't even have to think about this.... Absolutely I would give them the money!

I would, because similar to what some have already said, when there are children involved, children who cannot be to blame for their parents' poverty, it's pretty much impossible for me not to.

As long as we're speaking hypothetically, am I allowed to also call someone to help the crackhead break his habit?

I absolutely would, yes. A gift is a gift is a gift. If I give someone money and they choose to use it in a way I don't necessarily approve of, that really doesn't matter. Once it's out of my hands, it's not my business to judge how the individual chooses to use it. Even if the family used half the money to buy crack, I would still help them if I was able.

No, I wouldn't. I'm active in my community and donate my time and money to those I see are in need. I don't give to the crack user, the bureaucrat or the middleperson who takes their 'fair' share, then give the pennies that remain to the needy (or gaming the system) family and call it 'helping', 'justice', or a 'social program'. Is it more effort? Sure is, but I don't think a bunch of independently wealthy, out of touch people thousands of miles away know how to spend my money better than I do, and I resent their implications that they do.

I'd do it without question.

You'd HAVE to donate! You really don't know if your first family will use the money for food, it might just be a ploy to get your cash and then they end up blowing it at Foxwoods. Also, who knows if you donate your money and the second crack head family ends up so moved by your generousity to get help and in turn help others in the same situation. If we hoard and protect our money, we end up miserable in so many ways. If we share our wealth and prosperity, it only grows with each gift we offer.

Without a second thought.

I already knew my answer before posting, but I really loved what #48 Wendy said. It is definitely a two-fer; I can't believe I didn't see it!

Also, I find that showing compassion to ANYONE can have good results. Perhaps you will inspire the crack addict to do one good thing in return, as in those Liberty Mutual insurance commercials.

I'm an optimist.

Thanks for helping me procrastinate! It's always worth my time!

I would totally do it! The crackheads are gonna get their crack whether its from you or the old lady who they rob to buy it.

No.

Yes. No question. And, to be honest, the more ruthless side of me is hopeful that the crackhead will OD and no longer be a drain on his/her family, friends and community. The nicer side of me is appalled at that thought, but agrees that you can't stop helping people in need because some may abuse the help you offer.

Dude. No question.

YES.

Feed them babies. The crack heads will find a way to get crack. No matter if they had money or not.

Without question, yes.

Yes. Without a doubt, yes. The children shouldn't have to suffer because of some dumbass crackhead.

Absolutely.

Besides, it's not like if you don't give them the money, they won't buy crack. They'll just get money somewhere else, maybe have to steal it or worse.

Yes.

So what if the person is using it for crack? No, really. Addiction is a disease and they need it more than I do. (That's the short version.)

I guess that's going to make people mad. People who are mad: I never remember to look back at comment. You'd be better e-mailing me, even if I feel the same way about it as Dooce does.

Will you follow up in-depth as to your reason for asking?

Yes. Absolutely.

(arrrggghhh! they both just "agreed that they do not support gay marriage." do what?! what year is this?! 1968, i say.)

No, I wouldn't donate the money. I'd cook for the needy family and teach them how to eat healthy on a budget. If they're so hungry they're starving, someone didn't or can't manage the money properly. Sometimes giving people money without any caveats or assistance is worse.

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Yes. Unequivocally.

How about giving them both a gift card to a grocery store? Does that satisfy the equality?

I'd give the money in a heart beat.

Without thinking.

In a New York minute.

No, not if I were living in my current town. There is a community food bank. Churches in the area have a well-established, coordinated effort that provides free, hot meals every weekday. Public schools provide free breakfasts and lunches to students. If we can ensure that the family is fed without facilitating a crack addict's drug habit, I'd go that route.

YES

Yes.

No. Plain and simple. One right does not outweigh one wrong. In either situation, my tax dollars, under a democratic White House, would be funding some sort of program to support BOTH situations: one to feed the family, one to rehab the crack addict. Do I have empathy to a poor family? Of course, but I can't help others until I fulfill my basic needs first. And taxing me more is going to make that less possible. I think you know Mr. Maslow and his hierarchy.

On a side note: speaking entirely in metaphors is unbecoming of good bloggers/writers. You've proven you're an articulate, intelligent, and thoughtful woman - especially when it comes to expressing your political ideas, regardless of which readers agree and which do not. Don't BS your readers who clearly don't see through the veil to the point you are trying to prove.

Yes.

Yes. If I have the means to help people, I help them. No questions asked.

Without question. Junkies get their fix whether you fund them or not. Might as well help a needy family in the process.

I'd give the money. The needs of the hungry family are far more important than the crackhead. And the crackhead will find a way to buy crack rather or not you give the money to them anyways. The hungry family may not be able to find food without your help.

I just posed this SAME question to my ultra-conservative boyfriend the other day. Dude..that's freaky. Yeah, I said "dude"

Because I'm watching the debate....do they teach republicans to mispronounce the word "nuclear"????

Wait..now she's trying really hard to get it right. And to think...I was kinda bummed that I was going to miss The Office tonight.

Yes.

Yeah man, as long as I could afford it, and I KNEW the family were DEFINITELY spending it on food.

Why can't I just invite them over for dinner?

I hate the idea that we can just drive-by meet people's needs. Or that we can outsource them to professionals (who are so overwhelmed and prone to burnout!). I would want to make dinner for the crackhead (look! they saved $3 they could use on crack!!) and the hungry family.

I wish that there wasn't such a strong class-divide between middle class and act