It's kinda funny that their argument is about whether the government can decide what you can and cannot eat or drink when the actual situation is that the government is deciding what you can spend your free government handout money on. Government assuming that you can't be trusted to make good decisions with the money you get from them is a pretty good assumption to make, IMO. It's not as if SNAP is their only money. It's meant to be for essentials. They can spend whatever they have made in addition to SNAP on their sodas if they really want them so bad. I live in an area with a lot of low income people, and I constantly see the same people using SNAP using it on gas station hot food like 711 pizza, then paying cash for lotto tickets, alcohol, and cigs. If you have money to play the lotto, maybe you don't need tax money to buy food. Not saying it's everybody on SNAP, but I see it so often that I know the program is fucked somehow. And guess what, the bad actors are taking benefits from people who probably actually need them.
I think I just find it ridiculous that people get so up at arms about shit like this. Am I crazy in thinking that when you are poor or broke, your options are indeed limited? And that sucks ass and it's the impetus for changing things in your life? I really don't even think this needs to be a political issue tbh. I don't know why either side would argue that shit like soda needs to be an essential food eligible for SNAP. It's just so retarded at it's core that it doesn't even bear examining.