[Rathji]

Logically thinking:

You would spend a whole lot of money to eliminate support for a small group of people who have an addiction that they feel is important enough to spend a meager welfare check on. Those people would have to support themselves, so it would be highly likely that they would turn to crime, prostitution or other generally bad/dangerous/immoral/etc things to do that.

Then you end up spending even more money on the criminal justice system, or social programs to deal with not only the direct results of that crime/whatever, but the results of kids who would be raised on a situation where they would be even more likely to end up either in foster care or without a real functioning parent/family to help them grow and develop.

Emotionally thinking:

These guys are getting free money for smoking pot/crack/whatever. They are screwing up their lives and the lives of their kids (see above with crime/fostercare etc), plus I am footing the bill for it, in a very small way.

Even if both of those arguments have merit, and there is a sizable number of people which do this, which way of thinking would you rather use? Which is the most productive for society (and our taxes) and the kids/families involved?

People who do drugs, whether is it pot or crack or whatever have some pretty serious issues. If you want to put resources into stopping people who are on a welfare check from doing drugs, the best way is to stop the situation that is causing the drug use (addiction, environment, lack of social supports).

You take away their money, and they will still be drug users, but they will need to turn to crime and mess up their lives even more to support themselves (and their kids), which poses a greater cost on society.