[FLUX-YOU]

>But giving someone a months worth of rent/food/utilities/clothing in cash is going to be disastrous

If the poor can destroy our society because we cut them a check, we're fucked as it is. Who knows if BI is implemented "no strings attached cash", but it's not impossible to imagine outreach groups to get people to spend their money more wisely.

And despite the help, some of them will continue to buy vices. You cannot help those people until they decide they want to change. But this small waste of BI is not a strong argument against BI.

[ufmace]

I mostly agree with GP, but "disastrous" as meaning destroying our society is pretty over the top all right.

People spending their BI money on vices instead of food and shelter isn't by itself an argument against BI, but it does call into question the supposed advantages of BI. We're supposed to be able to eliminate cumbersome, complex, admin-heavy welfare programs in favor of BI, thus making it an overall savings of taxpayer money. If many people spend all of their BI money on vices and are still starving on the streets at the end of the day, then we need the old programs back again to feed them, and we're just spending money on nothing.

[FLUX-YOU]

I don't believe many people will be buying vices to the point that they also can't eat, but I also don't think BI's adoption will shut down soup kitchens and other benevolent places (nor stop people panhandling, but it certainly may change everyone's opinions on giving to panhandlers).

I don't mean to sound cold, but it sounds like the person your describing is at such a point that they simply can't care for themselves and need to be hospitalized.

[imtringued]

BI is will certainly stop them from starving if the payments are very frequently (weekly or even daily). If they blow it, they will soon learn their lesson until their next "paycheck".