[alistairSH]

I think we're making the same point, but I see removing that friction as a good thing, while you don't.

In your example, the bodega is getting a 50% cut of the aid that it shouldn't. Instead, we can give the recipient 50% of the current amount in cash, and let them buy the drugs directly. The extra 50% can be used in several ways... pumped into rehab or education, reducing tax burden on others, whatever we decide.

In both cases, the drug addict uses all their aid for the same amount of drugs. In my scenario, society spends less for that outcome.

[dsfyu404ed]

In the current scenario there's an incentive to not spend your welfare money (taxpayer money) on drugs. I think that's worth letting the middle man take a cut of.

You seem to be under the assumption that welfare is supposed to be income. It's not. It's aid, financial assistance for near-necessities. If you want drug money without hurting your eligibility it's not that hard to work under the table.

[alistairSH]

In the case of the drug abuser, I'm not sure that incentive to spend appropriately applies. They're a drug addict after all - they really don't have a choice (other than rehab, but that also costs money).

Regardless, I'm much more concerned about the average recipient, who may need more gas than bread some weeks, or some other completely reasonable situation. As noted in a sibling, it's been proven that the poor aren't any worse at budgeting/spending than the not-poor.