Yet a study that involved giving homeless people money without strings attached showed that most spent it on things to improve their future, like buying a used car, paying off debt, pursuing education, starting a business and getting a home. There were no adverse outcomes for any of the participants.
But still our society will judge the homeless and make out they’re all feckless addicts who can’t be trusted with help.
The people who spend a significant amount of their paycheck on drugs (especially when you add in caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol) are telling you that it’s bad if homeless people have money because they’ll probably spend it on drugs is the biggest self-report. Just because you would do that if you had extra money because you already have your basic needs met doesn’t mean that you can universalize that experience and project it onto homeless people.
Also if I was homeless I’d basically need drugs and/or alcohol to cope with it - I can barely handle working a cushy office job while having stable accommodation without needing to rely on drugs as a crutch, do you really think that I’d rely on drugs less if my circumstances were significantly worse?
If we want to talk about addiction and enabling, let’s talk about useless NGOs and charities that are addicted to public funding and policy that enables them to redirect most of that money to shit like the salary costs for a bloated corporate hierarchy and so they can do shit like invest in property rather than effectively addressing the social ills they purportedly have a mission to fix.
I’ve read studies where giving the homeless a no strings attached apartment was the single most effective way to reduce their drug and alcohol use.