I would never tell someone what to spend their money on. if I'm going to spend my money to help them out, I'd prefer it not go straight to a pint of liquor. is that unreasonable?
I was having a conversation with a friend of a mine who happens to be a doctor and she works for the red cross some days of the week. I happen to have another friend who works as a social worker in a refugee centre so we traded stories and impressions.
She told me that there were a lot of tensions between people and electricity in the air as time goes by.
Now, every few months workers there organize a party where refugees cook typical dishes to share with everyone. It does a lot for easing the tension and the weeks after those parties are easier on everyone, staff and refugees.
Now those parties have a lot of desserts (easier to bake and to store) which are for all intents and purposes a bit of luxury. I think there could be a bit of alcohol but don't quote me on that.
Would you say that was not money well spent in the end (the red cross is supported through donations and the government adds some at some point) ?
> I would never tell someone what to spend their money on. if I'm going to spend my money to help them out, I'd prefer it not go straight to a pint of liquor. is that unreasonable?
It really does depend upon your values. What if - alcoholism excluded - that money is going to buy a 15ç can of bad beer but it'd be only one beer. What if this is the alcohol in that can of beer that'll help the guy to muster the courage to spend all of his days panhandling so he can get food or pay for his spot under the bridge for the night ?
My point is that I don't believe that because I gave them some money I should have some control on them, or restrict the use of that money to my liking (shelters do that, with contracts and agreement put in place with the objective to lift people out of the street but that's another debate). Either that gift is free or it's not a gift, it's a salary for a behaviour I want the beggar to have. If I give money it becomes their money, if he can't dispose of it then it wasn't given.
I often wonder what would happen if I just said : "OK, I'll give you ten bucks if you help me move some stuff for an hour or help me with the garden". Then, what if he spend that money on booze, girls or WoW pre paid card ? At least he didn't mug anyone.
Anecdote: where I live, people on social welfare can get some small jobs (lawn mowing, paint jobs, that kind of things). They aren't paid in money. People give them some kind of social paper that is the equivalent of money and then they have to go the administration to get that turned into money into their account. Here's the catch: only people on welfare can get these jobs. And they are basically given monopoly money by people buying their services (who first bought these cheques from the government). These papers have validity dates, can't be used on the spot to buy something. Some money get lost this way. Why should people on welfare be paid with fake money ?
It reminds me of this news about beggars getting a qr code or a RFID chip. Mobile payments would go to the shelter they are affiliated with and that would be converted into housing and food.
> is that unreasonable?
To each its own, it just means we have different outlook and a different set of values (and by that I don't mean to imply I am better than you or correct).
edit: and of course, we live in many different cultures that have different subsets of values and people in it so what might be the righteous and the practical way to help beggars/homeless people might be different on a different continent... or over in the next town.
Sorry to probe, but what country do you live in? I'd like to do some further reading
Also a wikipedia entry https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titre-service and a google search https://www.google.com/search?q=explication+titre-services
let me address your point about welfare first. in the US, we really don't like the idea of tax dollars going towards drugs, alcohol, etc., so the federal and most state governments generally don't just give cash to poor people. they either give food stamps (to be redeemed at grocery stores) or even drug test people to make sure they are not misusing the funds. some research (I don't have time to get a citation, sorry) has found that the government spends more money to make sure that people don't buy drugs than they would actually waste on drugs in the first place! I don't love the idea of my tax dollars going to feed an addiction, but it's silly to spend more money to prevent them from doing it. so I say if someone is legally entitled to get some money from the government, just give it to them as cash if it's more efficient. they can decide what to do with it.
to be clear, I don't think alcohol is evil, and I think the parties your friend organizes sound great! consumed in moderation, alcohol can certainly help people form important bonds, and a good meal shared with other people can be worth a lot more than its nutritional value.
all I'm saying is that I don't like to give cash directly to a person whom I suspect is going to spend all of it on their addiction. if someone is holding a sign saying "hungry, need help" and they refuse anything but cash, that's kind of suspicious. if, like you said, I could pay them $10-20 to help with a small task, I would consider the money fairly earned and I would be fine with whatever the person spent it on.
