A lot of UBI schemes do basically just say that UBI replaces all the other social programs. This is one of the ways UBI can deliver some efficiency, replacing

A lot of UBI schemes do basically just say that UBI replaces all the other social programs. This is one of the ways UBI can deliver some efficiency, replacing dozens of programs with their staffs and their means testing with a simple flat payment. The administration of such a system is pretty straightforward, each person gets a check every period. As a society there is a desire to provide people with a backstop for basic necessities because if someone can't earn a wage then they could starve to death and as a people we decided that citizens starving in the streets would be bad, or at least destabilizing. Similarly, people freezing to death or cooking to death in the elements, also bad, better provide some kind of shelter. There is a real question about the transition period, if you gave people a UBI and they decided to blow it on drugs and were starving, should you give them additional assistance. To the hypothetical person that would choose drugs over food and shelter, there are two ways of looking at it. One way to look at it is as a public health issue. People that would willingly choose drugs / alcohol / etc over survival likely need some kind of substance abuse treatment, not food / shelter / etc. If you can't survive off of UBI the most likely reason is that something is wrong and instead of just providing more money (in whatever form) we should provide that person with the actual treatment they need to become a functioning member of society. Another way to look at it is that it's personal choice. Society provides each person enough money to live. People can choose to live long simple lives or they can have a few drug-fueled months, it's not our place to tell people how they should experience their short time on Earth. Each citizen has the freedom to live whatever life they want, everyone has the means to live a reasonable life, and some will choose not to. I fall into the first camp of thought. The person so addicted to drugs / alcohol / etc that they would choose to spend all their UBI on that over their own survival isn't actually being helped by giving them food and shelter. It just enabled them to continue existing with their substance abuse problem. UBI could free up the resources needed to meaningfully treat people that are incapable of caring for themselves by reducing the amount of time spent managing funds given to the vast majority of people that when given money use it in the expected fashion. There will always be the people that want to blow all their money on their vice of choice and also refuse to get treatment because they like that lifestyle. To them I would say, good luck, it's not how I choose to live my life, but who am I to say what's right for you. There will likely still be private organization, churches, outreach groups, advocates, etc for these people.