> That's the point being debated and that seems to chafe people the wrong way for some reason. It chafes because it's a common argument for doing nothing at al

> That's the point being debated and that seems to chafe people the wrong way for some reason. It chafes because it's a common argument for doing nothing at all, or removing all agency from people in the situation. That removal of agency is absolutely a bad thing. I'd argue that people who feel they lack agency in their life are much more likely to attempt to escape that life through drug addiction. It also grossly over-represents the number of drug addicts in the population of poor people, most of whom would just benefit from the extra money, and is used to falsely equate the two groups.