Should you give money to beggars?

Homeless people may gamble with the money they're given.

Question: Should you give money to beggars?
Position1 of 6›: No, you never know what they might do with it.
Argument‹2 of 2: Homeless people may gamble with the money they're given.

A disproportionally high percentage of the homeless population have gambling problems.

The argument

Gambling addiction is 10 times more common in the homeless population than in the general population. Surveys in several different cities have indicated that up to 22% of homeless people were either currently gamblers, or had lost their homes due to a gambling addiction. This particular type of addiction does not have any physical markers, so it is next to impossible to tell if the money that you are giving will be used for necessities or at lotteries and casinos. A homeless person has more reason than the average individual to find appeal in gambling; not only is there the prospect of wealth, but gambling venues may also provide temporary shelter, a bathroom, and a social setting. Gambling is also a form of entertainment that incurs feelings of excitement and happiness - considering the fact that depression is extremely prevalent in the homeless population, this could be a way for a homeless individual to escape the stresses of everyday life. There is no way to know whether a beggar has or doesn't have a gambling problem unless they choose to disclose that information to you; thus, giving money to them directly is a bit of a gamble in and of itself. By donating money directly to a homeless person, you may be harming them more than helping them by fueling their addiction, making it much harder for them to improve their living situation. This is why charities warn against giving money directly to beggars; you should instead give to organizations that have the expertise and resources to provide the homeless population with what they really need.

Context

Addictive disorders amongst the homeless tend to be much higher than the general population. The Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs found that problem gambling was prevalent in 11% of homeless people studied, compared to 0.7% of the general population.

Premises

[P1]Gambling addiction is ten times more common among homeless people, with up to 22% being gamblers or having lost their homes to it. [P2] Gambling has no physical markers, so you cannot tell whether the money you give will go to necessities or to lotteries and casinos. [P3] Giving directly may therefore fuel an addiction and make it harder for the person to improve their situation, which is why charities urge donating to organisations instead. [C] Therefore, because you never know whether they will gamble it away, you should not give money to beggars.

Counter-arguments

By refusing to donate money to a beggar solely due to a less than 25% chance that they will use that money to gamble, you are perpetuating a harmful stereotype and potentially preventing that person from being able to buy essential items, such as food and drink.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The figures cited describe a minority: on the premise's own account most homeless people are neither gambling nor homeless because of gambling, so a rule of never giving treats the exception as the norm. [Rejecting P2] Uncertainty cuts both ways — not knowing how the money will be spent is equally a reason to expect food, transport or shelter — and the premise never weighs that against the harm it anticipates. [Rejecting P3] Withholding has its own cost, since it may deny someone an essential purchase today, and no comparison is offered showing that risk to be smaller than the risk of fuelling an addiction; charities' preference for organisational giving is also a claim about efficiency rather than evidence that direct giving harms.