Panhandlers spend their money on drugs

The argument

Proponents of a ban argue that the charitable transaction at the heart of panhandling does not deliver what the donor intends. There has been no evidence that the money panhandlers get from begging is being used for their overall well being, and the giver has no way of finding out: the exchange is anonymous, unconditional and unmonitored, so the good intention behind it is never tested against the outcome. What that money is often spent on, on this argument, is drugs. Proponents do not present this as a moral failing so much as a predictable one. It is understandable that homeless people or panhandlers find drugs comforting, since they might help them deal with or forget about their state of living, and a person facing that situation may well prefer a short-term happiness provider to a new item of clothing or a nourishing meal. The difficulty is what follows from the choice. Spending on drugs can create a vicious cycle in which the person becomes addicted or dependent, and that dependence can in turn lead to violence and even aggressiveness when they ask for money — so the practice that donors are funding becomes both more compulsive and more confrontational over time. The supporting evidence, as the argument presents it, is that research indicates substance abuse is more common among the homeless, who are most commonly panhandlers and who depend on begging for money for survival, and that research also indicates substance abuse is a major factor that makes panhandlers remain homeless or in dire conditions. Read together, those two findings close the loop: the money sustains the dependence, and the dependence sustains the homelessness that prompted the begging. The conclusion proponents draw is that a person donating might not have an overall positive effect at all. If the transaction reliably deepens the condition it appears to relieve, then permitting it is not kindness, and the law should not protect it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

We, as a society, should not judge how these panhandlers spend their money. We spend our money freely, and so should they. Most of the time, there is no harm as they do not directly touch or interact with who they ask for money. They are most likely on the sides of the roads or intersections, asking nicely with a sign or gestures. The chances that they go violent are only if there is a prolonged interaction, which is not likely in most cases.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise argues from an absence of evidence to a positive claim, asserting in the same breath that nothing shows the money helps and that it is often spent on drugs — and the studies that have looked find spending mostly on food, transport and shelter, with the aggression described attached to no source at all. [Rejecting P2] Even granting the harm described, the conclusion does not follow: the premises concern what a donor's money does, whereas the position would criminalise the person asking — which penalises the poorest party to the transaction, leaves the donor untouched, and addresses addiction by prohibiting a form of speech rather than by treatment.