I don't think the expectation is that they may budget a measured amount for alcohol or other drugs, but that by providing them with the means to get more of those things, one may play a small part in what prevents their escape from said miserable circumstances.

But does turning a blind eye help them escape any better than a few dollars and some camaraderie?

> Doesn't a person have a right to escape his miserable circumstances for a short time?

Yes but not on my dime. I'm entirely happy to pay (directly or via taxes) to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, get them medical care and clean clothes.

But I really don't think buying them cigarettes and light beer is improving their situation in a meaningful way.

It's sad that this is getting downvoted here. We are talking about people in miserable circumstances, and while vices are a longterm negative, I, an educated disciplined and well off person, still can't reliably resist them when I'm feeling down. To begrudge these people their vices is inhuman.

> Sure, but so what?

All those things are harmful.

> Doesn't a person have a right to escape

What if those circumstances are created by the escape?

> But who am I to judge a person's morality

I'm not judging the addict, I'm judging the enabler..

Well, if I am giving my money to a homeless guy begging on the street/public transport, I for sure will not encourage him in his destructive behavior. It means me contributing to his self-destruction with my money. Simply no. How hard is it to understand this?

Personally, I give sometimes few coins to street musicians, but that's it. Homeless in Europe never struggle for life, there is a vast social net that can help them in various ways, if they want. Giving money means confirming that this is affordable lifestyle, and something they should continue doing.