Someone can only blow the two weeks of money.
If they still can’t survive, I am a saying we could have other programs to assist that group (it will be a much smaller population), and I am saying the help would be counseling, training, etc.
Of course, it would be good to it while also offering help with education, any substance abuse issues people might have, etc. but the paternalistic kind of "can't trust people on welfare to spend their own money" view just makes things worse. We've definitely seen it in Australia, they created a cashless debit card that locks out certain types of spending and trialled it in certain areas. It's been a massive failure, people not being able to get cash out to pay rent, it doesn't work in a lot of stores, forcing people to higher priced shops that are part of the system, the card has a lot of stigma attached to it so people are ashamed to use it, social outcomes are worse, and the administrative cost per person is about half as much as the actual annual amount given in welfare (!!) but the company that runs the scheme has links to the party that is in Government and donates to politicians so they're expanding the trials of scheme...
Society can only help so much - at some point, personal responsibility must step in.
People in that situation are still human and are not doomed. People do recover from such ailments all the time given the right structure and support.
And if they can't recover they still deserve the support. That's our responsibility to each other. When "personal responsibility" means just letting people suffer and die we should leave it behind.
My suggestion would be no, we don’t step in. I think for one, we overestimate the number of people who would not use the money for their needs first. I think if we found there were a lot of people who still needed help, we could create an assistance group that can help people find the help they need.