"This should re-open the question of whether we should allow people living on the benevolence of the state should be allowed to spend other people's money on booze."
Benevolence of the state? No, the money paid as National Insurance against the possibility of various misfortunes. Other people's money? No, the money paid out from the common fund to those who suffer misfortune.
If someone's house burnt down, would you demand control over the exact details of what they are allowed to spend their insurance money on because it comes from other people who did not suffer fires?
If someone is earning money they are entirely free to spend that money on whatever legal thing they want, people would be horrified at attempts to control that . As adult members of society they are assumed to have the ability to handle their own affairs. If they want to spend the money on booze that is entirely their choice.
Yet the moment they have problems and need support it is assumed that they instantaneously loose all ability to handle their own affairs and to choose what to spend money on - that they must be looked after for their own good, and their spending controlled by people who have never been in that situation and have no experience of the problems they have to cope with. A one-size-fits-all solution that applies the same rules regardless of who they are, where they live, what their circumstances are, what resources they have available. Mummy knows best and they must grovel and obey while being sneered at.
Someone on benefits is just as competent as when they were earning, and has quite enough problems to cope with without officious intervention from do-gooders revelling in grinding them down further, and demanding that They Must Not Have Any Nice Things - anything that could possibly be considered a luxury or not absolutely necessary gets snatched away from them so they have no relief whatever from utter destitution.
For their own good? No, for the sadistic enjoyment of their self-appointed 'betters'.