Carol Dowson may have her heart in the right place, but should check her rose-tinted spectacles (Letters, July 9).

Throughout her letter, she equates begging with the plight of the homeless when in fact the two are completely different.

You may have homeless beggars, but equally and you get many beggars who are neither homeless nor destitute but treat begging as a sometimes lucrative income.

It is also nonsense to suggest that somehow beggars are driven to drugs. How are they driven to drugs if they are destitute? I know drugs might be getting cheaper on the streets of Brighton but I don't think they give them away.

If donating to some beggars means therefore adding to their habit and, as a consequence, their plight, then it's a good decision to ban begging to divert charitable giving to the prevention of the very problems that Carol Dowson espouses.

Compassion does not mean fuelling someone's addiction, whether alcohol or drug, as that only subsidises a lifestyle. It does not help solve the problem, merely prolong it.

There also seems to be a lot of presumption in the article about "starving to death" and "homeless", when we could not guarantee that even one penny given to a beggar will end up either aiding the removal of homeless or helping to cure addiction, which may be the reason that some turn to begging rather than the ideas she suggests which really don't seem logical.

I would suggest that her question "is it any wonder they turn to drugs?" is turning her own logic on its head, as, if they have so much money to buy drugs, then that is a very good reason to stop the begging.

More facililities do need to be diverted to detox and rehab centres and hostels for homeless but none of these causes is advanced by allowing begging.

-JR Stevens, Southwick