I was about to say "yeah but people who do drugs in this fantasy get sent off to Wireheading City so there won't be significant drug use in the rest of the country"

But then I realized that's obviously dumb, some people do drugs occasionally but would be unlikely candidates for Wireheading City as a result. I think he really wants homeless people to go there, not partygoers who happen to get caught with a needle in their arm.

To change the subject, just now I noticed this ridiculous statement:

So um...not UBI at all. The very thing that distinguishes UBI from other forms of welfare is that it's a direct monetary handout. Whoever wrote this probably knows that so why in the world did he call it UBI and then immediately contradict himself in the same sentence?

The point of UBI is that "basic necessities" are so individually variant that governmental attempts to accurately assess them result in inefficiencies that could be overcome through a simplified handout system. E.g. medical needs are super personal, and variable family sizes also result in different housing needs. UBI is "supposed to" cut through that mess by just giving the needy money and then letting them figure out what their own needs are.

Saying "we'll do UBI but instead we'll just give people what they need" completely misses the point of UBI, which is that the government doesn't know what someone needs, but it does know this: if that thing can be bought with money, money should be a reasonable substitute.

(BTW I think UBI is a bad idea but I do think it's worth pointing out that this author seems to completely miss its point, and he does this so spectacularly, his error crosses over into funny)