APF appears to have little to no impact on employment [0], instead having effect of increased number of people getting zapped out their rocker on drugs[1].
[0] http://humcap.uchicago.edu/RePEc/hka/wpaper/Jones_Marinescu_...
[1] https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/102/4/678/96772...
It takes community and building mindset to fend off the tendency toward minimum level survival. It takes having a certain ethic to transcend that. Of course people don't want to plough in the muddy soil and tend to sick animals and harvest in the heat, if they can get away with it. If they instead could drink, get merry and play all day, many will chose that option if not inculcated otherwise.
Who knows, maybe we will go back to permanent mediocrity by most once the drive to succeed is removed.
A progressing society needs constant effort to keep it alive. It's not self-perpetuating by itself.
crime-related concerns of a universal cash transfer program may be unwarranted.
So I don't think this makes the point you want it to make.
> increased number of people getting zapped out their rocker on drugs
Which was part of your case that APF is a failed experiment and not worthwhile. But the study you cited does not suggest that UBI created an increased number of drug abusers. It did say that there was an uptick in drug incidents, but it also concluded that UBI payments were not responsible for increasing crime (when considering drug incidents and other crimes in total).
It's likely that drug use always ticks up on payday, UBI or not. Same for gambling and other bad habits that require money. I've never heard anyone suggest that the solution to drug abuse is to make people so poor that they can't afford to buy drugs, but in a roundabout way this is kindof what you're saying.
Grocery shopping and paying bills and likely tick up on payday as well.