this is something i think about a lot, as one of my best friends from high school developed severe schizophrenia in his early twenties and has been living on the streets for several years now. his parents have plenty of money and would be willing to pay for pretty much any treatment program, but he completely refuses to try at all. they've had him involuntarily committed several times now, but he just walks out as soon as possible every time. the doctors say there is still a possibility of managing his condition, but that the time window is closing.

on the one hand, it's really frustrating because it seems like his life could be greatly improved if he could be forced to undergo long term treatment. he might even be grateful on the other side. but on the other hand, living in a putatively free society, is there a point where you just have to take someone at their word that they don't want to do something? he doesn't seem to be hurting anyone but himself, and he claims to be happy.

Depending upon the state a few ounces of weed could get him locked away for far longer than it would take to get his mental illness under control. That to me starkly calls out the hypocrisy.

> he might even be grateful on the other side.

There would probably be a person on the other side who would be grateful, but it's far from obvious that that would be the same person as the one you forced into long term treatment. It's a good thing that our society makes it this hard to involuntarily commit people, and as cco mentions, it would be nice if we could extend this to other kinds of forcible confinement.