[alkonaut]

> In the USSR people suffering from alcoholism (a health condition, addiction to alcohol) were sent to rehab involuntarily.

Yes and dissenters were sent to labor camps involuntarily... I don't know why we are talking about a communist dictatorship here when we are discussing what would/can take place in a liberal democracy. The difference between a liberal democracy and a state that isn't, is that all measures that limit personal freedoms (such as mandatory basic education or whatever it might be) is subject to a democratic process.

> I'd like you to consider that people of the US had banned alcohol in the Constitution at one point, not so far in the past.

I don't consider it impossible that alcohol would be considered illegal in 50 or 100 years in the US. But I do find it very unlikely that some kind of forced treatment would be imposed on someone for an addiction that is not illegal in, in any country that is supposedly a liberal democracy. In fact - I'd probably hesitate to even consider that state a liberal democracy then, and the whole issue disappears (because as I explained above - we are only talking about liberal democracies here, and a US where people are sent to forced rehab without doing something illegal would not be a liberal democracy anymore)

So to be very clear: please don't go to the slipperly slope argument to suggest that public and universal healthcare in a democracy somehow ends up in involuntary treatment of law abiding citizens (Again vaccination possibly excepted).

[pandaman]

>Yes and dissenters were sent to labor camps involuntarily...

Actually, to mental health institution from 1960s.