The thing is - this is impossible to quantify. So basically, you are left with a binary decision - is it okay to overturn peoples civil liberties over arbitrary quotas or not. Personally - having suffered the devastation an addiction of a close relative causes in everyone around them - i would still prefer the current model where people are not forced to things against their will just because they drink too much alcohol.
(I'm in England so all of this is somewhat from an English perspective)
There are roughly two camps when we talk about a human rights approach to mental health law, and they're not compatible with each other.
The more mainstream version is to look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which flows into the EU Convention on Human Rights, which flows into national law. Under this system we can still have detention under mental health law, forced medication, and substituted decision making. But you do need some protections in place to prevent arbitrary detention and to give people a right of appeal.
The less mainstream view is to look at the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Under this approach you cannot detain people under mental health laws, you can force them to take medication against their will, and you can only have supported decision making, you cannot have substituted decision making.
