"not thinking the correct thoughts" would usually mean not subscribing to conventional opinion, not literally a euphemism for mental illness. And ones "morality" is usually considered to be a persons sober opinion, not things they do while on drugs.
Twisting the terms to fit the homeless means it applies to historical examples less - the persecution of certain demographics for their beliefs was not based on drug-induced anti-social behaviour.
> Plenty of people with homes are addicts
what kind of addict? What are they addicted to that they manage to keep a home?
If they are to hold on to that resource they maybe their situation isn't comparable?
> Plenty of people with homes suffer from depression or other conditions
What "other conditions"? depression isn't at all comparable to antisocial behaviour, but in fact if your depression leads to mania, self-harm, or self-neglect you may well be institutionalised.
> political opposition was considered a mental illness
And this was a determination made by doctors or medical professionals comparable to todays medical professionals?
How many of the politically opposed refused to take care of themselves as a result of their opposition? Is self-neglect difficult to distinguish from political motivation?
> differentiating between danger and inconvenience
The "inconvenience" of political opposition isn't at all the same thing.
laws and regulations exist guaranteeing political freedom, vagrancy shouldn't be crime itself, but anti-social behaviour shouldn't be excused on the basis of vagrancy.
> Is seeing someone in a park smelling like urine and talking to someone you can't see enough of a threat to be isolated and force-fed mind-altering drugs?
No, but where was that suggested? And by "force-fed mind-altering drugs" do you mean in all cases, or after a medical professional evaluates the person and promotes that as the best course of action (in which case its no longer based on the initial scenario you describe).
> Does making unproven accusations demonstrate enough possibility of danger that we should "lock her up"?
What are you responding to? What "unproven accusations"? I feel like you are making broad counterpoints to points never made.