What does make a society to allow unwell individuals?

In the lack of stimuli and addiction or desire, freedom is no longer selfish. The individual is no longer acting on self-interest. Given that material demands are subdued, the decision is based on what ought to be the right thing to do, a conscious choice.

Conscious suggests that you are not dreaming or under the influence or in duress; rather awake. It means all your faculties are fully functioning normally.

A conscious choice considers a holistic approach of mind, body and soul. It takes into consideration your feelings and emotions on certain issues especially in terms of humanity. How does it feel to be discriminated against or disadvantaged because of your race or gender and or age.

This also considers the health and welfare of beings, of animals and the environment. So you see, it is not about you personally and how you feel about certain things or related to your political following or religion.

And all those aspects are validated to produce an objective outcome to the stability of social organisation of society. And thus society is the validity of health and welfare of all of us by none other than ourselves.

The outcome of such decisions contribute to the stable organisation of society. The outcome is not only valid but also constructive to society. This is an objective outcome.

An objective outcome is neither a political decision, nor a legal decision or a religious one.

However in the normal cause of events, citizens are more likely to obey the law and follow religious instructions as well as influenced by their political affiliations. That is, their decisions are influenced and the outcome is compromised between his/her ambitions and his/her following, It is not an objective outcome.

We have experienced outcomes of well-intended political decisions to benefit some shareholders, but at the social consequences of segregation of society between the rich and poor. It had stripped the poor of their homes and accumulated on the street.

Now, citizens among individuals may also obey the law to avoid punishment. You see, society is organised by fear of punishment. Well, we know one's life as a young person is ruined for all eternity once he/she has broken the law. It's a conditional expectation that if you do this you will earn that.

The individual is punished for life when his/her criminal record prohibits him/her from responsible decisions and promotional opportunities. This is not fair to his/her children when parents' limited income deprive them of their needs for nourishment and education, are often caught up in Poverty.

Because you haven't been empowered to examine your emotions and exercise your mind to make rational and informed decisions, you are more than likely to be imprisoned by emotional stress and depression. Furthermore, you are likely to be responsible for the consequences of political and religious decisions that you haven't made.

Now, an objective distinction decision between the law and morality follows; if marijuana is banned and smokers decide to follow the law, they are not free to make own decisions as to smoking. If marijuana is legalised and individuals decide not to smoke, their decision is a conscious and an informed one.

If marijuana is legalised and individuals decide to smoke, it is unlikely that they smoke because it's legal. This is because the reason many people smoke is because of addiction. Individuals are in duress and are not free to make an informed decision to smoke even if it's legal.

Then, if individuals are punished for smoking, it is because of their addiction. So individuals are punished because they are not well. But to punish the sick and unwell population of society suggests society is itself not well.

Following the law is good for those who make the law, but the consequences follow that you are deprived from the opportunity to be responsible and feel good about your decisions.

In the former, individuals following the law are not free; but in the latter, individuals are free to do what is the right thing to do.

Subject to legal obligation, some authorities use the law to dictate and impose upon the population for political and economic advantages.

So, in our modern individualistic society, laws are necessary to safeguard society, especially to protect those who are vulnerable to the strong.

While it is necessary to legislate various conditions to allow others fair participation, success depends on those who support the lawmaker of the government.

Failure of the strong or rich to cooperate with the law is an invasion from outside society. I have given them the term majority rule for they simply refuse the law by using their rich resources and majority in number.

In our reality, those who are already well off continue to take advantage of their rich status to disadvantage those who are not as strong. That is why it is morally justifiable to use the law.

There is not much we can do if the rich can exercise its power to disrespect the law and continue to disadvantage the weak. This according to Trump and others like him; if you don't like it then go back to wherever you came from! That was earlier summed up by another right wing leader; 'either my way or the highway'.

The wellbeing of society contributes to its individuals' valid choices but if leaders disrespect and violate such choices, then society is itself not well...