Part of the "drug" problem is that when dealing with "addictive" drugs, employer's/the public's rights come into play. If a drug is legal, how do you fire someone for having a certain amount of it in their system ? And if it's addictive, you know that the 'addict" will always need to have some of it in their system. Employers and the public could be construed to have conflicting rights to the personal "right" to always have some of these substances in your bloodstream ( would you want to argue the allowable amount of any of these in a subway motorman's system ? or other such persons ? What would a juror think about a police officer involved in a shooting who had certain amounts of "controlled" substances in his bloodstream ? ). For that matter, what amounts are acceptible to employers of person who don't have "dangerous" jobs, but do need them to have all of their faculties at all times ? Yes, you can equate all of thisa to alcohol, which is a drug, but does not have the addictive properties ( to most people ) as a number of drugs. I think once you are talking about addictive drugs, you change the argument somewhat ( yeah, yeah, I know, everyone on this board is addicted to pussy, and I shudder to think of how employers would cringe if they had any idea how many "work" hours we all spent on these sites every day....). But, just to be clear, I am in favor of the decriminalization of a lot of drugs. I just don't think it's the panacea that some folks do, and I don't think it will be as easy to institute as a lot of folks do.