This is totally ridiculous on its face.
Even with the specific constitutional protection on the freedom of speech and religion, it is clear that society does not permit the practice of such religion or speech to include harming others. There is no question that drugs, especially illegal drug use, harms individuals.

None. Such debate as exists centers on benefits versus risks, not on harm.

There is a huge element of hypocrisy in such statements, in that the writer will insist on being protected from irresponsible persons and the organizations which may employ them. In short, this is yet another way to say, "I want to get high, shut up."

War on drugs is quite hypocritical. It's not consistent to argue for it on the basis of harm. Some of the most harmful drugs are in fact legal, while some very mild ones are not. Not to mention all the harm the war on drugs causes to people who aren't harming anyone with their use (and a lot of them aren't harming themselves either). And drugs aren't disappearing anyway, despite all the effort.

Antipsychotic drugs can be quite harmful. The life expectancy of a person locked up in an institution and forcibly medicated is reduced by 20 years. Yet this is not illegal. In fact mandatory for some people. I know several people who became overweight and unhealthy after taking these, without becoming more mentally well.

And how about alcohol? How many people drink&drive, die of poisoning or get into accidents from it?

No, "illegal drugs are especially harmful" is complete and utter BS. Ignorant conformity to the present law.

There is a huge element of hypocrisy in such statements, in that the writer will insist on being protected from irresponsible persons and the organizations which may employ them. In short, this is yet another way to say, "I want to get high, shut up." -- Radwaste at May 4, 2014 10:26 AM

And once again we see your irrationality on drugs.

The problem is that the "War on Drugs" has been used to slowly change the various police forces from a group of people who serve and protect to a militia who will kick in your door and put a gun to you and your family's head, destroy your belongings and not apologize or compensate you for the mistaken warrant that said Apt D instead of Apt E.

The problem is that the "War on Drugs" has been used to slowly abuse the fourth and fifth amendments that they can seize your property for finding a pot seed in your car or an errant plant growing on your property.

The problem is that the "War on Drugs" has been used to slowly change the whole system of jurisprudence system including the mandatory minimum sentencing. You have two ounces of pot. That makes you a "dealer". You are now going to spend five years in a prison for possessing vegetation. What does that teach anyone?

I agree that in many cases of employment you don't want people using substances or being intoxicated. But that is an industry or company standard to decide.

This is like the Mayors Against Guns arguments. They are blaming the firearm, the standard size magazines, the pistol grips on the AR-15 for killing people. I have as yet to see a firearm get up and shoot a single person.

I also have as yet to see a bag of pot smoke itself. The person makes the decision. If they can't do the right thing they should be subject to sanctions. But government sanctions have failed.

Or do you believe we will win the War on Drugs tomorrow?

What Jim P. said. Raddy I love ya, but when it comes to the "War on Drugs", you're very misguided.

There is no question that drugs . . . harms individuals.

If a drug causing harm to individuals is a valid basis for government banning the drug for everyone, then government should be banning cigarettes and bringing back Prohibition.