If you believe that privately consuming drugs doesn't reflect negatively on someone, you can hire them. If you don't hire them and nobody else hires them either, the drug use is keeping them from being hired. It's misleading to claim that the conviction keeps them from being hired rather than the drug use.
> It's misleading to claim that the conviction keeps them from being hired rather than the drug use.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're arguing that a drug user is less employable (perhaps because you believe drug users are untrustworthy or unreliable), and this is the reason they aren't hired.
But a conviction for a drug crime years ago does not mean someone is a drug user today. It is the conviction, not drug use, keeping them from being hired. A drug test would make more sense if you want to determine whether someone is a current drug user.
And besides, without the conviction you may be unaware of their drug use. If someone has a drug habit, but nobody can tell, what exactly is the problem? There are plenty of "functioning alcoholics" in the workforce.
That's nonsense. If you have a private drug habit and don't get caught, that won't come up on a background check. Lots of people consume recreationally without being addicts or messing up the rest of their lives. A conviction (sometimes just an arrest record) that comes up on a background check will automatically put applicants in the reject pile in many jobs. This is such a common problem some US states (eg California) have passed laws to prevent employers demanding this information of applicants.
