Then this comes down to what drugs you consider "bad" from a moral point of view. I for one, do not equate recreational cannabis to the "recreational" usage of steroids, MDMA etc...
edit: Considering the fact that the negative effects that come about as a result of abusing substances do not measure to the effects of abusing others (Cocaine vs Cannabis).
I will concede however, that until a more cost-efficient method of testing for substance abuse comes about, it would be unwise to place such a law into effect.
I do not concede the the motives behind it though.
So..you think that any and all plausible methods of reducing our impact on the environment should not be taken regardless of the long-term effects of global warming?
SUVs and Hummers should be made illegal on the same grounds that cars are required to pass a smog test
Their emissions and fuel consumption are may not be as detrimental as the emissions of factories or cow farts but still merit regulation.
Just because you pay for something doesn't make it okay.
You cannot seriously compare cannabis and cocaine as recreational drugs and you are seriously ignorant over the uses of steroid and MDMA/ecstasy use. I also like how you put quotation marks around recreational as in apparently only addicts use MDMA (which couldn't be further from the truth).
If you concede that welfare benefits must take drugs test, surely all workers in all jobs should take mandatory drugs test?
So I'm assuming you walk or cycle to work? Everyone should do it, as that is the only way we can battle carbon emissions? SUVs and Hummers obviously pass all state and legislative MOT's in regards to emissions and these laws are obviously influence by environmental pressure groups, so they must be fine in that sense. They also pay higher tax (at least in this country) based purely on emissions that the car creates.
I'm also assuming you drive a 1.0 litre, 80BHP mini-car? I mean, if you drove anything that causes more emissions than that, you would be a hypocrite right?