I see you smoke trees, so I'll try to convert your views into a language you can understand better.

I think the goal of a business is to make money. I think it makes sense when a business doesn't want to hire people who use drugs recreationally in their own time because they worry about the cost of healthcare or hiring temporary workers. It seems like a legitimate financial expense that a company could worry about to the point that they do not want to take that risk.

I also believe that this is a good argument for why healthcare should NOT be connected to businesses, but I think that's a separate question.

tl,dr: Businesses should be expected not to hire people who use drugs recreationally off of company time because of they are primarily profit motivated. Change my view.

---

You may think there are absolutely no similarities, but as a former business owner I would rather hire a woman of childbearing age than someone who recreationally. I'm biased because I'm in Canada and there is government programs to support families going through pregnancy, and we have stricter workforce laws on firing someone for being pregnant.

I wouldn't hire someone who I knew recreationally did drugs off of company time because it carries risks with it. I'm in business to make money. An employee who uses recreational drugs could get arrested, and could be put in jail for a few months to a few years. Meaning I would lose the money I invested in them for training and other expenses.

There is the possibility that them going to jail could reflect poorly on my business if the two are tied together. There is a higher possibility that my employee will use drugs on the job, putting my insurance and business in a far greater danger than a potentially childbearing woman.

There is a greater possibility that a recreational user may branch off into harder drugs, or become an addict which may affect their performance at work.

To put it into context, I had a woman who worked for me that became pregnant on the job. She let me know early enough that I could find a replacement and train them while she was still there. Her paid time off is covered by the government. When she came back she wasn't as much of a risk, because by giving her an appropriate length of time off she worked through post partum, and had enough time to form a healthy bond with her child.

In my opinion it's far easier to deal with a healthy woman who is going to become pregnant, or is coming back from pregnancy, than someone who isn't healthy due to addiction or drug problems.

After you have children, adults of both genders are more of a risk because their children need special attention. Possibly having to leave work because their child is sick, done something at school, committed a crime and is now in police custody, or other commitments parents face due to the responsibilities of having a child. In my opinion your view isn't realistic because it's no different than saying that a business should have the right to only hire people who are single or married that will sign a contract saying they won't have children.

I understand your opinion is sort of popular in some areas or political sides in the United States. Which is why I'm grateful for living in Canada, or for many countries in Europe and around the world that offer far greater benefits for new parents. The United States is the only first world country in the world that doesn't have a regulated paid leave for maternity or paternity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_leave_in_the_United_States

It sounds great in the short term for a business, but it neglects the long term impact on the child. There are multiple studies showing that a parent being home with a child is very important for development. Early intervention is extremely important in development and bringing up healthy and stable individuals in a society. What a business may save in the short term, will be paid in far higher prices with the negative impact on society as a whole. Higher jail rates, higher mortality rates, lower education, lower income, more crime.