I'm OK with a state legalizing pot if the majority of that state decides to, but I'm not OK with the concept that its a constitutional right.
I'm also OK with employers, including government (the electorate), having very broad rights in who they hire and fire, or otherwise hand out money to. If a man doesn't want to employ someone who smokes pot or drinks alcohol or smokes, that should be his business. Same goes for how government funds are spent.
Do what you want, but bare the consequences, might indeed be the best alternative to drug use.
Well, you unfortuately have a real problem with the 10th amendment, then.
Because, according to the 10th, it IS a state's decision about such. Or should be, until SCOTUS decides that words mean what they wish them to mean.
"but I'm not OK with the concept that its a constitutional right."
We have NO Constitutional Rights. What we have is a document which grants government certain power to do a (VERY) few things in our names and on our behalf. We have a Bill of Rights appended to that document as a "for example" of areas we have NOT granted government any authority to act. In the Ninth and Tenth amendments we FURTHER restrict the government. We, the People, retain ALL OTHER AUTHORITY and our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, which are to be PROTECTED by the government, which is why we initiated the United States in the first place.
If you think that it is not a right to self-medicate responsibly then you have declared your body to be property of the state to regulate as it sees fit.