The Supreme Court is about to take up the (6/02) decision by the good old 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that a person with a history of drug abuse but who has now recovered cannot be discriminated against on that basis (IOW, even though other recoveries from past transgressions can be used against him) because he qualifies under the ADA. I’m not sure if it can be blamed on the evil 9th circuit though - they quote (page 10) from a EEOC manual that seems to say the same. (I’m not sure to what extent federal courts are bound by executive branch regulations - perhaps they just like to be guided by them absent compelling reason otherwise - perhaps a lawyer can shed some light here).
The EEOC does note that current drug use is not protected - I would guess that is not considered a reasonable accommodation, while previous drug use is.
But I object to considering drug use a disability. I am aware that from a technical standpoint you can justify calling it that - what with genetic susceptibility (at least in the parallel case of alcohol) and brain changes etc. But the same applies to anything. I don’t see how you would define a recovered drug addict as disabled and a recovered homicidal maniac as not disabled. I tend to think of disabilities as being…well…not abled. IOW something that is beyond the control of a person, not something that they have a harder time controlling than the next guy. And I would bet that most of the people who support ADA and most of the legislators who voted for it thought of disabilities in the same way.