No, I am definitely not making that implication. I feel a business can use whatever testing they want to determine who to hire (absent the protected classes of people, etc) and feel that if they decide “If someone has done something illegal, we are not going to hire them” then that’s fine for them.
I have no objection if they want to fire employees who are convicted of crimes. And if I were convicted of a financial crime (such as embezzling), I would expect to be fired, because that would suggest I might not be trust-worthy for my actual responsibilities. Similarly, I would expect an airline to fire a pilot convicted of drunk driving. I honestly don’t know how my employer would react if someone in my department were convicted of using pot. I wouldn’t have any qualms working with that employee, but I wouldn’t hold it against my employer if they choose to terminate the person.
There’s a huge difference between firing someone based on public information, such as a criminal conviction, and invading the privacy of your employees or prospective employees. Requiring drug tests for employees who do calculations and talk to other employees (that’d be me) is the latter.