system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I don't believe the mayor of a major city should be expected to resign simply because he smokes crack. CMV

As many have guessed from the title of the post, I'm referring to Rob Ford (current mayor of Toronto), though I think the principle could apply to any mayor of a major city. I disagree with pretty much every single policy of Rob Ford's. I think he's a complete idiot. I believe he's done some shady things that should have got him kicked out office.

However, I don't believe smoking crack is one of those things.

I believe the mayor of a city should be able to smoke crack or use any recreational drug of their choosing so long as it doesn't demonstrably affect their work performance. While it would be pithy to claim that Rob Ford's idiotic policies are a result of him smoking crack, I haven't seen any evidence of that, and I believe Rob Ford's policies would be just as stupid if he didn't smoke crack. I.e., his work performance is not being affected by his drug use.

I should say I'm fairly ignorant about crack. I have no experience with it at all. I've never come across anybody in my life who's used it (to my knowledge). I've heard the sentiment that anybody who uses crack necessarily has their life in disarray and can't sustain a productive life. I don't know if that's true or whether it's possible to be a "high-functioning" crack user or not.

I really dislike the man and would like to see him go, which is why I'd like my view changed. The principle of the thing is more important to me, though, and my principles right now tell me a democratically elected man shouldn't be forced to step down simply because of what drugs he uses on the weekends. I use recreational drugs (albeit not any illegal ones) and I feel it would be hypocritical of me to demand my mayor not use any recreational drugs.
gpt
Suppose you are a wealthy and have servants, like cooks, butlers, gardeners etc.  You are satisfied with all their work.

Now suppose someone told you that you saw the cook hanging around questionable people and said that he saw him smoke crack.  You address this with the cook and he say says that he doesn't smoke crack.  A little later, a police officer tells you find out that he did smoke crack.  It appears that the cook lied to you.

Now this cook has control of your money (to buy food and other kitchen goods) and has full access to your home and feeds yourself, family and guests and works with your other staff members.

Do you let him go and find someone else that can cook to your satisfaction or continue on with him working for you?