I think there’s some fuzzy “rights” talk going on in this discussion.
For instance, as much as I smoke, and as much as I want pot legalized or at least decriminalized, recreational drug use is not a human right. At least, not in my opinion, and not according to any authority I know of.
Are we talking human rights, or are we simply talking human activities? Shouldn’t the State limit the actions of its citizenry to some degree? Hence murderers are put in jail? Isn’t it natural that, on minor points (drug use), there will always be disagreement? Of course the US is notorious for failures of logic in its justice system, for hypocrisy, for claiming a separation of Church and State while religious morality clearly affects the laws (gay marriage, marijuana use, abortion, euthanasia, flamboyancy in the military). This is a serious problem, but it doesn’t necessarily have to do with “rights.”
Rights are bare-bones of what a State should be. “Rights” talks about what a person can’t be denied: it doesn’t talk about what a person should be provided with. It can get very tricky when we’re considering systemic classism, like they have in the US… perhaps no one’s denied, by law, access to any social services, but certainly there are barriers between certain social communities and social services that the US is doing nothing to remove. How does that kind of thing fit in to this discussion?
Anyway, to answer your question, for me, it’s summed up like this: according to Article 25 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living.” The US does not support this right in its citizenry.