Excellent post. Behavior is not supposed to affect the voters' decisions either. Like I've said, it's not the "Good Citizens of America Hall of Fame" it's the "PRO FOOTBALL Hall of Fame" and fact is that few WR's in the history of the game were as good as Irvin. I don't really see an argument at all that stands to keep Irvin out of the Hall.
I did a little research, and this is what the HOF says in it's guidelines for selection:
"The only criteria for selection to the Pro Football Hall of Fame is a nominee's achievement and contribution as a player or coach or contributor."
You could read this as you do, as whatever happens on the field is important, everything else is not. Or you could look at the word "contribution". Was Irvin's drug use a positive or negative contribution to the NFL? What if Rae Carruth decided to off his pregnant girlfriend at the end of a HOF-type career instead of the beginning? Should he still get in? What if Mark Chmura had been found guilty of child molestation and he'd had a HOF-quality career?
I'm not saying Irvin's misdeeds were of that caliber, but I do think the argument that one's off-field behavior means nothing at all is a little simplistic. A player can harm the NFL by his behavior and that should be a factor.