• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is alcohol abuse a "disability"?

Is alcohol abuse a disability; do you agree or disagree with the EEOC?


  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
Predisposition to addiction does exist, but it doesn't excuse one's actions. For example, some people are predisposed to mental problems. That doesn't exclude them from the responsibility of helping themselves.

Which is why it is illegal to fire someone based on their potential to do wrong in the future. One's job should be determined based on performance balanced by a need to protect the publics safety. The driver in this case had not done anything wrong. In fact, there's been no evidence posted that indicates that he ever drove drunk or impaired in any way and he is seeking help.
 
Predisposition to addiction does exist, but it doesn't excuse one's actions. For example, some people are predisposed to mental problems. That doesn't exclude them from the responsibility of helping themselves.

I agree, with exception to predisposition not existing - many people get sober and function just fine however.
 
As a medical scientist I think that's a cop out opinion. Can you state why alcohol abuse is a disability?

Because it can be treated and cured with reasonable medical intervention.
 
Addiction is a physiological condition. Science has shown that addiction causes changes in the chemistry and structures of the brain

Addiction is self inflicted the vast majority of the time. This is not a disability. Addiction gives someone a craving or withdrawal symptoms, but it never forces someone to drink alcohol. The root of it is choice, not some disability that you are smitten with against your will.

Because it can be treated and cured with reasonable medical intervention.

That doesn't make it a disability. The "cure" lies in personal responsibility and actions, not in medications. There are medications to help with alcohol withdrawal symptoms, but they don't cure a behavioral problem.
 
Last edited:
That's why employers are not allowed to fire addicts. Your argument is based on the fallacy that the person can be fired. And the fact that many addicts have sought treatment at great cost to themselves indicates that addicts will seek treatment even if it costs them

I'm arguing that even reassigning the dude to a job that has a lower pay grade is a bad idea.
 
Which is why it is illegal to fire someone based on their potential to do wrong in the future. One's job should be determined based on performance balanced by a need to protect the publics safety. The driver in this case had not done anything wrong. In fact, there's been no evidence posted that indicates that he ever drove drunk or impaired in any way and he is seeking help.

And yet I still support this company's decision. Why take the chance at a loss of life? I have nightmares about my family dying in a horrific accident. And nightmares of what I would do to those responsible.
 
That doesn't make it a disability. The "cure" lies in personal responsibility and actions, not in medications. There are medications to help with alcohol withdrawal symptoms, but they don't cure a behavioral problem.

Cures and treatment are not always drugs. What is AA if not a socially based treatment? It uses peer pressure to create a stronger compulsion than the drinking. The same is true in rehab.
 
Cures and treatment are not always drugs. What is AA if not a socially based treatment? It uses peer pressure to create a stronger compulsion than the drinking. The same is true in rehab.

"Socially-based" isn't medicine though, as you said, it's peer-pressure. You don't need to belong to a group like AA to use peer-pressure. The reality is in this situation, being an alcoholic is unacceptable to the employer. I doubt this changed from the day said individual was hired. It was unacceptable on day one, it is still unacceptable on day whatever. Therefore it was up to the individual, knowing this, to stop being an alcoholic from day one. He didn't. Thus whose fault is it and why is it now incumbent on the employer to take up the slack for the employee's failure to solve his own problems in the first place?
 
I liked reading everyone's discussion of the issue and many good points made.

Ockham ... I looked at the case from the source ... and my point about Fox news using this case as thinly veiled story and opening it with "Obama is suing private company" was journalism malpractice as best. Why not use the source itself instead of an infotainment sources that adds absurd statements to manipulate their uneducated viewers that obama was going to tell them what to do ... in this case ... the people appointed when the law was enacted were appointed by Bush. Be clear though ... I am not pulling a Fox News stunt. I am simply pointing out their tactics that are a directive by the network to the people presenting. They are to directed to report events many can agree with and insert "obama caused this" into in order to get mindset of manipulation.

Alcoholism is a recognized disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and disability discrimination violates this federal law. The EEOC said that the company violated both the ADA and the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA) by conditioning reassignment to non-driving positions on the enrollment in an alcohol treatment program. In addition, the EEOC argued that Old Dominion’s policy that bans any driver who self-reports alcohol abuse from ever driving again also violates the ADA.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-16-11d.cfm

This is a fascinating case ... in two respects.

The first is the circumstances of the case and the self reporting driver and should he protected under the law? I could make a fair case either way ... yet I am leaning towards the employer should be able to make this call.

Next, that Fox news reports the story of this case decided on a 2008 law with appointees of the previous administration and opens their story with Obama sues! ... this leads me to beieve it is thinly veiled story as Fox had directive to presenters of stories to use Obama as the core fault on issues unrelated.

Suggestion ... why use a known tabloid infotainment station geared towards a 6th grade educated mind they can manipulate ... that takes stories with threads of truth and inserts semantics to skew the reality of the issue being discussed.

I linked the actual case ... including the year this act was put in place.
 
Last edited:
To argue that government agencies don't change their tactics because on the administration in power is a fallacious arguement. Of course they do. I've not searched to see if the current administration has had any input here but administrations certainly do have an impact of what will be addressed and how it will be.

Nobody would argue that INS doesn't act differently under Obama than they would under say, Ron Paul.
 
Being an alcoholic is a disability, irregardless of the fact that it's self-inflicted. You're still disabled if you cut off your own feet.

If it's self-inflicted then it shouldn't be up to ME or anyone else to help you out because of it. Ever hear of something called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?
 
It is a disability, but as with so many things from Faux News, there is much more to it than the story. It requires a bit of critical thinking, something you will not find that works well with Fox. The ADA - has anyone read the law? - mandates reasonable accommodation. I do not think that it is reasonable for a transportation company to routinely hire drug addicts and alcoholics as drivers. I don't believe that it is reasonable for a person who has a clear record of alcohol abuse to the point that it becomes a disability to expect to be hired as a freight hauler. What would be expected if a driver began to develop macular degeneration? Macular degeneration constitutes a disability. Would you honestly expect that person to drive? I wouldn't. It would be unreasonable.

The OP is exactly the kind of crap that Fox and uninformed Absolutists jump on. Alcoholism is a disability, however, the ADA does not mandate that alcoholics be permitted to have any job they want. That's bull**** and the ADA doesn't say that. It is reasonable to assume that deaf people not be given jobs as sonar operators, it is reasonable that blind people not be given jobs as air traffic controllers. It is reasonable that alcoholics not be given jobs as commercial drivers.

What Faux News has done - as usual - is stir the pot for people who are too willfully ignorant to analyze the information they are given and the way it is present, by Fox. The story here is actually about the fact that the guy was provided a lesser paying position. If that is all that is available then that is all there is. It is unreasonable for Old Dominion to create a position for the driver. That would be wrong.

I am an employer, I think Republican partisans now call that a "job creator". I have experience with EEOC and from first hand experience I can tell you that EEOC lawyers can be wrong and have been wrong. The ADA isn't a bad law and like good laws it is left to interpretation.
Great post, thanks.
 
They are disabilities, medically speaking. It's no different than if someone is depressed, bipolar, psychotic, etc. There is a loss of control and function, and support is required.

Your argument about morals is ignorant. Many alcoholics (the dependent kind) have pre-existing mental health conditions. It was not their morality which lead them to alcoholism but other factors.

I'm glad people like you do not write policy in this country.
Exactly, thank you for that
 
If it's self-inflicted then it shouldn't be up to ME or anyone else to help you out because of it. Ever hear of something called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

Who is proposing that anyone help out alcoholics? The policy is just that companies can't fire them for being alcoholics if they go into treatment and stay off the booze.
 
I liked reading everyone's discussion of the issue and many good points made.

Ockham ... I looked at the case from the source ... and my point about Fox news using this case as thinly veiled story and opening it with "Obama is suing private company" was journalism malpractice as best. Why not use the source itself instead of an infotainment sources that adds absurd statements to manipulate their uneducated viewers that obama was going to tell them what to do ... in this case ... the people appointed when the law was enacted were appointed by Bush. Be clear though ... I am not pulling a Fox News stunt. I am simply pointing out their tactics that are a directive by the network to the people presenting. They are to directed to report events many can agree with and insert "obama caused this" into in order to get mindset of manipulation.
I've already addressed this and while the statement is biased, it's also factual. I can see no fault in the facts as provided by Fox News. You may not like the source, but it is accurate. I'm not addressing tactics as they are irrelevant - I'm discussing the facts as they were written.

Second, the rules and definitions were changed within the last year --- that is per the Obama administrations guidelines to the EEOC, through the OIG and HHS..

This is a fascinating case ... in two respects.

The first is the circumstances of the case and the self reporting driver and should he protected under the law? I could make a fair case either way ... yet I am leaning towards the employer should be able to make this call.

Next, that Fox news reports the story of this case decided on a 2008 law with appointees of the previous administration and opens their story with Obama sues! ... this leads me to beieve it is thinly veiled story as Fox had directive to presenters of stories to use Obama as the core fault on issues unrelated.
I do believe the employer policy should stand in this case, and the Fox story identifies the Obama policies, which are pushed through his administration to his appointees. It's not only a fair assessment but an accurate one.

Suggestion ... why use a known tabloid infotainment station geared towards a 6th grade educated mind they can manipulate ... that takes stories with threads of truth and inserts semantics to skew the reality of the issue being discussed.
Why buy into liberal propaganda that has been manipulated for decades? I find the irony of calling out manipulation and mindless rhetoric with the opposite mindless rhetoric quite amusing. Here's another suggestion: Deal with the facts and discuss the topic. If you have specific evidence that is incorrect in the article, post it.

I linked the actual case ... including the year this act was put in place.
Certainly the EEOC is one side of the story... there are always two sides.
 
Who is proposing that anyone help out alcoholics? The policy is just that companies can't fire them for being alcoholics if they go into treatment and stay off the booze.

Keeping them emplyed IS helping them out.
 
Keeping them emplyed IS helping them out.

No, it isn't helping them, it's just not hurting them. It doesn't put the employer out any, since they only need to keep them employed if they really kick the booze for good.
 
One of the problems that arises from the law requiring a job reassignment is that jobs are usually not vacant and waiting for someone like this to fill them.

Many of the bleeding hearts here feel bad for the driver because he is being punished for his disability. Who here weeps for the warehouse worker for is bumped from his $40,000 per year job to the next lowest job which involves truck detailing and pays $30,000 per year? What has this person done to deserve a demotion? Can he go to the EEOC and demand that they fight to bring him justice?
 
No, it isn't helping them, it's just not hurting them. It doesn't put the employer out any, since they only need to keep them employed if they really kick the booze for good.

What?? Of course it puts the employer out. They have to put this worker into some job, which means either firing someone else (not likely - employers really don't like firing innocent people for something someone else has done) or creating a make-work job that they don't need just so that this employee can work.
 
What?? Of course it puts the employer out. They have to put this worker into some job, which means either firing someone else (not likely - employers really don't like firing innocent people for something someone else has done) or creating a make-work job that they don't need just so that this employee can work.

Huh? No, normally they would just keep them in their own job. But even in the unusual situation where there is such a serious safety concern with their current job that they wouldn't even let a recovered alcoholic hold it and they needed to move them into another job, then that opens up their current job, so it would just be shifting people around, not firing anybody...

How come no matter what the issue is, you always come out on the side of favoring corporations crushing human beings for no real reason? You're a human being, no? You just want things to be worse for everybody? You're some kind of anti-hero?
 
Last edited:
Huh? No, normally they would just keep them in their own job. But even in the unusual situation where there is such a serious safety concern with their current job that they wouldn't even let a recovered alcoholic hold it and they needed to move them into another job, then that opens up their current job, so it would just be shifting people around, not firing anybody...

What if they're not qualified to do another job? What if the only thing they are capable of doing is the job for which they are no longer qualified?
 
No, it isn't helping them, it's just not hurting them. It doesn't put the employer out any, since they only need to keep them employed if they really kick the booze for good.

I would suggest that it definitely does hurt them. It forces them to put an employee in a job they may not be qualified for, or to create a job for them which is not what they were initially hired to do. It also forces them to provide additional oversight to ensure the employee is doing the job, and not falling into their old ways.
 
I would suggest that it definitely does hurt them. It forces them to put an employee in a job they may not be qualified for, or to create a job for them which is not what they were initially hired to do. It also forces them to provide additional oversight to ensure the employee is doing the job, and not falling into their old ways.

If someone else would do the job better then the drinking doesn't even matter: someone else would be better . . . no debating.
 
Back
Top Bottom