• 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?

  • I agree alcohol abuse is a disability, I agree with the EEOC position

    Votes: 4 10.8%

  • I agree alcohol abuse is a disability, I disagree with the EEOC position

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • I disagree that alcohol abuse is a disability, I agree with the EEOC position

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • I disagree that alcohol abuse is a disability, I disagree with the EEOC position

    Votes: 20 54.1%

  • Rutabega

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Other (Explain please)

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
sangha said:
That makes no sense. The only "protection" gained by being disabled is protection from being fired (or discriminated against) for being disabled. If one is not actually disabled, what need is there to be protected against being fired/discriminated against for being disabled?

And no one gets any money from the govt simply for being disabled unless they can show serious impairment.
Click to expand...

"You're fired because you're late again"

"You can't fire me. I'm an alcoholic and it's the alcoholism that is making me constantly late for work. That's a disability! I need help."

Is the worker really an alcoholic or not? As of right now though he qualifies as being disabled as it seems to be indicated on this thread. So how do you disprove it to get rid of a worker who's lazy and wants to cover it up with "alcoholism"? It's sort of like a back injury (or at least how they used to be, not up on all the current medical tech) where it was hard to disprove. Can you fire them if they don't seek treatment or are they still considered not fire-able?
 
maquiscat said:
"You're fired because you're late again"

"You can't fire me. I'm an alcoholic and it's the alcoholism that is making me constantly late for work. That's a disability! I need help."

Is the worker really an alcoholic or not? As of right now though he qualifies as being disabled as it seems to be indicated on this thread. So how do you disprove it to get rid of a worker who's lazy and wants to cover it up with "alcoholism"? It's sort of like a back injury (or at least how they used to be, not up on all the current medical tech) where it was hard to disprove. Can you fire them if they don't seek treatment or are they still considered not fire-able?
Click to expand...

You can't. He has a disability.
 
maquiscat said:
"You're fired because you're late again"

"You can't fire me. I'm an alcoholic and it's the alcoholism that is making me constantly late for work. That's a disability! I need help."

Is the worker really an alcoholic or not? As of right now though he qualifies as being disabled as it seems to be indicated on this thread. So how do you disprove it to get rid of a worker who's lazy and wants to cover it up with "alcoholism"? It's sort of like a back injury (or at least how they used to be, not up on all the current medical tech) where it was hard to disprove. Can you fire them if they don't seek treatment or are they still considered not fire-able?
Click to expand...
\

Alcoholism can be identified, diagnosed and treated.

Laziness cannot.

NEXT!
 
evanescence said:
You can't. He has a disability.
Click to expand...

A little more detail please and read the whole scenario. I have very specific questions and you gave a very generalized answer.
 
maquiscat said:
"You're fired because you're late again"

"You can't fire me. I'm an alcoholic and it's the alcoholism that is making me constantly late for work. That's a disability! I need help."

Is the worker really an alcoholic or not? As of right now though he qualifies as being disabled as it seems to be indicated on this thread. So how do you disprove it to get rid of a worker who's lazy and wants to cover it up with "alcoholism"? It's sort of like a back injury (or at least how they used to be, not up on all the current medical tech) where it was hard to disprove. Can you fire them if they don't seek treatment or are they still considered not fire-able?
Click to expand...

Alcoholics can be fired for being late whether they are seeking treatment or not
 
If someone smokes pot over a long period of time and their memory fades, doe he recieve the same benefits as a man who knowingly drank alcohol and became an alcoholic?
 
I don't think I've weighed in on this yet, so here's my basic thinking (and I haven't read through the thread, so some of this may be repetitive):

Alcoholism is a disease, and is, therefore, probably validly considered a disability generally. I've known a few serious alcoholics; one of my best friends manages an SRO in Portland, and he's told me some extremely horrifying stories about what prolonged alcoholism can do to a person. So there's that.

On the other hand, the guy's a f-ing truck driver. I'm going to make an analogy to anti-discrimination laws. Generally speaking, employers aren't allowed to discriminate based on race, sex, age, etc. However, there are established, Constitutionally acceptable exceptions to such laws in situations where the nature of the employment demands some form of discrimination for practical reasons. For instance, a battered women's shelter probably wouldn't be required to accept a male janitor as an employee, because the nature of the work that they do demands a male-free environment.

So if you apply that reasoning to this situation, I don't think it's remotely out of line for the company to refuse to allow this guy to continue driving trucks, because that's a dangerous activity in which one absolutely should not be drinking on the job (and don't even get me started on the liability issue). So for practical reasons, there should be exceptions to the ADA for situations like this one. However, the demotion might have been out of line and/or retaliatory in nature and is, therefore, potentially a legitimate problem.
 
These days, more and more irresponsible and/or deviate behaviors are considered a disability; that is unless doing so is considered politically incorrect. So why bother being responsible for anything? I have severe depression and anxiety problems. I must be disabled, too. Perhaps I am no longer responsible for my actions, either. Where's my tax payer subsidized check? Where's my protection from being fired? As I said, a disability can result from drinking, but I am still not convinced that drinking itself is a disability. I do agree that people with mental problems self medicate, so the most I will concede thus far is that alcoholism could be considered a co morbid disorder.
 
Wake said:
If someone smokes pot over a long period of time and their memory fades, doe he recieve the same benefits as a man who knowingly drank alcohol and became an alcoholic?
Click to expand...

AFAIK, marijuana use does not cause any impairment to long-term memory, but then again, I might have read that it does and forgot about it
 
Last edited:
Aderleth said:
I don't think I've weighed in on this yet, so here's my basic thinking (and I haven't read through the thread, so some of this may be repetitive):

Alcoholism is a disease, and is, therefore, probably validly considered a disability generally. I've known a few serious alcoholics; one of my best friends manages an SRO in Portland, and he's told me some extremely horrifying stories about what prolonged alcoholism can do to a person. So there's that.

On the other hand, the guy's a f-ing truck driver. I'm going to make an analogy to anti-discrimination laws. Generally speaking, employers aren't allowed to discriminate based on race, sex, age, etc. However, there are established, Constitutionally acceptable exceptions to such laws in situations where the nature of the employment demands some form of discrimination for practical reasons. For instance, a battered women's shelter probably wouldn't be required to accept a male janitor as an employee, because the nature of the work that they do demands a male-free environment.

So if you apply that reasoning to this situation, I don't think it's remotely out of line for the company to refuse to allow this guy to continue driving trucks, because that's a dangerous activity in which one absolutely should not be drinking on the job (and don't even get me started on the liability issue). So for practical reasons, there should be exceptions to the ADA for situations like this one. However, the demotion might have been out of line and/or retaliatory in nature and is, therefore, potentially a legitimate problem.
Click to expand...

FYI: The ADA allows employers to re-assign employees for safety reasons. In this case, the issue is the demotion which, as you point out, could be potentially retaliatory or "out of line"
 
sangha said:
FYI: The ADA allows employers to re-assign employees for safety reasons. In this case, the issue is the demotion which, as you point out, could be potentially retaliatory or "out of line"
Click to expand...

I thought they did, but I wasn't sure. I never took employment law.
 
sangha said:
FYI: The ADA allows employers to re-assign employees for safety reasons. In this case, the issue is the demotion which, as you point out, could be potentially retaliatory or "out of line"
Click to expand...

So what would be the company's options? They can't fire the guy, and if they give him another position he doesn't like, he can bitch about it being "retaliatory."
 
sangha said:
AFAIK, marijuana use does not cause any impairment to long-term memory, but then again, I might have read that it does and forgot about it
Click to expand...
Based on my knowledge discoursing marijuana, it does impair the memory after long-term use. Tomorrow if I'm using my laptop I can post some links. Don't take my word for it.
 
Wake said:
Based on my knowledge discoursing marijuana, it does impair the memory after long-term use. Tomorrow if I'm using my laptop I can post some links. Don't take my word for it.
Click to expand...

Someone would have to smoke a lot of weed for it to impair long term memory. It's extremely unlikely.
 
evanescence said:
Someone would have to smoke a lot of weed for it to impair long term memory. It's extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...
Unless, of course, I'm repeating something. Repeating a phrase that is very, very important. What important phrase in this discussion am I repeating? Long term memory? No. Long term use? Yes.
 
Alcoholism is an excuse to come into work late, because would you rather have them come into work drunk and put themselves or others in danger?
 
evanescence said:
Someone would have to smoke a lot of weed for it to impair long term memory. It's extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct. It is short term memory that weed impairs.
 
Wake said:
Unless, of course, I'm repeating something. Repeating a phrase that is very, very important. What important phrase in this discussion am I repeating? Long term memory? No. Long term use? Yes.
Click to expand...

no, it doesn't.

Fleshofthegods said:
Alcoholism is an excuse to come into work late, because would you rather have them come into work drunk and put themselves or others in danger?
Click to expand...

It'd rather them not come in at all.
 
evanescence said:
So what would be the company's options? They can't fire the guy, and if they give him another position he doesn't like, he can bitch about it being "retaliatory."
Click to expand...

*yawn*

If they gave him a job with equal pay, there would be no case. The issue here seems to be if his being given a lower-paying job is a form of retaliation or is it a "reasonable accomodation"

It has nothing to do with whether he likes the job. That is a straw man.
 
Wake said:
Based on my knowledge discoursing marijuana, it does impair the memory after long-term use. Tomorrow if I'm using my laptop I can post some links. Don't take my word for it.
Click to expand...

Oy vey!

Do you realize that "impairing memory after long term use" is not the same as "impairing long-term memory"?

Long term use of pot can cause problems with short-term memory
 
Last edited:
Fleshofthegods said:
Alcoholism is an excuse to come into work late, because would you rather have them come into work drunk and put themselves or others in danger?
Click to expand...

The ADA does not protect poor work performance. Even the disabled can be fired for poor performance. The ADA prohibits firing somone simply because they are disabled
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Oy vey!

Do you realize that "impairing memory after long term use" is not the same as "impairing long-term memory"?
Click to expand...

Quote me where I said "long-term memory."
 
sangha said:
*yawn*

If they gave him a job with equal pay, there would be no case. The issue here seems to be if his being given a lower-paying job is a form of retaliation or is it a "reasonable accomodation"

It has nothing to do with whether he likes the job. That is a straw man.
Click to expand...

What if the only job available was on a lower pay scale?
 
Wake said:
Quote me where I said "long-term memory."
Click to expand...

You've been unclear. You said that long-term use of pot causes "memory to fade" It doesn't. It causes a deterioration in the ability to form new memories. Your claim about fading memories implies an effect on long-term memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom