• 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 .
Joseph Hazelwood had a drinking problem. He went to rehab for his alcoholism. Once out of rehab his employer granted him 90 days of leave to attend Alcoholics Anonymous.

Sometime after he returned to his job he caused an accident. There were some lawsuits. He was fined $50,000 for his part in the accident. His employer was hit with $3,500,000,000 in damages.

Exxon learned a lesson and so did every other employer.

Absolutely. If this company has a driver while drunk cause an accident it's going to be bad. If someone they know is an alcoholic gets drunk and causes an accident every lawyer from miles around will pile on.

Unless the EEOC wants to grant this company immunity from such actions, they need to drop this position.
 
Absolutely. If this company has a driver while drunk cause an accident it's going to be bad. If someone they know is an alcoholic gets drunk and causes an accident every lawyer from miles around will pile on.

Unless the EEOC wants to grant this company immunity from such actions, they need to drop this position.

You are absolutley correct...which makes me believe there has to be more to this for the govt to be suing...I dont believe once a commerical driver is a caught drunk and admits to being an alcoholic that any Commericial insurer will INSURE them to go back on the road...
 
You are absolutley correct...which makes me believe there has to be more to this for the govt to be suing...I dont believe once a commerical driver is a caught drunk and admits to being an alcoholic that any Commericial insurer will INSURE them to go back on the road...

That's very true. At a company I used to work for, drivers had to sign a contract before being hired that said that if they got more than one speeding ticket in a year or if they ever got a drunk driving conviction, they would be summarily terminated. Their insurance company would not insure drivers that had bad driving records, regardless. There were several drivers who were out of a job because of it.
 
This company policy is actually quite dangerous. Since the issue isn't that the self-reporting drunk won't be allowed to drive, but that they'll be demoted and handed a lower-paying position in exchange for their honesty and their struggle against their addiction, this creates incentive for alcoholics to stay in the closet -- which keeps them on the road, and endangers the rest of us.

Just some food for thought.

True, but by the point an addict seeks treatment, they have usually realized how much their addiction is costing them. That's why they're seeking treatment!

Given their recognition of the harm their condition has done, I think that most would realize that the benefits of sobriety are worth the costs of demotion, whereas a complete loss of their job might be too much.
 
You are absolutley correct...which makes me believe there has to be more to this for the govt to be suing...I dont believe once a commerical driver is a caught drunk and admits to being an alcoholic that any Commericial insurer will INSURE them to go back on the road...

1) It's the EEOC that is suing and that's because, under the law, it's the EEOC that gets first crack at the case. As a result, most disability cases under the ADA are filed by the EEOC.

2) The company can re-assign people with a disability to another job. It's called a "reasonable accomodation". In this case, the employer can re-assign the alcoholic to a non-driving job.
 
That's very true. At a company I used to work for, drivers had to sign a contract before being hired that said that if they got more than one speeding ticket in a year or if they ever got a drunk driving conviction, they would be summarily terminated. Their insurance company would not insure drivers that had bad driving records, regardless. There were several drivers who were out of a job because of it.

Neither of those are the same as having a disability. The person suing in this case was not demoted for getting a ticket or being convicted of anything. They were demoted for having a condition. There's a difference.
 
True, but by the point an addict seeks treatment, they have usually realized how much their addiction is costing them. That's why they're seeking treatment!

Given their recognition of the harm their condition has done, I think that most would realize that the benefits of sobriety are worth the costs of demotion, whereas a complete loss of their job might be too much.

I sincerely doubt it. When your choices are to either keep your yap shut and keep the job you have or be honest and be punished it, most people will opt to keep their yap shut.
 
I sincerely doubt it. When your choices are to either keep your yap shut and keep the job you have or be honest and be punished it, most people will opt to keep their yap shut.

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
 
1) It's the EEOC that is suing and that's because, under the law, it's the EEOC that gets first crack at the case. As a result, most disability cases under the ADA are filed by the EEOC.

2) The company can re-assign people with a disability to another job. It's called a "reasonable accomodation". In this case, the employer can re-assign the alcoholic to a non-driving job.

I'm sorry, the company owes this guy a job why again?
 
I'm sorry, the company owes this guy a job why again?

I'm sorry, but you think employers should be able to fire people simply because they have a disability and not because they have failed to do their job?

Should employers be able to fire someone because they got sick? Should employers be able to fire people who have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism (ie they have an alcoholic parent?).
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but you think employers should be able to fire people simply because they have a disability and not because they have failed to do their job?

Should employers be able to fire someone because they got sick? Should employers be able to fire people who have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism (ie they have an alcoholic parent?).

Alcohol abuse is not a disability.
 
You are absolutley correct...which makes me believe there has to be more to this for the govt to be suing...I dont believe once a commerical driver is a caught drunk and admits to being an alcoholic that any Commericial insurer will INSURE them to go back on the road...

Unfortunately with (I'm making this number up as I can not prove it. LOL) likely 90% of the things posted have more to them than is presented. It's always good when one can find what is missing and post it.
 
Under the law, it is

Then our laws are flawed. Being an alcohol is a lifestyle problem and a character flaw, not a "disability." My great uncle didn't die from his alcohol disability, he died from his rampant alcoholism that destroyed his body. Calling it a disability is a cop out for responsibility and holding individuals responsible for their lifestyle/choices.
 
So you don't mind sharing the road with an alcoholic truck driver?

Maybe you should read what I've posted:

1) It's the EEOC that is suing and that's because, under the law, it's the EEOC that gets first crack at the case. As a result, most disability cases under the ADA are filed by the EEOC.

2) The company can re-assign people with a disability to another job. It's called a "reasonable accomodation". In this case, the employer can re-assign the alcoholic to a non-driving job.
 
Then our laws are flawed. Being an alcohol is a lifestyle problem and a character flaw, not a "disability." My great uncle didn't die from his alcohol disability, he died from his rampant alcoholism that destroyed his body. Calling it a disability is a cop out for responsibility and holding individuals responsible for their lifestyle/choices.
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.
 
Medical science disagrees with your opinion

As a medical scientist I think that's a cop out opinion. Can you state why alcohol abuse is a disability?
 
So you don't mind sharing the road with an alcoholic truck driver?

Drivers on Meth too. Yikes. I think if a person breaks the law and puts human life at risk then tough luck. 'Predisposition' has nothing to do with it. But I'm not against employers putting addicts through treatment, once, and giving them a second chance. With exception to DUI.
 
Drivers on Meth too. Yikes. I think if a person breaks the law and puts human life at risk then tough luck. 'Predisposition' has nothing to do with it. But I'm not against employers putting addicts through treatment, once, and giving them a second chance. With exception to DUI.

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.
 
As a medical scientist I think that's a cop out opinion. Can you state why alcohol abuse is a disability?

Addiction is a physiological condition. Science has shown that addiction causes changes in the chemistry and structures of the brain
 
Back
Top Bottom