• 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 .
Mathematician said:
Let's refine that to those who abuse their bodies in a way that may affect their job performance. Similar to the alcoholic having a driving job, I often wonder why you see so many fat security guards. I'd rather them be paid to work out under supervision several hours a week than be so fat they couldn't catch a criminal/troublemaker.
Click to expand...

I'll repeat - the ADA has safety exceptions that allow employers to re-assign workers into jobs where they dont endanger the public. In this specific case, the ADS allows the employer to re-assign the driver into a position that does not require driving.
 
sangha said:
I'll repeat - the ADA has safety exceptions that allow employers to re-assign workers into jobs where they dont endanger the public. In this specific case, the ADS allows the employer to re-assign the driver into a position that does not require driving.
Click to expand...

That may or may not be possible for the employer. There may be no jobs which they are qualified for, or the ones they qualify for are filled. If I hire someone as a driver and I find they're no longer qualified for that position, I shouldn't be obligated to find them a new position. Furthermore, if they're going to be moved to a new position with lower standard pay, they can either take the lower salary or choose to go find a new job.
 
Mathematician said:
That may or may not be possible for the employer. There may be no jobs which they are qualified for, or the ones they qualify for are filled. If I hire someone as a driver and I find they're no longer qualified for that position, I shouldn't be obligated to find them a new position. Furthermore, if they're going to be moved to a new position with lower standard pay, they can either take the lower salary or choose to go find a new job.
Click to expand...

Read the article!

The employer DOES have a job for the driver
 
Mathematician said:
I don't need to read the article, because I'm speaking in general.
Click to expand...

The ADA doesn't apply to small businesses. Businesses with more than 50 employees tend to have more than one type of job to offer employees, and jobs tend to open up regularly. There's turnover.

Also, the ADA only requires reasonable accomodations, not accomodations to every fictional circumstance it's opponents can dream up
 
evanescence said:
"reasonable" accommodations is subjective. Lots of room for interpretations.
Click to expand...

No it's not. This is just another case of you making up definitions to suit your argument, just as you attempted to re-define the word "disability" to mean something the disabled person had no fault in creating with their choices, a daffynition you dropped when I pointed out all the diseases (heart disease, diabetes, etc) that a persons' choices affect
 
sangha said:
No it's not. This is just another case of you making up definitions to suit your argument, just as you attempted to re-define the word "disability" to mean something the disabled person had no fault in creating with their choices, a daffynition you dropped when I pointed out all the diseases (heart disease, diabetes, etc) that a persons' choices affect
Click to expand...

Yes it is. And I haven't made up definitions here or in any other thread. Please don't lie or misrepresent my actions. I also haven't "dropped anything." :roll:

"Reasonable accommodations" can be interpreted in a number of ways by either the employer or the employee.
 
evanescence said:
Yes it is. And I haven't made up definitions here or in any other thread. Please don't lie or misrepresent my actions. I also haven't "dropped anything." :roll:

"Reasonable accommodations" can be interpreted in a number of ways by either the employer or the employee.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Just because the Commission (Committee, whatever) declares a given action reasonable or unreasonable, does not mean that it is or isn't. That simply becomes the EEOC's interpretation. Granted it's an interpretation that has the weight of law behind it, but it's still just an interpretation. If both the driver and the employer felt that what the employer had done was alright because anything else was beyond reasonable, then the EEOC would never even get involved because the two interpretations matched, even though they did not match the EEOC's.
 
evanescence said:
Yes it is. And I haven't made up definitions here or in any other thread. Please don't lie or misrepresent my actions. I also haven't "dropped anything." :roll:
Click to expand...

Sure you have. YOu have claimed that disability does not apply to any condition that results from the individuals choices

evanescence said:
Just because disability has been redefined to protect people who have done harm to themselves doesn't mean they are actually disabled. And even if an alcoholic is really disabled, he or she still shouldn't be able to operate heavy machinery which would put the public in danger.
Click to expand...

The truth is, it's you who has re-defined the word. The dictionary uses the same definition as the law does, and neither says anything about people who have done harm to themselves. You just made that part up.

"Reasonable accommodations" can be interpreted in a number of ways by either the employer or the employee.
Click to expand...

Any word can be interpeted in a number of ways. Just look at how you made up your own interpretation of the word "disability". However, the fact is that the law determines what a "reasonable accomodation" is and the law doesn't care how you, or the employer, or the employee interprets it
 
sangha said:
Sure you have. YOu have claimed that disability does not apply to any condition that results from the individuals choices



The truth is, it's you who has re-defined the word. The dictionary uses the same definition as the law does, and neither says anything about people who have done harm to themselves. You just made that part up.



Any word can be interpeted in a number of ways. Just look at how you made up your own interpretation of the word "disability". However, the fact is that the law determines what a "reasonable accomodation" is and the law doesn't care how you, or the employer, or the employee interprets it
Click to expand...

My claim was that even though a disability can result from certain actions such as drinking too much, the decision to drink itself is not a disability. Therefore, alcoholics are not disabled. Get it?
 
evanescence said:
My claim was that even though a disability can result from certain actions such as drinking too much, the decision to drink itself is not a disability. Therefore, alcoholics are not disabled. Get it?
Click to expand...

Maybe that's what you meant, but that is not what you said. However, since you are now backing off from your former claim, I will accept that you realize that you mispoke

Just because disability has been redefined to protect people who have done harm to themselves doesn't mean they are actually disabled
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
Maybe that's what you meant, but that is not what you said. However, since you are now backing off from your former claim, I will accept that you realize that you mispoke
Click to expand...

I have admitted no such thing, and neither does that statement contradict the point i just made. Try again.
 
evanescence said:
I have admitted no such thing, and neither does that statement contradict the point i just made. Try again.
Click to expand...

It's what you said. Nice try at denying it

Just because disability has been redefined to protect people who have done harm to themselves doesn't mean they are actually disabled
Click to expand...
 
evanescence said:
My claim was that even though a disability can result from certain actions such as drinking too much, the decision to drink itself is not a disability. Therefore, alcoholics are not disabled. Get it?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately though, substance abuse/dependance is actually a disorder in itself. Often times people start using substances to self-medicate for existing mental health disorders; once they have used too many times they become dependent on the substance; this dependence is often not something that can be treated without intervention in most who have the disorder. Thus, most diagnosed with a substance abuse/dependence disorder have both the substance disorder and another co-morbid mental disorder. Additionally, substances often due not work well for self medication and use can often lead to legal problems. Therefore, long term substance abuse can exacerbate current symptoms and add new ones.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Unfortunately though, substance abuse/dependance is actually a disorder in itself. Often times people start using substances to self-medicate for existing mental health disorders; once they have used too many times they become dependent on the substance; this dependence is often not something that can be treated without intervention in most who have the disorder. Thus, most diagnosed with a substance abuse/dependence disorder have both the substance disorder and another co-morbid mental disorder. Additionally, substances often due not work well for self medication and use can often lead to legal problems. Therefore, long term substance abuse can exacerbate current symptoms and add new ones.
Click to expand...

That's true, and I can relate that point. But the mental disorder would be the primary disorder. If substance abuse is a disorder, it would be the co-morbid disorder. It's a behavior based on a mental disorder.
 
evanescence said:
That's true, and I can relate that point. But the mental disorder would be the primary disorder. If substance abuse is a disorder, it would be the co-morbid disorder. It's a behavior based on a mental disorder.
Click to expand...

Many therapists argue that all substance users have mental disorders - additionally, overuse of a substance can actually create a disorder itself!
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Many therapists argue that all substance users have mental disorders - additionally, overuse of a substance can actually create a disorder itself!
Click to expand...

I'd have to see a link. I have a good understanding of mental disorders, and I can relate to self medicating. I will concede that drinking and/or drug use can be (but not always) a co-morbid disorder.
 
evanescence said:
I'd have to see a link. I have a good understanding of mental disorders, and I can relate to self medicating. I will concede that drinking and/or drug use can be (but not always) a co-morbid disorder.
Click to expand...

OK, I can look for a source for you .. it should be noted that anyone who uses drugs to the point of abuse and that use significantly damages their ability to function, those people are considered to have a mental disorder, they are classified under "substance disorders" in the DSM - also the overwhelming majority of known drug users have co-morbid disorders .. I learned this in a class called "treating substance disorders" in graduate school. Remind me to show you a link if I forget
 
I think one of the main problems with this, and there are similar ones for a lot of other issues like entitlement programs, is how do you disprove it? Not to say that the disorder doesn't exist. Rather how do you go about showing someone actually doesn't have the disorder and is claiming it to claim the subsequent protections? The frustration I have seen from most people in my experience is not that some people actually need help and need protections when honestly trying to get them, but over those who game the system. And those latter seem to be more and more every day leaving the truly needy still needing.
 
maquiscat said:
I think one of the main problems with this, and there are similar ones for a lot of other issues like entitlement programs, is how do you disprove it? Not to say that the disorder doesn't exist. Rather how do you go about showing someone actually doesn't have the disorder and is claiming it to claim the subsequent protections? The frustration I have seen from most people in my experience is not that some people actually need help and need protections when honestly trying to get them, but over those who game the system. And those latter seem to be more and more every day leaving the truly needy still needing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
OK, I can look for a source for you .. it should be noted that anyone who uses drugs to the point of abuse and that use significantly damages their ability to function, those people are considered to have a mental disorder, they are classified under "substance disorders" in the DSM - also the overwhelming majority of known drug users have co-morbid disorders .. I learned this in a class called "treating substance disorders" in graduate school. Remind me to show you a link if I forget
Click to expand...

Thanks. :)
 
Alcoholism is a disease (a self-inflicted one at that). It deserves to be treated like any other mental disoder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom