I'm hoping you mean that ADVANCED alcoholism or addiction is a disability. I don't think there's any differentiation between true as opposed to false addiction. An addict is an addict, ya know?

But, yeah, I agree with Luftie and his crew. If alcoholism is a disability, give me a fucking placard so I can park in the handicapped spots! If I must carry that label, despite the fact that I'm probably more capable than most of my peers, can I please, for once, have a few benefits???

What I'm seeing, and disgustingly so, is the more news channels and talk radio that has become accessible to society, the lazier we truly are. Even the most vigilant are so fucking lazy, and I recognize the rhetoric and yelling....whether it be "liberal" or "right wing", nobody even bothers to read the actual legislation or Act or you know, document/findings that are at the root of all the yelling.

I refuse to even discuss any issues with anybody who is just regurgitating what some screaming head has told them they should believe. Even so-called activist college kids have gotten really lazy.

My daughter says she hates having dinner at her boyfriend's house, because his family cranks up Fox News, even at the dinner table, and lectures their children throughout dinner! (They still have a total bug up their ass about the Dixie Chicks lol).

Not to mention, leader of the Liberal democrats of Britain, was asked to stand down after he was found out to be an alcoholic.

The way they added in the word "past" for addiction was a bit unfair. If it certainly is in the past it should not affect your employment in the present unless you have to go the company luncheons where alcohol will be served or some real risk in your employment. Like working in a vineyard....but I highly doubt that is the job youve applied for.

Why is it called a "disorder" then?

I have no idea, here in The Netherlands it is not seen as a disorder per se, but as a disease, but I guess it could be seen as one.
But in my own view, a disease is something that can be muffled with medication, be it painkillers or something else.
A disorder or disability/handicap is something that can't be helped with medication.
But a disorder is still not a disability.
If it worked that way, people with OCDs have a disability too.

I don't think that's right. I'm pretty sure a disease is something that can be contracted physically, the result of a biological problem or whatever, whereas a disorder is a psychological condition. Disorder implies something functions incorrectly, whereas a disease would be something which causes that dysfunction, maybe. I might be wrong there, but I'm pretty sure ADHD wouldn't qualify as a disease.

We need a doctor to resolve this, I think.

Actually, your reasoning makes a lot of sense.
I never really thought about it that way.
But I still think a disorder isn't a handicap per se.

It'll be on Wikipedia or something, but I'm pretty sure a disease is something you catch. I mean, I never really looked into it, but that's always what it's meant. That's why stuff like the AA describing alcoholism as a disease sounds so retarded.

Random fact: vBulletin does that automatically when a person types an entire post in caps. The only exception is where the person quotes a post written in lower case.


I think it's fair that disabled people should be considered equally for a job provided they have the mental and physical ability to carry it out, and are qualified to the same level.

I don't think a former drug or alcohol addict really qualifies as a disabled person, although if that person has experienced long-term or permanent effects of their addiction then they may well be disabled to some extent. But former addiction wouldn't be the disability in itself, the consequences of the former addiction would be. Obviously that can vary from person to person.

But I see lufty has missed the point. If you're testing positive for a drug, you're clearly either a drug user or someone who has used drugs fairly recently. In that case, you would be subject to the same treatment as any drug user might be when seeking a job. You're not quite recovered, in fact you probably wouldn't even be considered 'recovering' (the impression I'm under is that most drugs generally leave the system within a month, apart from cannabis).

I think all this legislation seeks to ensure is that a former addict, provided they are able, will receive equal consideration for a position. Therefore, they will not be turned down for a job on the basis of their former addiction. The wording of the legislation (I've not read it, I'll assume lufty hasn't skewed it too much) seems a bit wacky, but the intent of it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

__________________
Deux hommes font une promenade amicale. L'un des deux porte un parapluie à son bras.
Il se met à pleuvoir. L'homme n'ouvre pas son parapluie et l'autre lui demande pourquoi.
- Parce que ça ne servirait à rien, lui répond son ami. Il est plein de trous.
- Alors, pourquoi l'as-tu pris?
- Parce que je ne pensais pas qu'il pleuvrait.

I'm so disappointed.
But I thought for sure I'd seen posts in all caps?
Now I have to try it.

DAMNIT IT'S TRUE!