Addictions

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
I am predisposed to having an addictive personality. As most of you have stated, addictions still require a choice and I have noticed that when I really want to, I can say no and I have in many areas of my life. I struggled with alcohol for seveal years. Now I don't drink. I also have stopped smoking cigs (but I can't resist burning a bud now and then). So even though I do have an addictive personality, you guys are right - I make the final choice and if one keeps that in the front of their minds, saying "no" is much easier.

Anyway, my follow on question was should addictions be covered under the ADA?

ADA=dissabilities=handicap=no.

some will argue that if thier additction resulted in permanent damage - i.e. wet brain, then that person would be disabled. To that extent then yes, because that persons addiction went almost to the end. But to the extent that it is a choice, then no.

That is a tough one and will create much debate I imagine.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
ADA=dissabilities=handicap=no.

some will argue that if thier additction resulted in permanent damage - i.e. wet brain, then that person would be disabled. To that extent then yes, because that persons addiction went almost to the end. But to the extent that it is a choice, then no.

That is a tough one and will create much debate I imagine.

I agree with you. But I do know that courts have ruled that companies MUST employ methodone users (heroin addicts), extremely overweight people, etc. and accomodate them because they have a "handicap". My point is that if that is the case, then shouldn't smokers be able to sue for the right to have a smoking lounge in an airport? Or a place to eat a meal and smoke a cig? I mean, isn't the concept of the ADA to force companies to accomodate the "handicapped" whether you employ them or not? (I mean, c'mon, I find it hillarious that they have 50 handicap parking spaces in front of the gym where I work out).

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
I agree with you. But I do know that courts have ruled that companies MUST employ methodone users (heroin addicts), extremely overweight people, etc. and accomodate them because they have a "handicap". My point is that if that is the case, then shouldn't smokers be able to sue for the right to have a smoking lounge in an airport? Or a place to eat a meal and smoke a cig? I mean, isn't the concept of the ADA to force companies to accomodate the "handicapped" whether you employ them or not? (I mean, c'mon, I find it hillarious that they have 50 handicap parking spaces in front of the gym where I work out).

Part of the ADA is PC run amok. Your gym is a prime example. If you want a better one, next time you go to the drive through ATM, check out the braile instructions. As a motorcycle rider, I believe I have come across some blind drivers, but do not think they need braile at the ATM.

Your point is well taken, but stupid (not your fault) because of the system and liberalness. The ACT has made it easy for people to duck responsibility for their own behavior. Smoking is not a disability in itself, but the diseases that may be caused by smoking is. Same with alcohol and substance abuse. The conservative hard ass in me wants to say screw them, they knew their behavior was risky when the did it. My christian side wants to say, gee, we need to help these people. After all, I am in recovery and have recently quit smoking.

This is a tough one and that is becasue the original intent of the ACT has been so perverted, I do not think we will ever be able to reign it in.