When did Alcoholism become a disability?

[Obev]

I suppose people who have Type 2 Diabetes should be left to fend for themselves too, right? After all, if they hadn't of coped out and lived such an unhealthy life, they might not have gotten sick in the first place. (Sarcasm)

I don't see the sarcasm here; having the "good" diabetes since the age of 10 through no fault of my own, it makes me feel violent impulses when morons screw their own pancreatic processes up by eating too much delicious cake.* I suppose I feel the same dislike for alcoholics who really only have themselves to blame for their "disability." Like you've said, I too don't condone overconsumption of either, but unlike you, I'll certainly condemn the fuckers for it. It's their own bloody fault, so they can bloody deal with it, ungrateful fatso drunkards that they are. This is probably because I'm a naturally hateful cunt though.


*See: Good AIDS vs. bad AIDS, courtesy of Brass Eye.

[archibaldcrane]

*See: Good AIDS vs. bad AIDS, courtesy of Brass Eye.

Holy shit rofl.

[archibaldcrane]

If it were my company I'd put all sorts of things like drug addict, alcoholic, and any other type I didn't want to hire in the disabilities category. That way I can ask it without getting in trouble and not hire them cause they're alcoholics.

You...do realize of course that this is illegal - choosing to not hire someone because of their disability...is illegal.

Everyone understands this right? The only real "protection" that this being labeled as a disability grants them is preventing employers from discrimination and forces employers to allow an alcoholic to receive time off for treatment if they are in an alcohol recovery program.

It doesn't mean they can drink at work, that they can show up hungover without persecution, call in drunk, or any of that.

Just wanted to make that clear.

[Cesaria]

My biological father is an alcoholic, currently in the process of finishing up drinking himself to death. One of my grandparents on my mother's side also was an alcoholic who did this - to the extent that they scattered his ashes when he died at the place where he spent most of his time - the site of his old bar.

They made the choice to do that - screw them, they chose to flush their life down the drain, and the fact that somewhere out there my biological dad is a fat, semi-blind freak getting off his face on lager doesn't generally bother me - they're both family members I've had very very little to do with in my life.

I find it hard to believe that there probably isn't some demon in my genes though because of having this on both sides. My entire family is, well not the healthiest psychological mix in the world - and I know I have a personality that tends towards the somewhat addictive and obsessional. I just made the choice not to go down the same road as the loser crew did - and I watch what I drink like a hawk (I drink rarely - usually a couple of times a month, more over periods like Xmas and the like). Yes, I'm probably hooked on certain things - like a certain MMORPG but I try to really keep it under check and not let it take over times when I should be working for example.

I no doubt have the same genes that my family members had - but they made their choices which led to their alcoholism.

[Einherjar]

Yes it's illegal, but it was on a job application, and luckily you don't need to tell an applicant why they failed, you simply hire another person instead.

[Alleya]

The case against alcoholics in this thread seems to be a fantastic study in fundamental attribution error. Literally billions of people choose to drink every day, a good percentage for the very first time. Not all of them become alcoholics, just like not everyone who tries heroin becomes a dope fiend. I fail to see how people can fully attribute alcoholism to personal choice and flat out ignore the chemical/biological/social processes involved. There is no conceivable argument against trying and/or enjoying alcohol. Not only is it 100+% socially acceptable (encouraged, in many circles), but there are far fewer health risks involved than other mind-altering substances. No one here or anywhere is immune to the chemical alterations caused by alcohol. The reasons people become alcoholics are multitude, vast, and complex. You cannot simply say "this person was weak and made poor choices, so they became an alcoholic." You give yourself too much goddamn credit when you do, and you remove all doubt of your ignorance.

This same problem comes up in any discussion of addiction. I think most people who think this way have never had to deal with it themselves. You'd have a lot more tolerance and see much more clearly why someone would call it a disability once you've been there.

[Xavier]

Nice call on the "fundamental attribution error", thats exactly what I'm seeing too.

[Dalmbraast]

Yes it's illegal, but it was on a job application, and luckily you don't need to tell an applicant why they failed, you simply hire another person instead.

Until they get a lawyer. If any company was foolish enough to put those kinds of things on their application forms, they're pretty much begging for their hiring trends to be audited. It's not as cut and dry in a situation that smacks so blatantly of discriminatory practices that you are hypothetically suggesting.

[Amarok]

The case against alcoholics in this thread seems to be a fantastic study in fundamental attribution error. Literally billions of people choose to drink every day, a good percentage for the very first time. Not all of them become alcoholics, just like not everyone who tries heroin becomes a dope fiend. I fail to see how people can fully attribute alcoholism to personal choice and flat out ignore the chemical/biological/social processes involved. There is no conceivable argument against trying and/or enjoying alcohol. Not only is it 100+% socially acceptable (encouraged, in many circles), but there are far fewer health risks involved than other mind-altering substances. No one here or anywhere is immune to the chemical alterations caused by alcohol. The reasons people become alcoholics are multitude, vast, and complex. You cannot simply say "this person was weak and made poor choices, so they became an alcoholic." You give yourself too much goddamn credit when you do, and you remove all doubt of your ignorance.

This same problem comes up in any discussion of addiction. I think most people who think this way have never had to deal with it themselves. You'd have a lot more tolerance and see much more clearly why someone would call it a disability once you've been there.

My father is a recovering alcoholic and I know exactly what you're talking about. I couldn't agree more.

[Ushallbeasgods]

I think the reason "personal choice" is brought up so much is the individualistic nature of American society. America was founded on individual rights and individual responsibility. Hence this notion has framed how issues are viewed by the American population.

Also many individuals who are guilty of making bad life choices use the biological/chemical argument as a way to absolve personal responsibility. Look at the argument over violent video games. Parents seem to want to blame everything but themselves for violent children.

But probably the biggest reason for this "personal choice" argument is ignorance. People do not have the knowledge to understand alcoholism and what causes it. We need to educate and inform before people will understand. We shouldn't be putting these people under a rock, we should be attempting to help them become productive members of society. This benefits us all.

[Khamsin]

Yes it's illegal, but it was on a job application, and luckily you don't need to tell an applicant why they failed, you simply hire another person instead.

Until they get a lawyer. If any company was foolish enough to put those kinds of things on their application forms, they're pretty much begging for their hiring trends to be audited. It's not as cut and dry in a situation that smacks so blatantly of discriminatory practices that you are hypothetically suggesting.

They have nothing to worry about if they've always hired the most qualified applicant, even if they've never hired a single disabled person in the past 10 years, despite always having had at least one disabled person apply for each position during that time.

Otherwise, you'd have people suing strip joints for not hiring fat women, dockyard shipping companies for not hiring paraplegics, hospitals for not hiring neurosurgeons with parkinsons, game shows and talk shows for not hiring hosts with alzheimers, etc.

In any of those cases, they're pretty much protected by the fact that there's someone without a disability that performs that particular job better. If all applicants are equally qualified, but one is disabled in such a way that may impact their performance or take time away from their work, then they can just hire an applicant that won't need special time away from work and can work at 100% efficiency and justify it by the fact that it helps their bottom line.

[Obev]

But probably the biggest reason for this "personal choice" argument is ignorance. People do not have the knowledge to understand alcoholism and what causes it. We need to educate and inform before people will understand. We shouldn't be putting these people under a rock, we should be attempting to help them become productive members of society. This benefits us all.

'k, but fuck those people with Type 2 Diabetes. Cake-loving swine that they are.

[Ushallbeasgods]

But probably the biggest reason for this "personal choice" argument is ignorance. People do not have the knowledge to understand alcoholism and what causes it. We need to educate and inform before people will understand. We shouldn't be putting these people under a rock, we should be attempting to help them become productive members of society. This benefits us all.

'k, but fuck those people with Type 2 Diabetes. Cake-loving swine that they are.

I feel the same about Type 2 Diabetes. We all make bad choices in life and its the responsibility of society to help those who can't help themselves for whatever reason. I know its an unpopular point but I like to think when I'm down for the count someone helps me back up.

However that's not to say I condone the activity but we're running into a problem of how we define preventable disease vs you fucked up disease.

Society has a responsibility to help everyone regardless of the circumstances. We like to think we can iron out the cheaters, and the dumb asses but again I know this won't be a popular point. I ask, how do you determine who is responsible for their actions and who is not? My entire point has no justification I can draw upon its purely a personal opinion as any argument against it will be. I know people will say we shouldn't help dumb asses who did it to themselves and that's fine. This is a pointless argument because I believe its an apple and you believe its orange... its all subjective.

However, I also come from Canada... so I tend to lean more "left" than most of you Yankees.

[fantasticdan]

But not everyone gets thirsty? First off, everyone NEEDS to drink, making bad choices with what you DO drink is no different than choosing to eat a Big Mac twice a day or 5 candy bars (a completely voluntary choice), than proceeding to over-indulge in food your body doesn't need.

You don't have tons of junk food to develop type 2 diabetes, someone who gets little exercise, but eats a high carbohydrate/high sugar diet, even in the form of pasta/grain/cereals and fruits can still develop diabetes. I understand there are plenty of people that just don't give a shit about what they eat or what the consequences are to their body, but that is not always the case. In fact eating a high carb/sugar diet in the USA is the norm, and not just because of foods that people perceive as bad for them. Even things like granola bars or fruit juices that parents think are good for their kids, are typically loaded with unnecessary sugar. Looking in my fridge right now, the mango juice has far more sugar than the cokecola.

When people drink alcohol, they know they're drinking something bad for them. It's not hiding in regular foods like high fructose corn syrup is. People grow up eating bad diets without knowing there's a problem, but how many people grow up alcoholics? It's not the same thing at all.

And comparing drinking alcohol to the necessity for water is completely inept and you know it. Plenty of people will be hungry and make a bad choice (that they may not understand to be a bad choice) to eat a sugar cereal or something, but no one in their right mind drinks alcohol just because they're thirsty.

[Obev]

However, I also come from Canada... so I tend to lean more "left" than most of you Yankees.

Being an Englishman, I take offense at being labeled with "you Yankees." If I come across as right-wing, I apologise. Guess I just hate fat fuckers who've stolen my disease with a lifetime of cake, whereas from the age of 10 I was denied said cake because my genes decided that right around the end of primary school would be a good time for my pancreas to throw in the towel. Cake-eating bastards.

[Andarvi]

But not everyone gets thirsty? First off, everyone NEEDS to drink, making bad choices with what you DO drink is no different than choosing to eat a Big Mac twice a day or 5 candy bars (a completely voluntary choice), than proceeding to over-indulge in food your body doesn't need.

You don't have tons of junk food to develop type 2 diabetes, someone who gets little exercise, but eats a high carbohydrate/high sugar diet, even in the form of pasta/grain/cereals and fruits can still develop diabetes. I understand there are plenty of people that just don't give a shit about what they eat or what the consequences are to their body, but that is not always the case. In fact eating a high carb/sugar diet in the USA is the norm, and not just because of foods that people perceive as bad for them. Even things like granola bars or fruit juices that parents think are good for their kids, are typically loaded with unnecessary sugar. Looking in my fridge right now, the mango juice has far more sugar than the cokecola.

When people drink alcohol, they know they're drinking something bad for them. It's not hiding in regular foods like high fructose corn syrup is. People grow up eating bad diets without knowing there's a problem, but how many people grow up alcoholics? It's not the same thing at all.

And comparing drinking alcohol to the necessity for water is completely inept and you know it. Plenty of people will be hungry and make a bad choice (that they may not understand to be a bad choice) to eat a sugar cereal or something, but no one in their right mind drinks alcohol just because they're thirsty.

People may "grow up" eating poorly but when they reach an age when they can decide for themselves what they eat they still continue to eat shit many times. And honestly, how many people these days dont get the exposure to know that eating shit constantly is bad for you? You are going to encounter it somewhere in a health class in school and then in the real world, where the consensus and knowledge that America is fat is finally starting to reach mainstream audiences. The knowledge is there,and people know it. The only situation your logic applies to is a child who is still under his parents control and they feed him enough bad food to make him get diabetes at a young age.

Alcohol is so differnet. Alcohol is addicting. Alcohol changes the brain chemistry to make your body crave it in ways it will never crave food, and when it doesnt get it, your brain kicks your ass until you do go get it. Yes, there is even more education out there on the effects of alcohol and the possibility of alcoholism, but people still drink. They do not need to overindulge to become an alcoholic. There are some alcoholics who describe their addiction starting with their first drink when they were impressionable teenagers. It reaches a point where the choice to continue doing to, like it once existed when the person casually drank, is not an option anymore and it becomes a necessity. This does not happen with junk food.

And on a hot summer day, there is nothing i would rather drink than a beer to quench my thirst. I know I am not alone in that sentiment.

[Ushallbeasgods]

However, I also come from Canada... so I tend to lean more "left" than most of you Yankees.

Being an Englishman, I take offense at being labeled with "you Yankees." If I come across as right-wing, I apologise. Guess I just hate fat fuckers who've stolen my disease with a lifetime of cake, whereas from the age of 10 I was denied said cake because my genes decided that right around the end of primary school would be a good time for my pancreas to throw in the towel. Cake-eating bastards.

Haha I wasn't using that in a negative tone. I just observe that the policy views of Canadians and Americans are much different. (not to mention a majority of the posters are American)

Canada's Conservative Party is more liberal than the Democrats... and that is saying a lot.

Also to the poster above... food addiction is as real as alcohol addiction. There are people who want to stop but can't. I'm sure you've seen the TLC specials on the 800 pound man and etc.

[Andarvi]

However, I also come from Canada... so I tend to lean more "left" than most of you Yankees.

Being an Englishman, I take offense at being labeled with "you Yankees." If I come across as right-wing, I apologise. Guess I just hate fat fuckers who've stolen my disease with a lifetime of cake, whereas from the age of 10 I was denied said cake because my genes decided that right around the end of primary school would be a good time for my pancreas to throw in the towel. Cake-eating bastards.

Haha I wasn't using that in a negative tone. I just observe that the policy views of Canadians and Americans are much different. (not to mention a majority of the posters are American)

Canada's Conservative Party is more liberal than the Democrats... and that is saying a lot.

Also to the poster above... food addiction is as real as alcohol addiction. There are people who want to stop but can't. I'm sure you've seen the TLC specials on the 800 pound man and etc.

No.

[Ushallbeasgods]

However, I also come from Canada... so I tend to lean more "left" than most of you Yankees.

Being an Englishman, I take offense at being labeled with "you Yankees." If I come across as right-wing, I apologise. Guess I just hate fat fuckers who've stolen my disease with a lifetime of cake, whereas from the age of 10 I was denied said cake because my genes decided that right around the end of primary school would be a good time for my pancreas to throw in the towel. Cake-eating bastards.

Haha I wasn't using that in a negative tone. I just observe that the policy views of Canadians and Americans are much different. (not to mention a majority of the posters are American)

Canada's Conservative Party is more liberal than the Democrats... and that is saying a lot.

Also to the poster above... food addiction is as real as alcohol addiction. There are people who want to stop but can't. I'm sure you've seen the TLC specials on the 800 pound man and etc.

No.

Care to explain why you say no? Some people are addicted to the sugar in food and can't stop even though they know they should. Some people (at least they claim) want to stop but similar to many addictions they get a high or a sense of fulfillment out of doing it.

I'll admit there are some people who know and just don't care but let's not generalize people. Not all people are irresponsible fucks.

[Andarvi]

However, I also come from Canada... so I tend to lean more "left" than most of you Yankees.

Being an Englishman, I take offense at being labeled with "you Yankees." If I come across as right-wing, I apologise. Guess I just hate fat fuckers who've stolen my disease with a lifetime of cake, whereas from the age of 10 I was denied said cake because my genes decided that right around the end of primary school would be a good time for my pancreas to throw in the towel. Cake-eating bastards.

Haha I wasn't using that in a negative tone. I just observe that the policy views of Canadians and Americans are much different. (not to mention a majority of the posters are American)

Canada's Conservative Party is more liberal than the Democrats... and that is saying a lot.

Also to the poster above... food addiction is as real as alcohol addiction. There are people who want to stop but can't. I'm sure you've seen the TLC specials on the 800 pound man and etc.

No.

Care to explain why you say no? Some people are addicted to the sugar in food and can't stop even though they know they should. Some people (at least they claim) want to stop but similar to many addictions they get a high or a sense of fulfillment out of doing it.

I'll admit there are some people who know and just don't care but let's not generalize people. Not all people are irresponsible fucks.

OK, i will concede there may be a psychological addiction to food, but it is definately not on the chemical level that alcoholism entails.