Another Howard Double Standard

From ABC Online

Monday, November 3, 2003. 5:41am (AEDT)

Govt to change drug dependence disability ruling

Prime Minister John Howard has announced the Federal Government will crack down on drug users by changing legislation, making it legal to discriminate against addicts.

A Federal Court ruling three years ago stated that drug dependence is a legal disability, meaning addicts have similar legal rights as people in wheelchairs or who are visually impaired in areas like employment, education, and accommodation.

Mr Howard thinks that is unfair and he is now proposing to change the law so drug addiction is not a disability under the Discrimination Act.

"It will not be unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of addiction to a prohibited drug if the person is actually addicted at the time of the discrimination," Mr Howard said.

"That is why the Government has decided to change the law to make it absolutely clear that drug addiction is not a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act."

Mr Howard has told community radio 2NSB, methadone or prescription drugs will be exempt so that addicts wanting treatment will not be disadvantaged.

"Not only would that not make sense it would also be unfair," Mr Howard said.

He says the changes will remove doubts about whether or not drug addiction is a disability.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess Howards thinking is that if you are the cause of your disability due to your own irresponsible actions you have no right to claim a legal disabilty. Try and use the same mentality to discriminate against a few hundred hoons in car and motorcyle 'accidents' breaking the law and ending up in wheelchairs and watch the community tear the walls down in protest. Double standard, I think yes.

F@ck you Howard and your concervative right wing minions. Liberal my arse, your as liberal as Bush is socialist.


JokErsWilD

^^^ the "hoons" in car and motocycle accidents form a tiny minority in a group of people with dissabilities resulting from road accidents. Most are innocent people that really had "an ACCIDENT" which sometimes happens when one drives or rides. You can't descriminate against them. Even out of that tiny minority, there is only a tiny "sub-minority" of "hoons" that drove/rode irresponsibly on regular basis enjoying it as a lifestyle - and the rest just made ONE mistake of taking too fast around a corner one day.

Drug addicts on the other hand ALWAYS do it to themselves - and surprise, a lot of them love it. There is no such thing as "one mistake" addiction. Whether it be smack or meth, it takes a while of use to get trully addicted. A lot of addicts love everything about it from the lifestyle to the benefits they can sometimes get. Believe it or not, you can use your addiction as a metigating circumstance in court which in some cases let one off a harsher charge providing the person goes into rehab.

There are those that genuinly want help etc. and good on them, but everyone has to take responsibility for their own actions, and being an addict poses just that oppotunity. Don't pretend like you are an innocent disabled because you know EXACTLY why you are where you are, and you know exactly what to do to end it. Don't seek fucking benefits. Pull yourself out even if it means pain. Why should the society pay for your past where you've supported crime such as robberies/murder etc (all of which are involved in the drug world)?. Why should the society pay when you've knowingly disabled yourself while having the time of your life, knowing exactly where you'll end up?

When tax payers money (my money and a lot of it, your money and I bet a lot of it too, and everyone else's money on this forum) is involved, we have to really consider things more carefully. I love my money, and I hate junkies. I love my money because I work very hard for it, and I hate junkies because I was once on the way there, but hey things have surely changed.

In regard to the "double standard" comment, I'll give an analogy to demonstrate how rediculous the statement is. Consider a fight where someone falls as a result of a hit, cracks his head on concrete and subsequently dies. The person responsible will either walk free because he pushed an attacker back or simply didn't mean for that to happen or he will get charged with Manslaughter or Willful Murder because he knew what he was doing or premeditated hitting the other person intending for that person to die. These two circumstances are possible and appear in a totally different light in the eyes of the law and dealt with accordingly.

So why is it a double standard to see a clear difference between a poor driver who lost it in the wet because he went a little over a speed limit and crashed into a tree resulting in a disability, or a bike rider who crashed into a car that pulled out in front of him, and a junkie who shoots smack or meth all his life loving every bit of it (especially meth) and then claims that he/she has a disability.

Good on you Howard for the "no fuck around" policy. And good on you for a few other "no fuck around" policies of yours that are beyond the scope of this discussion.

Runner... Tell me one meth addict who likes meth. I have met a few meth addicts, not one of them likes it... They just need it. Hence the addiction.

In general, liking or enjoying any substance or behaviour before it becomes compulsive does not last. The biological feedback loop in us functions in such a way that we adapt to a particular state of being where we can still function while maintaining the addiction. Addicition is indeed similar to the standard view of what a disability is.

eg.
No matter how hard you try you cannot quit. Similar to that when you break your back, then no matter how hard you try, you just cannot walk.

Oh, I agree. Mr John Howard is indeed Devil incarnate and Philip Rudock is his little Succabus. Can you tell I dislike John Howard?

Also, what about Alcohol, Gambling and Nicotine addicts. Then government makes money off them...

discriminating against one synthetic opiod addict over another synthetic opiod addict sounds like a lotta shit!

Look junkies at work are gonna fuck up anyway, fire them because of that shit not for the fact that they are junkies, if they can do their work as well as a 'normal' person then let them keep their job, it will probably help them to kick their addiction anyway. Then there's the matter of employers discriminating against people because they might be junkies

As for no fuck around policies well they are often the simplest and the least effective like stopping the drug problem by locking everybody up- no fucking around but ultimately dumb. Just like Howard's zero-tolerance in schools policy, some kid kicked out of school for smoking some ganja, well he'll learn his lesson and turn out just fine.... NOT!

Screw Needledick!