• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

NEWS: The Sunday Mail 2/11/03 - Addicts lose "disabled" tag

F

Flexistentialist

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Messages
1,742
Addicts lose 'disabled' tag
DARRELL GILES political editor
02nov03

THE Federal Government will move to close a legal loophole which allows drug dependency to be recognised as a legitimate disability.

Prime Minister John Howard will ask Attorney-General Philip Ruddock to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, largely to give employers some direction.

The amendment will protect people if they decide not to employ a person on the grounds that he or she might be a drug addict.

The move follows a Federal Court ruling that drug addiction was a disability, which attracted the protection of disability discrimination provisions of the law.

In November 2000, Justice Catherine Branson overruled a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission decision against former heroin addict Wayne Marsden, who complained of discrimination after being kicked out of a club in 1996.

The Federal Court determined that although Mr Marsden was receiving methadone treatment, he was still "disabled" as a result of his heroin addiction.

A spokesman for Mr Howard said the amendment would "give certainty to bosses".
Click to expand...

So what does everyone think? Is drug dependency a legitimate disability?

I don't think employers should have the right to discriminate against someone on methadone. If this is allowed, why can't someone on any other medcation be discriminated aginst too?

Oh, thats right. It's because someone using methadone is obviously a lying, thieving, dirty junky 8) [/sarcasm]
 
I have to agree with addiction not being a 'disability' on the grounds that is self inflicted and as complicated as addiction is it has a high chance of causing hassles within the work place.

I guess the fact that an addiction to a chemical really isn't on the same level as a broken back or sprained ankle.
 
I agree Flexistentialist.

I'll just add this - the word "might" worries me. What kind of proof/process would be required to refuse to hire someone on these grounds? Conceivably it could be used to refuse to hire people for other reasons... Bring on discrimination of all forms covered by the blanket of "might be a drug addict" :\

This is probably just Howard campaigning for popularity (particularly among small business owners after his post-election GST manoeuvre 4 years ago).
 
I agree with apollo and flexistentialist.
What scares me even more is that i there is a big possibility that Howard is going to run the next election along drug, law and order lines, which would be a disaster to the gains this country has made on drug policy over the US model.
 
Oh, i missed the section 'might be a drug addict'.
In that case it is absolute bullshit.
I can definatley see both sides to it though.
 
yes, if a person is a drug "addict" and can still do their job effectively, i think it should be illegal to discriminate against them.. however, a lot of addicts do have trouble performing their jobs correctly so fortunately, for empoyers, it shouldn't be hard to find some other reason to fire them.. "geez, bob.. i sympathize with your depedancy, but i'm afraid that leaving all those used syringes strewn about the washroom is going to be a major negative factor in your next performance review"..
 
Hehehe. If you are addicted to Cigarette's does that mean you can have a disabled sticker on your car.

:)
 
hmmm.
i think this explanation of the laws is to disguise the real purpose.
surely what they are intending is to remove the access to disability benefits of those whom are registered at centerlink as drug addicts.
i forsee a flood of ex-pat aussies returning from pakistan etc!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top