Alcoholism is a disability?
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: right here, right now
Posts: 6,516
Alcoholism is a disability?
Woke up to this in my newspaper this morning:
Read more here: Chronic alcoholics move from street into transformed motel: Anchorage's homeless | Alaska news at adn.com
Disease, I have come to terms with. Disability? Had you heard that alcoholism is defined by federal law as a disability? Does it fall under the ADA? Would I as an employer be required to make adaptations to my workplace if I have an employee who is an alcoholic?
Dozens of Anchorage's chronic homeless alcoholics have moved into the first real home they've known for years -- a transformed old motel on the edge of downtown /.../ The hard-fought residential project by Rural CAP marks Anchorage's first big step into Housing First. Under this approach, which has met success Outside, alcoholics who have lived on the streets get a long-term home whether they are ready to stop drinking or not. And while organizers and residents are delighted Karluk Manor opened before Christmas, a private civil rights firm says a new city law that placed special conditions on it is far too onerous. The Northern Justice Project this week challenged the law in Anchorage Superior Court, saying it discriminates against people with alcoholism, a disability under federal and state law. The lawsuit against the municipality was filed on behalf of three men, all long-term homeless alcoholics.
Disease, I have come to terms with. Disability? Had you heard that alcoholism is defined by federal law as a disability? Does it fall under the ADA? Would I as an employer be required to make adaptations to my workplace if I have an employee who is an alcoholic?
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 4,719
lillamy, I have had a hard time wrapping my head around this as well. I researched the model quite a bit as I was sitting on a city Commission when this hotel was first proposed. I am still torn. It seems a bit like enabling to me. It will be interesting to see how this place turns out - will it be a safe haven like predicted? Or another crazy crime ridden location we avoid downtown? Except for traffic...being its on the main artery into downtown? I cringe thinking of what that corner may turn into; but maybe that's just me catastrophizing based on my own experiences.
As far as a disability - again I am not sure what to make of that statement. I have never heard of it before, and it that is in fact the case, just think of how many other "disabilities" we could classify. As I age, I need to wear glasses. Is this a disability? Do we make Lasik surgery a requirement the government provide us for that? Seems to me to be a slippery slope...
As far as a disability - again I am not sure what to make of that statement. I have never heard of it before, and it that is in fact the case, just think of how many other "disabilities" we could classify. As I age, I need to wear glasses. Is this a disability? Do we make Lasik surgery a requirement the government provide us for that? Seems to me to be a slippery slope...
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 775
I know someone who is 49yo and on SSI because he's an alcoholic but he claims other mental conditions also.I personally think he should be working because now he has more time to polute himself.He also got a back settlement because they denied him the first time.feels like enabling to me
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: right here, right now
Posts: 6,516
I asked my HR person, and she said that yes, a few years ago, alcoholism was included as a disability by federal and state law. I asked her about accommodations under the ADA, and she laughed at me. And then she stopped herself and went, "Um... I have to tell you I'm kind of happy that nobody has tried that... because I would have to talk to our lawyers about how to handle that..."
I can just imagine someone coming in and saying "You can't fire me for drinking on company time; I am an alcoholic and I have to drink in order to function." It would make for an interesting court case, for sure.
As for the "Red Nose Inn" -- I haven't made up my mind about it either. It does seem like enabling, but then on the other hand, knowing how difficult it is for people with housing and supportive families to make the decision to recover, I can only imagine what it's like if your "home" is a tarp under a tree down by Campbell Creek. But I'd think NOT having to live like that might be a motivator to stop drinking when it's -30 outside...
I can just imagine someone coming in and saying "You can't fire me for drinking on company time; I am an alcoholic and I have to drink in order to function." It would make for an interesting court case, for sure.
As for the "Red Nose Inn" -- I haven't made up my mind about it either. It does seem like enabling, but then on the other hand, knowing how difficult it is for people with housing and supportive families to make the decision to recover, I can only imagine what it's like if your "home" is a tarp under a tree down by Campbell Creek. But I'd think NOT having to live like that might be a motivator to stop drinking when it's -30 outside...
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Pa
Posts: 4,872
I worked for Social Security over a decade ago. Initially alcoholism was not considered a disability, nor was drug addiction. You needed to have a disability that qualified you for benefits without alcoholism or drug addiction even being considered.
They changed the law sometime in the 90's, that they would approve a claim, just based on alcoholism, and or drug addiction. I think the person would be able to collect benefits, if I'm not mistaken for 12 - 18 months. But these cases were closely monitored by an outside agency, and the person had to be in rehab, or the benefits would stop. They also could not receive their own check, they needed a Representative Payee to receive the check for them.
I don't know when they stopped this, it was this way when I left in 1999. Talk about the government enabling people. Not many benefits were stopped back then, because it was still new, and they were working out the kinks.
I do know that they no longer do this, they went back to the old way. The claim would again need to be approved on a condition other than alcoholism or drug addiction, but can be approved on a condition that was caused by A or DA.
They changed the law sometime in the 90's, that they would approve a claim, just based on alcoholism, and or drug addiction. I think the person would be able to collect benefits, if I'm not mistaken for 12 - 18 months. But these cases were closely monitored by an outside agency, and the person had to be in rehab, or the benefits would stop. They also could not receive their own check, they needed a Representative Payee to receive the check for them.
I don't know when they stopped this, it was this way when I left in 1999. Talk about the government enabling people. Not many benefits were stopped back then, because it was still new, and they were working out the kinks.
I do know that they no longer do this, they went back to the old way. The claim would again need to be approved on a condition other than alcoholism or drug addiction, but can be approved on a condition that was caused by A or DA.
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,796
Depends on the company. Some companies will pay for treatment...
There also could be a mutual understanding about office parties where drinking is involved.
Are we talking about alcoholics in recovery, or alcoholics who actively drink and plan to do so until the day they drop?
There also could be a mutual understanding about office parties where drinking is involved.
Are we talking about alcoholics in recovery, or alcoholics who actively drink and plan to do so until the day they drop?
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,677
Oh, I assure you, it is. If you can get diagnosed and demonstrate disability from it, it is a legitimate psychiatric disability:
This is being updated for the DSM-V, but here is the current DSM:
DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Alcohol Dependence
A maladaptive pattern of alcohol use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three or more of the following seven criteria, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:
1. Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
a) A need for markedly increased amounts of alcohol to achieve intoxication or desired effect.
b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of alcohol.
2. Withdrawal, as defined by either of the following:
a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for alcohol (refer to DSM-IV for further details).
b) Alcohol is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.
3. Alcohol is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.
4. There is a persistent desire or there are unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control alcohol use.
5. A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain alcohol, use alcohol or recover from its effects.
6. Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of alcohol use.
7. Alcohol use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the alcohol (e.g., continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption).
References:
DSM-IV. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC.
This material was taken from the DSM-IV. It is intended for educational purposes only.
Created: June 07, 2005
Last Modified: 01/22/2010
This is being updated for the DSM-V, but here is the current DSM:
DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Alcohol Dependence
A maladaptive pattern of alcohol use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three or more of the following seven criteria, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:
1. Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
a) A need for markedly increased amounts of alcohol to achieve intoxication or desired effect.
b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of alcohol.
2. Withdrawal, as defined by either of the following:
a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for alcohol (refer to DSM-IV for further details).
b) Alcohol is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.
3. Alcohol is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.
4. There is a persistent desire or there are unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control alcohol use.
5. A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain alcohol, use alcohol or recover from its effects.
6. Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of alcohol use.
7. Alcohol use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the alcohol (e.g., continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption).
References:
DSM-IV. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC.
This material was taken from the DSM-IV. It is intended for educational purposes only.
Created: June 07, 2005
Last Modified: 01/22/2010
Belgian Sheepdog Adictee
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In Today
Posts: 6,101
Actually Amy SS did classify alcoholism as a disability and would pay a practicing Alcoholic back in the late '60's, all of the '70's and into the early '80's, but again to a designated payee. Then the law was changed, but those already getting SSI or SSDI did continue to receive money monthly, paid to their designated payee. I knew of several while living the streets in '8o and ''81 that went everyday to their 'designated payee' (be it a famiy member, social worker or whatever) and get their daily allotment of $15 to $20, but they still lived the streets.
After I got sober in June of '81 the law was changed again sometime in the '80's and no one could collect for being a practicing or sober with health issues from the alcohol, it had to be for mental illness or something else entirely.
Then again in the '90's it was changed as you reported. It has since been changed again, and I am not sure what the parameters are now.
As to the original post, this is being tried in several places on the North American Continent and I don't know. I guess it is giving them a safe place to continue their downward spiral into alcoholism and a safe place to die.
At some point does alcoholism become a disability? I believe it does but the point I M H O is when they reach the end stage, and have Wet Brain. Very few come back from that stage of the disease.
I, as I am sure many others will, continue to watch these 'experiments' with great interest.
Love and hugs,
After I got sober in June of '81 the law was changed again sometime in the '80's and no one could collect for being a practicing or sober with health issues from the alcohol, it had to be for mental illness or something else entirely.
Then again in the '90's it was changed as you reported. It has since been changed again, and I am not sure what the parameters are now.
As to the original post, this is being tried in several places on the North American Continent and I don't know. I guess it is giving them a safe place to continue their downward spiral into alcoholism and a safe place to die.
At some point does alcoholism become a disability? I believe it does but the point I M H O is when they reach the end stage, and have Wet Brain. Very few come back from that stage of the disease.
I, as I am sure many others will, continue to watch these 'experiments' with great interest.
Love and hugs,
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Pa
Posts: 4,872
laurie, you're right. I worked at Social Security in the 70's and continuing. I didn't start taking disability claims till around 1982 or 83, at that time when I was taking claims, if could not be for alcoholism or drug addiction on its own. Then they changed it back, sometime in the early 90's, and stopped it in 1995.
Everyone at that time that was approved for DA/A had to be reevaluated, and the benefits stopped if it was DA/A alone, or if they did not have a medical condition that would be considered disabling on it's own. So if a person who has chronic liver disease, whose condition would not improve, even if the drinking had stopped their benefits continued. If the liver disease would improve by stopping the alcohol, then they were denied.
As to the original post, I would also like to see how this works out. I just don't see this as working out well. Putting alcoholics together and letting them drink their lives away, I know that is their choice, but I wouldn't want to be one of the alcoholics with money, when the others didn't.
Sorry bout being that negative here, but that was the first thing that came to my mind, second thing was the people walking past this place.
Everyone at that time that was approved for DA/A had to be reevaluated, and the benefits stopped if it was DA/A alone, or if they did not have a medical condition that would be considered disabling on it's own. So if a person who has chronic liver disease, whose condition would not improve, even if the drinking had stopped their benefits continued. If the liver disease would improve by stopping the alcohol, then they were denied.
As to the original post, I would also like to see how this works out. I just don't see this as working out well. Putting alcoholics together and letting them drink their lives away, I know that is their choice, but I wouldn't want to be one of the alcoholics with money, when the others didn't.
Sorry bout being that negative here, but that was the first thing that came to my mind, second thing was the people walking past this place.
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 602
Act three of this radio show features "wet houses" in Minnesota, and the controversy around them. It's a good report. Pretty damn sad too.
Know When To Fold 'Em | This American Life
Know When To Fold 'Em | This American Life
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,796
Alcoholism is prevalent in the Inuit and Eskimo populations.
The real story behind The Fourth Kind - Hartford Movie | Examiner.com
The real story behind The Fourth Kind - Hartford Movie | Examiner.com
Belgian Sheepdog Adictee
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In Today
Posts: 6,101
Alcoholism is prevalent in the Inuit and Eskimo populations.
I don't know if these 'living accommodations' are good or bad solutions and I guess only time will tell.
It just feels like some government officials have decided to 'warehouse' alcohlics and addicts and if they are 'out of sight' they are 'out of mind.'
It is giving me a very 'creepy' feeling.
J M H O
Love and hugs,
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: right here, right now
Posts: 6,516
Blast. I just lost a long post.
The point of it was -- Matt, I don't know what your post is in reaction to, but if I was unclear... I'm not for a second doubting the disabling properties of alcoholism.
What I'm wondering is if defining alcoholism as a disability is helping or hurting alcoholics. I know a few for whom losing their drivers license and their family and doing jail time didn't make them question their drinking -- but where the threat of losing their job/career/license to practice was what finally made them realize that like it or not, this is it: I need help to sober up; this is out of control.
I apologize if my post came across as judgmental toward alcoholics. That was not my intent. I loved an alcoholic for 20 years -- well, most of 20 years. Before that, I loved another alcoholic. I know alcoholism is not who someone is. My concern is that the definition of alcoholism might cause employers to enable, while trying to follow the law and do what's right.
The point of it was -- Matt, I don't know what your post is in reaction to, but if I was unclear... I'm not for a second doubting the disabling properties of alcoholism.
What I'm wondering is if defining alcoholism as a disability is helping or hurting alcoholics. I know a few for whom losing their drivers license and their family and doing jail time didn't make them question their drinking -- but where the threat of losing their job/career/license to practice was what finally made them realize that like it or not, this is it: I need help to sober up; this is out of control.
I apologize if my post came across as judgmental toward alcoholics. That was not my intent. I loved an alcoholic for 20 years -- well, most of 20 years. Before that, I loved another alcoholic. I know alcoholism is not who someone is. My concern is that the definition of alcoholism might cause employers to enable, while trying to follow the law and do what's right.
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 4,719
Only time will tell if we have created a monster or if we have created a successful housing project for the chronic inebriates. I have a sneaking suspicion it won't do much to curtail the camps, though. What I don't understand is why we don't take a chunk of land and turn it into a designated camp with facilities and security/medics? I've seen those be relatively successful in other towns.
Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by lillamy 
I can just imagine someone coming in and saying "You can't fire me for drinking on company time; I am an alcoholic and I have to drink in order to function." It would make for an interesting court case, for sure.
They don't want everyone who gets fired for cause to suddenly claim they did it because they are secret addicts, so you have to go to the EAP before the fire-able offense. If you've been claiming all along through the performance evaluation period that you don't have a problem, you can't suddenly claim a problem when you get fired. But if you admit that you have a problem and try to seek help, you can save your skin.
In order to keep your job you have to follow the recommendations of the EAP and there is a formal policy for dealing with addiction. We just got a new one this year. Basically, you go to treatment and you don't relapse (or if you do the standards get tighter and you get only one relapse) and you get to keep your job. If you run out of leave time you go on awol but still get paid.
Any misbehavior on the job (such as stealing, assault or showing up to work while intoxicated) can be punished as if those things didn't occur with alcohol, except no firing. But you can be demoted, get OPRed, get a put on probation, have a security clearance taken away (different consequences for different problems).
If you complete your rehab go into recovery and cause no problems again, you are good but if you keep relapsing and don't improve, you're fired. The workplace only has to make 'reasonable' accommodations for your disability; and reasonable by the common man standard. At some point, the workplace can say, "We tried to work with him, but he wasn't cooperative, and we do have a business to run, we aren't in the rehab business." and then they can fire without liability to lawsuit.
Reasonable accommodations are one or two stints in rehab, close monitoring by EAP, a reduced temporary duty.
We had/have an eradic employee who's out of state in rehab right now. Or is supposed to be. She's out of leave and yet has been paid for doing nothing since August. At Thanksgiving she got a DUI in a neighboring state. She's toast. Maybe she'll get another two or three free paychecks, but that'll be it.
I have no commentary on the rightness or wrongness of the policy. I think it's what's standard now tho. It makes the assumption that addiction is manageable and it's your job to cooperate and manage it. The company will make reasonable accommodations and you have to take responsibility. No progress and eventually you lose your job. Thus you get a chance, but not a free ride.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
