 
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
| Date: |
Sun, 14 Jul 2002 00:00:50 +0100 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Sender: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Saturday 13 Jul 2002 2:52 am, Salkin Kathleen wrote:
> Sorry but you'll not budge me from that soapbox, either. Drugs and
> alcohol are choices, CP is not.
>
> Kat
>
The point Bobby made is that "Anyone caught misusing alcohol or drugs
IS NOT PROTECTED UNDER THE ADA." So this seems to imply that even if
you have "a disability", if you become "hooked" on prescription pain
meds, Vallium, or move beyond a "social drinker", you would no longer
qualify under ADA.
I agree with David, that we shouldn't form our model of disability
just so it fits ourselves.
If an agoraphobic develops obesity, shouldn't they be equally entitled
to support from the state as ourselves?
Cheers
Deri "The Red" James
|
|
|
