Board 8 > Adventures in government: Trucking companies can't fire drunks

(+) Yeah! (+)

From: SmartMuffin | #064
That another truck driver "certainly won't be a safety risk" is BS. Perhaps he'll run over a pedestrian because he was distracted by his favorite song playing on the radio.

The drunk could do this too.

The point is that a drunk carries a certain ADDITIONAL risk that non-drunks do not.

Just because he's not an alcoholic doesn't mean he never gets drunk.

--
Black Turtle spilled my diet soda!

You are and should be free to eject people from your property if they say things you dislike. That's legal right now and we don't need an amendment for it, because the First Amendment just applies to Congress (and through the 14th Amendment, to the states). I think the way the Supreme Court has interpreted free speech is basically that it only has to be protected if it advances a substantive opinion, which is why obscenity is not protected. Also, when you can speak can be regulated as long as it doesn't suppress the substantive content of what you are saying (i.e. you can't go into a courtroom and give a poltical speech about the national debt during a murder trial). Jury nullification is illegal, so it's fair to arrest those people for conspiring to commit a crime, and it's not an issue of free speech.

It's important that free speech be protected in public spaces as much as possible. I'm pretty happy with it's application in the US generally- for example the Supreme Court recently stuck down that California law about selling violent video games to kids.

--
90s games > 00s games

this reminds me of when teachers get fired when the community sees pictures of them drinking, or finds out they're gay, or whatever.

my feeling on this is that an employer should never be able to fire you for something that happens off the clock. if it doesn't affect your job, it's really none of anyone's business!

Meh.

If a school fires a teacher based on what they do on their off-time, it's also their loss if they fire a good teacher.

Hypothetical situation:

SmartMuffin is fired from his job because he is a conservative. His employer has decided that conservatives are more likely to spend too much time on Glenn Beck's website when they should be working. It doesn't matter if SmartMuffin has ever actually gone to Glenn Beck's website during work, this is simply an additional risk that his employer could avoid by replacing him with a non-conservative.

--
Black Turtle spilled my diet soda!

It's so reassuring to find out in this topic that distant government bureaucrats from unrelated backgrounds know more about operating a business than the actual owners of it.

--
"All video games being free is a human right." -Vlado [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

Dauntless Hunter posted...
Hypothetical situation:

SmartMuffin is fired from his job because he is a conservative. His employer has decided that conservatives are more likely to spend too much time on Glenn Beck's website when they should be working. It doesn't matter if SmartMuffin has ever actually gone to Glenn Beck's website during work, this is simply an additional risk that his employer could avoid by replacing him with a non-conservative.

Why even ask this when SM would obviously be okay with this, it's their business and it's their right to hire who they see fit. It's their freedom and right to do so, even if the reason is just personal and has nothing to do with the way he worked and got his job done.

He wouldn't want their freedom to be taken away, this is America, home of the free.

SM knows this and would not let petty emotions or grandiose delusions (it's not fair, why me, they have no right, etc...) cloud his mind if this hypothetical situation were to occur.

--
http://i.imgur.com/0kpnc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/hDm6A.jpg

You guys get pretty nice discussions here...

I won't add much to it, but I'm curious, could the company be held liable for damage/death caused by the alcoholic driver they wanted to fire but couldn't? Doesn't seem right if they wanted to get rid of him.


--
Current Game(s): NFS: Hot Pursuit, Pokemon White, StarCraft 2
Must-watch Anime: Dragonball Kai, High School Of the Dead

It's so reassuring to find out in this topic that distant government bureaucrats from unrelated backgrounds know more about operating a business than the actual owners of it.

The bureaucrats work with the information they get from the business owners. It's not like they just went "YOU CAN'T FIRE THE TRUCK DRIVER" without listening to anyone. The truck driver "had worked for the company for five years without incident" and was fired just because he had a disease/affection. The government decided that wasn't fair.

Again, it's like a black guy getting fired for being black, the government telling the employer that they're not allowed to do that because racism is illegal, and then you saying "oh man there go distant government bureaucrats from unrelated background taking decisions for business owners again." And before people start telling me how that's the stupidest thing they've ever read and whatnot - no, I'm not saying alcoholism is comparable to being black. I'm using the example to make a point about how the government is in the right in this instance.

--
Full rap metal jacket ~ Method Man

The bureaucrats work with the information they get from the business owners. It's not like they just went "YOU CAN'T FIRE THE TRUCK DRIVER" without listening to anyone. The truck driver "had worked for the company for five years without incident" and was fired just because he had a disease/affection. The government decided that wasn't fair.

The "just because he had a disease/affection" is rather important here. The government is basically saying they can't fire him for being an alcoholic because hey, that's mean. Entirely ignored is the incontrovertible fact that even "former" alcoholics are much more likely to relapse than a random person is to become an alcoholic in the first place, and thus the driver poses an unnecessary safety risk.

But hey, government says we can't be mean to people. I'm sure that will make everybody feel better if this guy plows through a family of four.

--
"All video games being free is a human right." -Vlado [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

Man, do private businesses even need a reason to fire people?

If they can hire people for no reason why not be able to fire them?

At my last job, the only functional long-term employees were either heavy drinkers or frequent-to-excessive marijuana smokers. During the craziest parts of the busiest shifts, drinking (on the job) was literally the only way I was able to get through it. It didn't just help me to function, it was the sole cause of functionality and actually made the chaos somewhat enjoyable. One time I remained sober just as an experiment... I almost attacked another employee and if I had, my knife would've come out. I just sort of had one of those instant "urge to put a knife to someone's throat" moments immediately followed by an instant "what the f*** am I doing?" moments. All the guy did was talk a little bit of s*** to me about an incident in my area. I just had too much adrenaline and rage to let it go, although I did let it go by willing myself to calm down. I gave him s*** for problems in his area a bit later (we had been known to have minor feuds every now and then but this was the only time that it almost got hostile).

Dealing with an extreme stress job and being sober at the same time... a combination that isn't right for everyone.

I didn't read the article so I won't take a position on the particular alcoholic being discussed and I'm certainly not even going to acknowledge anything SmartMuffin has said. I'm just simply sharing a little bit of personal experience here that seems relevent to the topic.

--
ya right you are case the sunglasses have 3d so i can see right threw their clothes -ertyu
(about wearing sunglasses to stare at boobs without girls noticing)

Wait, really?

In most states you can legally be fired for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. But you can't be legally fired for having a drinking problem?

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

At my last job, the only functional long-term employees were either heavy drinkers or frequent-to-excessive marijuana smokers. During the craziest parts of the busiest shifts, drinking (on the job) was literally the only way I was able to get through it. It didn't just help me to function, it was the sole cause of functionality and actually made the chaos somewhat enjoyable. One time I remained sober just as an experiment... I almost attacked another employee and if I had, my knife would've come out. I just sort of had one of those instant "urge to put a knife to someone's throat" moments immediately followed by an instant "what the f*** am I doing?" moments. All the guy did was talk a little bit of s*** to me about an incident in my area. I just had too much adrenaline and rage to let it go, although I did let it go by willing myself to calm down. I gave him s*** for problems in his area a bit later (we had been known to have minor feuds every now and then but this was the only time that it almost got hostile).

Dealing with an extreme stress job and being sober at the same time... a combination that isn't right for everyone.

Let me guess...

...birthday party clown?

--
Thank you, Eddie Guerrero.
http://img.imgcake.com/Icon/Punkjpguh.jpg

SunDiety getting it right here. Two things:

1) The article makes zero mention of the AMA or the EEOC evaluating the risk potential of having an alcoholic trucker. NONE. They simply say "it's a disease and you can't fire someone for having a disease." Can you not see the ridiculous precedent being set here? What if a bus driver has a stroke and becomes blind? Blindness is a disease. Can't fire him, right?

2) In this case, the people responsible for evaluating the risk potential are the people responsible for assuming the risk. Notice that the EEOC is not offering to guarantee this employee will not cause an accident and assume any and all financial responsibilities if he does. Nope, the company is on their own for that. So IF this guy gets drunk on the job, crashes his truck, and kills a family, the trucking company will be sued. The plaintiff will be able to EASILY prove that the trucking company KNEW this man was a drunk and kept him around anyway. They'll probably win a settlement in the millions. Who has to pay the settlement? Not the AMA! Not the EEOC! The trucking company! Who suffers the negative public relations hit? Is the local community going to blame the EEOC or the employer for the accident? Gee, I wonder...

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

The government is basically saying they can't fire him for being an alcoholic because hey, that's mean.

Not mean. It's discrimination. (Edit: well, negative discrimination is mean, but "it's mean" is not the reason why the government is saying they can't fire him.)

Entirely ignored is the incontrovertible fact that even "former" alcoholics are much more likely to relapse than a random person is to become an alcoholic in the first place, and thus the driver poses an unnecessary safety risk.

Again, you're implying that being an alcoholic means you're posing an unnecessary safety risk, and that non-alcoholics don't pose comparable risks. If you read the topic, you'll see that we've already had this debate. I'll repeat the most important points for your convenience:

1) A non-alcoholic could also get drunk and get behind the wheel. That's also an "unnecessary safety risk."
2) The driver in question was apparently working for five years without incident, so even if he was posing a risk, it didn't exactly show in his output at work. Which is all that should matter. Like Igloo said, what the truck driver does off the clock is none of the employer's business.

--
Full rap metal jacket ~ Method Man

SmartMuffin posted...
2) In this case, the people responsible for evaluating the risk potential are the people responsible for assuming the risk. Notice that the EEOC is not offering to guarantee this employee will not cause an accident and assume any and all financial responsibilities if he does. Nope, the company is on their own for that. So IF this guy gets drunk on the job, crashes his truck, and kills a family, the trucking company will be sued. The plaintiff will be able to EASILY prove that the trucking company KNEW this man was a drunk and kept him around anyway. They'll probably win a settlement in the millions. Who has to pay the settlement? Not the AMA! Not the EEOC! The trucking company! Who suffers the negative public relations hit? Is the local community going to blame the EEOC or the employer for the accident? Gee, I wonder...

Eh, reread the article.

Among other things, the employer was refusing to let truck drivers who had an alcohol problem and subsequently got cured go back to driving trucks.

I don't have an issue with "You must be healthy to do job X"--I bet NASA doesn't send astronauts into space if they need a quadruple bypass transplant. I do have an issue with "If you've ever been sick, you can't do job X ever again."

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

Again, you're implying that being an alcoholic means you're posing an unnecessary safety risk, and that non-alcoholics don't pose comparable risks. If you read the topic, you'll see that we've already had this debate. I'll repeat the most important points for your convenience:

1) A non-alcoholic could also get drunk and get behind the wheel. That's also an "unnecessary safety risk."
2) The driver in question was apparently working for five years without incident, so even if he was posing a risk, it didn't exactly show in his output at work. Which is all that should matter. Like Igloo said, what the truck driver does off the clock is none of the employer's business.

Man, you probably think it's unfair that insurers charge different rates to different people, don't you.

--
"All video games being free is a human right." -Vlado [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

Among other things, the employer was refusing to let truck drivers who had an alcohol problem and subsequently got cured go back to driving trucks.

Exactly. For some reason we've not yet discussed this after 100+ posts (IIRC), but this is one of the most important points in the article.

Apparently even if you're not an alcoholic anymore, you still can't be employed at this particular trucking company.

--
Full rap metal jacket ~ Method Man

Among other things, the employer was refusing to let truck drivers who had an alcohol problem and subsequently got cured go back to driving trucks.

You don't "get cured" of alcoholism, you just stop drinking. It could be for a day or it could be for life. In any case former alcoholics are much more likely to relapse than non-alcoholics are to become them in the first place.

I don't have an issue with "You must be healthy to do job X"--I bet NASA doesn't send astronauts into space if they need a quadruple bypass transplant. I do have an issue with "If you've ever been sick, you can't do job X ever again."

Why? Let's say this guy, while an alcoholic, had driven drunk and killed some people. Should we let him back on the job once his sentence has been served as long as he's been "cured?"

--
"All video games being free is a human right." -Vlado [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

Apparently even if you're not an alcoholic anymore, you still can't be employed at this particular trucking company.

Sorry, but in the real world past events have consequences. There are literally thousands of jobs a person can do where alcoholism at the least hurts only themselves. Why do we have to force a company to accept him at a job where if he relapses he could KILL PEOPLE?

Seriously, it astounds me how modern progressive outlooks can find a way around the most obvious common sense.

--
"All video games being free is a human right." -Vlado [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

Why do we have to force a company to accept him at a job where if he relapses he could KILL PEOPLE?

Yes, he could relapse. Yes, a non-alcoholic could become an alcoholic, get drunk and kill people. This doesn't mean the company shouldn't hire either of these two possible employees.

We should punish people for stuff they've done, not stuff they "could" do "if" they get, or regain, a particular affection. You're proposing a Minority Report-like system where we punish people for crimes they've not yet committed.

--
Full rap metal jacket ~ Method Man

What if a bus driver has a stroke and becomes blind? Blindness is a disease. Can't fire him, right?

If he were to become blind he would no longer be eligible for a drivers license and therefore no longer be legally able to perform his job. So yeah, they can fire him, because he no longer has a license.

--
(Maniac64 at work) [Browncoat] ~Board 570901~
All the proteins, vitamins, and carbs of your grandma's best turkey dinner, plus 15% alcohol.

Businesses try to hire the BEST people for the job.

Modeling agencies try to get the best looking, hospitals try to get the smartest most qualified doctors, etc. They all have means of judging whether a person is the best for the job.

Why an alcoholic isn't the best person for driving a truck can't be beyond comprehension.

SubDeity posted...
There are literally thousands of jobs a person can do where alcoholism at the least hurts only themselves. Why do we have to force a company to accept him at a job where if he relapses he could KILL PEOPLE?

There are doctors who work 18 hour shifts, and it's been shown that that level of sleep deprivation is worse than working drunk. And doctors definitely could kill people. Should we fire all doctors who work in emergency rooms?

You don't "get cured" of alcoholism, you just stop drinking. It could be for a day or it could be for life. In any case former alcoholics are much more likely to relapse than non-alcoholics are to become them in the first place.

True...but another point brought up in the article is that...he self-reported an alcohol problem. If self-reporting always results in "you will never work again" rather than "ok, let's take you off the road, and get you cured so you can drive again" then...guess how many people will ever self-report.

I would rather have people admit "I have a problem, I need help", than say "I have a problem, but I can't tell anyone or I'll never work again, so I guess I'll just keep on driving like nothing is wrong!" The latter sounds more dangerous to me of the two options.

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

Go tell your boss you smoke weed then. See if he lets you off the hook for self-reporting.

I would be far more inclined to lash out atthe driver if heh adnt proven to be a model of responsibility throughout. He worked for five years without incident. When he thought he had a problem, he volunatarily alerted the company. All he asked was to be able to regain his job when he was donewith his recovery- not unreasonable given that with his history if he ever DID relapse he'd most likely alert them.

The company was discriminating on the basis of a disease- alcoholism.

The law is on the truckdriver's side. The bureaucrats are enforcing the law. What would you rather have, bureaucrats who took the law into their own hands and made it up as they went. I'm pretty sure that would end badly!

If you and a bunch of highly trained doctors disagree that alcoholism is a disease, they can take it up with the AMA and get it removed from that list. If you, for some reason, don't think Disabilities should be afforded the same protection by law as things like race, gender, etc. take it up with your congressman to get the bill repealed. Or run for Congress yourself on the platform that trucking companies should be able to fire alcoholics based on them being alcoholics.

As it stands this is a rare instance of the government actually standing up for someone who has been discriminated against for something which, according to the AMA is a disease which they have no control over.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png

pjbasis posted...
Go tell your boss you smoke weed then. See if he lets you off the hook for self-reporting.

1. I don't and never have.
2. Even if I did, it wouldn't put anyone at risk in my job, so it's not something my boss needs to know; in fact, I'd expect a reaction more like "Ok, why are you telling me this at all? You're distracting me from financial planning."
3. I doubt my boss would care. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've had bosses who smoked weed themselves so I'd be more worried about someone offering me a blunt, which would be awkward. >_>

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

metroid composite posted...
Wait, really?

In most states you can legally be fired for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. But you can't be legally fired for having a drinking problem?

Well, this is why we need a new civil rights act for gays and lesbians and other gender issued people! Or just a judge kind enough to interpret gender in such a way that includes sexual orientation,but that's a huge stretch.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png

The point was that in a job where being caught smoking weed (via drug test or any other means) is normally condemnable, bringing it up yourself isn't going to change anything.

For a more personal example, think of something that would get you fired from your job and see if self-reporting would make the difference.

edwardsdv posted...
metroid composite posted...
Wait, really?

In most states you can legally be fired for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. But you can't be legally fired for having a drinking problem?

Well, this is why we need a new civil rights act for gays and lesbians and other gender issued people! Or just a judge kind enough to interpret gender in such a way that includes sexual orientation,but that's a huge stretch.

It exists in congress, and they've been trying to pass it for the past 17 years or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

So admitting you have a problem and need help gets you fired

but denying you have a problem and keeping your mouth shut saves your job

land of the free

--
I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo
Now this is entertainment!

Businesses try to hire the BEST people for the job.

Modeling agencies try to get the best looking, hospitals try to get the smartest most qualified doctors, etc. They all have means of judging whether a person is the best for the job.

Why an alcoholic isn't the best person for driving a truck can't be beyond comprehension.

Difference is that you're talking about instances where people apply for jobs. For instance, modeling agencies don't suddenly fire models who've worked there for years if they have no reason to.

I'd be more forgiving of the trucking company if an alcoholic truck driver applied for a job there, because then they'd change nothing about the status quo if they wouldn't hire him. The driver would just have to apply for a different job. In this instance, however, the company is hugely inconveniencing the driver by taking away what's presumably his main source of income, even though he's never made a mistake after five years of employment, just because he's an alcoholic. I'm not OK with that.

--
Full rap metal jacket ~ Method Man

#103 | OmarsComin | Posted 9/1/2011 1:21:49 AM | message detail | quote
this reminds me of when teachers get fired when the community sees pictures of them drinking, or finds out they're gay, or whatever.

my feeling on this is that an employer should never be able to fire you for something that happens off the clock. if it doesn't affect your job, it's really none of anyone's business!

This brings up an interesting point -- people can be fired for posting pictures of themselves drunk on facebook. It doesn't have to affect their work. They may not even have a drinking problem. They may have just went out and partied hard for their birthday. Might have even been on the weekend. At which point there is no real risk involved. But they can still be fired, so long as they aren't an alcoholic.

Could they admit their an alcoholic? Maybe. I'm not totally sure. But I bet they'd have to go through AA, when they may only casually drink and have no real problem. (And if they can do that, it brings up a whole slew of new questions)

That one could be fired for NOT having a problem seems like a bigger wrong here to me.

--
See You In Another Life, Brother.

If the person they hired is no longer fit to be the best they thought, then that's it.

Really though, I'm more concerned with the philosophy behind this than the politics.
Why not just let free market decide? If he was such a valuable employee, then they're shooting themselves in the foot. Another company will hire him, and they'll be better off, and thus good actions are rewarded and bad ones punished.

pjbasis posted...
The point was that in a job where being caught smoking weed (via drug test or any other means) is normally condemnable, bringing it up yourself isn't going to change anything.

For a more personal example, think of something that would get you fired from your job and see if self-reporting would make the difference.

Well doing weed is illegal and companies are within their rights to fire criminals. Until weed addiction is classified as a disease by the AMA they have no recourse and deserve their firing.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png

There are doctors who work 18 hour shifts, and it's been shown that that level of sleep deprivation is worse than working drunk. And doctors definitely could kill people. Should we fire all doctors who work in emergency rooms?

Working long shifts is a PART OF DOCTORS' JOBS, genius. Everybody has to do it.

--
"All video games being free is a human right." -Vlado [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

It's like Everyone Using Bad Analogies: The Topic.

--
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -Vaarsuvius, Order of the Stick

Why not just let free market decide? If he was such a valuable employee, then they're shooting themselves in the foot. Another company will hire him, and they'll be better off, and thus good actions are rewarded and bad ones punished.

Cause it doesn't work that way in practice. The company may well be hurt by the decision and unable to find as good an employee, but that driver is never getting another trucking job. It doesn't matter how good he is, when the other company finds out he was fired for having an alcohol problem they will throw away his resume every time. He can apply to as many places as he wants, but every time that application will end the moment they call his prior place of employment.

--
(Maniac64 at work) [Browncoat] ~Board 570901~
All the proteins, vitamins, and carbs of your grandma's best turkey dinner, plus 15% alcohol.

Funny how some take it at a face value that alcoholism is a disease. There is debate among the professionals. So it's not that simple.

--
Bury me an angel. Set my blood soul free.

Cause it doesn't work that way in practice. The company may well be hurt by the decision and unable to find as good an employee, but that driver is never getting another trucking job. It doesn't matter how good he is, when the other company finds out he was fired for having an alcohol problem they will throw away his resume every time. He can apply to as many places as he wants, but every time that application will end the moment they call his prior place of employment.

And when you ask yourself why the other companies will do that you should also realize why the original company should be able to fire him.

--
"All video games being free is a human right." -Vlado [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

Have I ever said that I didn't think he should be fired? Cause I do. But I also understand the other side of this.

And the other company doesn't have 5 years of evidence that he is otherwise an exemplary employee.

--
(Maniac64 at work) [Browncoat] ~Board 570901~
All the proteins, vitamins, and carbs of your grandma's best turkey dinner, plus 15% alcohol.

Sure they would, because you can list your employment history on job applications and explain reasons for termination.

--
"All video games being free is a human right." -Vlado [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

HatecreW_ posted...
Funny how some take it at a face value that alcoholism is a disease. There is debate among the professionals. So it's not that simple.

It is currently classified as such.

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it is a disease.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png

How it's classified really shouldn't be relevant. I don't particularly care what the AMA is currently calling alcoholism because we all know what alcoholism consists of. Plus, all psychological ailments have an element of politics to them. Homosexuality is no longer considered a disorder while plenty of other sexual proclivities are.

--
"All video games being free is a human right." -Vlado [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

And its irrelevent in the face of the current laws what you think. The AMA has policy power you dont.

Once again if you dont like it, lobby for a change to that classification. If you dont want to do that then just shut up.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png

pjbasis posted...
Really though, I'm more concerned with the philosophy behind this than the politics.
Why not just let free market decide? If he was such a valuable employee, then they're shooting themselves in the foot. Another company will hire him, and they'll be better off, and thus good actions are rewarded and bad ones punished.

Because the free market has proven historically that it will discriminate rather than hire based on skill. See: race, gender.

And this isn't necessarily discrimination on the part of the business owner. A business owner in the 50s might look at a black person and think "This is the most qualified candidate but...I think several customers will boycott my store if I hire this person." A bank owner in the 50s might look at a woman and think "This is the most qualified candidate, but I just don't think my customers are going to want to trust a woman with their money." Which is to say, in a free economy, it might actually be the correct business decision to not hire the most competent employee *because* they are black or female.

So um...I don't really believe your claim that "We can just leave anti-discrimination up to the free market. Someone else will hire the highly qualified employee--it's not a problem."

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

And its irrelevent in the face of the current laws what you think. The AMA has policy power you dont.

I'm sorry, I thought this involved a debate about what should happen, not was does happen.

Once again if you dont like it, lobby for a change to that classification. If you dont want to do that then just shut up.

I believe something like that is happening with this very topic, your petulant stupidity notwithstanding.

--
"All video games being free is a human right." -Vlado [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

Yes because lobbying board 8 changes public opinion and the opinion of policy makers.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png

Als interesting side note- most of you who support firing and never hiring people with disabilities like alcoholism-- do you at least concede then that welfare is necessary for those people who - no matter how qualified they may be- will never be hired due to a disability they have.

Because thats essentially the kind of scenario youre endorsing short of wishing everyone with a problem would commit suicide or something./

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png