PROTECTION FOR ADDICTS PUSHES THE ENVELOPE OF SOCIETY'S TOLERANCE

The Law Now Demands That Those Who Are Drug Dependent Be Treated The
Same As Someone Confined To A Wheelchair

Is a drug addict a disabled person? Is a person who injects himself
with heroin committing a conscious, deliberate and criminal act which
may lead to the debilitating illness of addiction the same as someone
who is born without sight or limbs?

Most of us would say it is not.

If a person becomes wheelchair bound after a car accident caused by a
criminal act of drunk driving, does that mean that he's less
deserving of the tag of disabled and not worthy of the welfare and
protection rights our society has granted him?

Is this person, who has to spend the rest of his life in a
wheelchair, any different to a heroin addict who spends the rest of
his life dependent on the drug or on methadone? The law now says
there is no difference.

A judgment in the Federal Court two weeks ago has ruled that
addiction and drug dependency is a legally recognised disability.

The ruling, where Justice Catherine Branson overturned a finding by
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that an ex-services
club had not discriminated against a club member who was a former
heroin addict on a methadone program, has huge implications for
employers, clubs and landlords.

It means that they could breach the Disability Discrimination Act and
be liable for damages if they refuse to employ an addict, if they
sack an addict or refuse to rent a flat or a house to an addict if
they make their decision on the grounds that the person is drug
dependent.

Many of us despairing about the growing scourge of drug dependency in
our society and intolerant of those people who, as Bob Carr has said,
take the stupid decision to stick a needle in their arm or shovel
powder up their nose will have some trouble with this ruling.

Let's not beat around the bush here, it's not easy to accept that
people who are dependent on illegal drugs will now be afforded the
same protection under the law as people who have overcome
extraordinary odds to live full and law-abiding lives.

This is especially true in the wake of the Paralympic Games, where
our perceptions of the disabled were radically upgraded and
normalised as we witnessed day after day of uplifting episodes of
athleticism. Many of us saw, for the first time, the person and not
the wheelchair; pity and avoidance were replaced by normal human
feelings of respect and interest.

The Federal Court ruling that drug dependency by itself is a
disability, and not the accident or injury which might occur as a
result of that drug dependency, will push the envelope of societys
tolerance. Particularly when the ruling concerned a former heroin
addict. Despite the fact that his life was "normalised" by methadone,
he was still deemed to be disabled. Can you imagine Christopher Reeve
still calling himself disabled if a miracle drug he was dependent on
for life allowed him to walk?

Chris Puplick, the NSW Anti-Discrimination commissioner, and Tony
Trimingham, the drug reform activist, last week welcomed Justice
Branson's ruling as a recognition that addiction is a medical problem
and as such, a disability.

Chris Puplick pointed out that no employer could be sued for damages
if an employees drug dependency meant he or she couldnt do their job
adequately.

Tony Trimingham said to refuse to employ someone simply on the basis
that he was drug dependent was harsh because work was vital in
restoring normality to an addict's life and was one step to recovery.

They have a point. They want society to accept that illegal drug
addiction, like addiction to the legal drugs of alcohol and tobacco,
is here to stay and we have to deal with it as a medical problem.

But my gut reaction is that this ruling will only exacerbate the
victim mentality of many addicts.

I'd throw the book at any landlord who refused to rent a house to
Louise Sauvage and her wheelchair but I'd have trouble mustering the
same outrage if they baulked at a heroin addict and his bag of dope
and syringes.

Read the judgment of Marsden v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission & District Ex-Servicemen & Women's Memorial Club Ltd on
the Federal Court's website, and make up your own mind.

sallyloane@hotmail.com.au