Conceptualising Addiction as Disability in Discrimination Law : A Situated Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People labelled as having an addiction and people with disabilities face significant discrimination in their daily lives. In countries where targeted disability discrimination law is applied, it is often assumed that including addiction in the definition of disability will protect those labelled as having an addiction from discrimination. Several scholars have considered the effects of excluding addiction from the remit of discrimination law, but there has been less work examining the consequences – both positive and negative – of including addiction. Using the method of ‘situated comparisons’ developed by intersectionality scholars, this article interrogates how addiction and disability are co-constituted in two contrasting legal and geographical contexts, where people labelled as having an addiction have sought to assert their right to equality before the law. By comparing the application of targeted discrimination law in Australia with a human rights charter in Canada, it demonstrates how systems of power such as ableism and neoliberalism work through the law to co-constitute addiction and disability in ways that are stigmatising, even within legal approaches that aim to eliminate discrimination. Furthermore, the law, in both contexts, fails to recognise the intersectional nature of discrimination often experienced by these groups. The article contends that conceptualising addiction as a disability will not necessarily reduce the discrimination faced by people labelled as having an addiction; and concludes with recommendations for both policy and legal practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".