This doesn't seem too far of a reach: "Abusing the system" => Taking advantage of services for people with mental and physical disabilities => Taking advantage of people with disabilities.
It's a little more complicated than that. Homeless people also will claim their pet is an emotional support animal. They are often homeless because they are disabled but being homeless means "Good luck jumping through bureaucratic hoops to register anything."
Sometimes someone's life comes unraveled because their disability has never been properly identified and accommodated. Being able to say "I need this" without having to jump through hoops to prove it can help such people make their lives work better.
Most studies suggest that something like one in five people has a disability. One study that asked about user needs and challenges in using stuff intentionally avoided using stigmatizing words like "disabled" or "handicapped" and more like three fifths of respondents said they had some degree of trouble doing various things and more accessible design would benefit them.
People who are only moderately disabled often try like hell to avoid getting labeled as disabled because it is stigmatizing and people start treating you like you are stupid and worthless rather than like you just need special accommodation in some areas to make your life work. Those who qualify for an official label of "disabled" are equally hostile to seeing only moderately disabled people being granted the label that grants special status and special accommodation.
The reality is that disability occurs along a continuum. It isn't an on/off switch where if you fall on this side of the line you are "normal, healthy and able-bodied" and if you fall on that side of the line you are "disabled." We try to categorize it like it works that way but it doesn't really work that way.
I understand there is a huge grey area on this subject. I specifically refer to the abusers (the only label I am applying intentionally.) I didn't mention people who are homeless. A much better explanation than I can give at this time: http://brightside-susan.blogspot.com/2011/05/people-behaving... A quote from the article:
> "Each time an employee has an encounter with a fake service dog (and yes, they know when you're lying), this brings us tangibly closer to the implementation of laws, regulations, and policies that make it harder for me to live my life without being treated as a second-class citizen."
The first thing you linked to is the personal opinion of someone with what looks like a personal blog.
I have had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy. I homeschooled my two gifted-learning disabled sons for years, which means I effectively ran a two student school under the laws of California for years. I also spent some years homeless in part due to my own disability.
Before I was diagnosed with a serious disability in my thirties, I was routinely dismissed by people around me as merely "lazy" (while being sick all the time and one of the top students of my graduating high school class).
Lots of people who claim their animal is a "service animal" are people whose lives are in the toilet, the system doesn't work for them and they have serious issues. Inability to prove need is not actually evidence of lying.
I have a dog phobia and don't like being around them. I am all for finding some means to make sure people keep their animals under control in public. I have had lots of negative experiences with assholes who will not control their dog and who feel I am obligated to meet their dog's emotional needs and all this kind of crappy thing.
Plenty of people being dismissed as "merely abusing the system" have a real need and "abusing the system" is their only means to try to meet it in a world that is routinely hostile to their needs.
It's really complicated. Trying to sort out a better policy is not simple at all.
> The first thing you linked to is the personal opinion of someone with what looks like a personal blog.
Anything you or I write here is effectively the same thing. ;) Equal valuation. This blog does cite the ADA and IAADP though.
You seem focused on the bureaucratic hoops and seem to think I want them enforced more strictly? I haven't mentioned that. Please evaluate only the words I use. You seem to be making a point about specifics I haven't raised.
The people acting unethically/immorally and abusing the system know who they are when they do it. It's why they are so defensive. Selfish people ruining good things, once again.
Homeless people are routinely defensive because they are homeless and the entire world treats them like crap on a routine basis.
It's really not as simple as "you can tell who is abusing the system at first glance." That's not how that works. I know many people like to think the world is nice and straight forward like that, but it usually isn't.
Again, I am not referencing people who are homeless. I haven't said "you can tell who is abusing the system at first glance." either. I think we generally agree though. Thank you for the conversation.
Sometimes someone's life comes unraveled because their disability has never been properly identified and accommodated. Being able to say "I need this" without having to jump through hoops to prove it can help such people make their lives work better.
Most studies suggest that something like one in five people has a disability. One study that asked about user needs and challenges in using stuff intentionally avoided using stigmatizing words like "disabled" or "handicapped" and more like three fifths of respondents said they had some degree of trouble doing various things and more accessible design would benefit them.
People who are only moderately disabled often try like hell to avoid getting labeled as disabled because it is stigmatizing and people start treating you like you are stupid and worthless rather than like you just need special accommodation in some areas to make your life work. Those who qualify for an official label of "disabled" are equally hostile to seeing only moderately disabled people being granted the label that grants special status and special accommodation.
The reality is that disability occurs along a continuum. It isn't an on/off switch where if you fall on this side of the line you are "normal, healthy and able-bodied" and if you fall on that side of the line you are "disabled." We try to categorize it like it works that way but it doesn't really work that way.