Campaign 02 · Drug policy & addiction
Let the ordinary disability test consider the person and the effects of their condition.
CLA is seeking review and consultation on the special exclusion for substance addiction in the Equality Act disability framework, with a view to removing it. Employment is our first practical focus.
The change we seek
We are asking government to review and consult on regulation 3 of the Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010, with a view to removing the categorical exclusion for substance addiction.
The aim is to allow addiction to be assessed through the ordinary disability framework. Qualification would depend on the individual’s impairment and its effects. Our proposal would not make every addiction a disability.
Alongside reform, we want practical guidance developed with people affected, employers, clinicians, legal specialists and other relevant contributors. That guidance should address disclosure, workplace support, conduct and safety.
Understanding the starting point
Regulation 3 generally excludes addiction to alcohol, nicotine or another substance from counting as an impairment for this purpose. It contains an exception for addiction originally resulting from medically prescribed drugs or other medical treatment. Source 1.
The general test concerns a physical or mental impairment with substantial, long-term adverse effects on everyday activities. “Substantial” means more than minor or trivial. Long-term effects normally last, or are likely to last, at least 12 months, or for the rest of the person’s life. Sources 2–3.
Someone with an addiction may already qualify through another impairment, including depression or liver damage, if the relevant test is met. The exclusion does not remove every possible disability protection from everyone with an addiction. Source 3.
This campaign concerns the Equality Act framework in England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland has a separate legal framework.
Our first practical focus
We want to understand where the exclusion affects recruitment, disclosure, access to treatment and staying in work—and what reform would mean in practice.
Gather evidence about when people seek support, what information employers need and whether current rules discourage early conversations.
Examine options such as agreed treatment appointments, changes to working arrangements and a supported return after absence. Their suitability depends on the person, the role and the circumstances.
Develop guidance that separates a person’s condition from misconduct and present safety risks, including in roles where impairment could endanger other people.
Under the current framework, reasonable adjustments are individual and context-dependent. Practicality, cost and health and safety are relevant; employers do not have to change the basic nature of a job. Acas guidance.
The safeguards
The proposal retains the ordinary legal threshold. It does not promise automatic status, a job guarantee or every requested adjustment.
Reform would not create a right to work or drive while unsafe. Actual risks would still need to be assessed and managed.
We are not seeking immunity for unlawful possession or supply, violence or misconduct. The policy must distinguish protection from permission to cause harm.
The route to change
The campaign direction is agreed. Detailed policy design and evidence gathering are continuing; the change below is an objective, not an achieved outcome.
Set out the current law, its exceptions and the intended change in a referenced public explainer.
Invite experience and research on disclosure, treatment, recruitment and retention, including objections and unintended consequences.
Test policy options with relevant contributors and prepare a briefing for policy-makers and other stakeholders.
Ask government to examine regulation 3. Record substantive correspondence, responses and developments when suitable for publication.
What progress would look like: a clear government response, meaningful consultation, and ultimately a change in the rules accompanied by workable guidance. We will report our activity separately from those outcomes.
Follow published workQuestions & answers
No. Removing the exclusion would allow an individual assessment. The relevant impairment, effects and legal conditions would still need to be considered.
No. Our proposal preserves the ability to manage objective safety risks and address conduct. Guidance would need to explain how those responsibilities sit alongside disability protection.
Regulation 3 concerns alcohol, nicotine and other substances. It should not be described as a blanket statutory exclusion for every behaviour that might be called an addiction.
This campaign addresses disability protection. It does not propose changing offences relating to possession or supply.
Yes. Employers can offer support without waiting for a legal duty to arise. Existing disability duties may also be relevant where another qualifying impairment is present. The facts of an individual case matter.
This page explains a campaign for policy change. CLA is not offering individual legal casework. Acas provides workplace information, and an employment adviser can assess your circumstances.
Sources & further reading
Legal overview checked on 4 October 2026. Read the full sources for the detail and exceptions.
Contribute to the work
We welcome research, lived experience, employment expertise and reasoned criticism. Tell us what the proposal should address and what evidence should inform it.
Start with a short summary and public links. Please leave out identifying details about other people and confidential records.