The answer is complicated. In the 1990's the regulations were changed and uncontrollable severe alcoholism or drug abuse by itself was no longer a grounds to receive benefits, though of course, such a condition is disabling and causes many to be unable to work. Now the standard provides that the person must be disabled even if they could refrain from abusing drugs or alcohol.

Abuse of alcohol or drugs complicates a social security or disability case, but every day many cases are approved in which the claimant is still addicted to alcohol or such common street drugs as cocaine, meth amphetamines or marijuana. The question whether the person would still be disabled if they stopped abusing these substances is especially hard to determine if the disabling condition is a mental disorder. Certainly many mentally disabled folks with such conditions as schizophrenia and severe bi-polar who are substance abusers would still be unable to hold full time employment even if they stopped the abuse. Similarly alcoholics with advanced sclerosis have livers that will not bounce back so they can work even if they stop drinking.

For other medical conditions drug or alcohol abuse may be irrelevant. A person with several failed back operations may be disabled even if they still abuse drugs because they would remain disabled if they stopped using drugs.

Of course with all conditions there is a question of prejudice on the behalf of the social security personnel making the disability decision. Frankly such abuse can reasonably be considered as a factor as to whether the applicant is motivated to work or a malingerer.

In short if you cannot control your abuse of drugs, be aware that it can make your case harder, but if you would still be disabled even if you stopped using you should not hesitate to apply.