|
Post by Kamikazi on Jun 19, 2005 21:28:42 GMT -5
A friend of mine has Multiple Sclerosis and she was trying to fly out to Seattle to visit a friend who had moved there.
She wasn't allowed to bring her medication and pain killers onto the plane because it included 5 needles.
She had 3 doctor's notes saying they were for medical purposes. From 3 different doctors. One included a senior Physician at Sick Kids hospital here in Toronto.
The fact of the matter was, was that because they were needles, they could have been apparently used as either: a) weapons or b) use with illicit substances
What a fucking load of bullshit. Security is one thing, but not allowing her onto the flight because of a MEDICAL CONDITION is bullshit. Complete bullshit.
Watch out diabetics. You're next
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker00 on Jun 20, 2005 1:14:38 GMT -5
scenario: you get 20 t#######s on a plane with doctors notes and 4 needles each. would you like it. i totally agree with the precautions. some people have to suffer for the good of the masses.
|
|
|
Post by feckarse on Jun 20, 2005 3:48:47 GMT -5
you're not allowed to bring knives, razor blades, needles...etc on a plane because they can be used as dangerous weapons
fair enough
but you are allowed to bring a glass bottle (eg bottle of vodka you buy in duty-free) - smash that, and you've got a pretty f*ckin deadly weapon
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jun 20, 2005 10:08:06 GMT -5
you're not allowed to bring knives, razor blades, needles...etc on a plane because they can be used as dangerous weapons fair enough but you are allowed to bring a glass bottle (eg bottle of vodka you buy in duty-free) - smash that, and you've got a pretty f*ckin deadly weapon yeah Ive never been able to get my head around that one either. Also, they wont let you on a plane if you are drunk, but they will serve you enough drink on the plane to get drunk, whats that all about
|
|
|
Post by feckarse on Jun 20, 2005 10:12:57 GMT -5
you're not allowed to bring knives, razor blades, needles...etc on a plane because they can be used as dangerous weapons fair enough but you are allowed to bring a glass bottle (eg bottle of vodka you buy in duty-free) - smash that, and you've got a pretty f*ckin deadly weapon yeah Ive never been able to get my head around that one either. Also, they wont let you on a plane if you are drunk, but they will serve you enough drink on the plane to get drunk, whats that all about bureaucracy in a world gone mad
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Jun 20, 2005 10:13:08 GMT -5
you have to pack away the stuff, you can bring knives anything with you aslong as you pack it in your case and declare it, eg sport stars cant bring there equipment with them, very common for snooker players but now they have to be put in the suit cases etc, recently someones broke and he lost compations as a result, cant remeber who thou?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2005 13:59:24 GMT -5
A friend of mine has Multiple Sclerosis and she was trying to fly out to Seattle to visit a friend who had moved there. She wasn't allowed to bring her medication and pain killers onto the plane because it included 5 needles. She had 3 doctor's notes saying they were for medical purposes. From 3 different doctors. One included a senior Physician at Sick Kids hospital here in Toronto. The fact of the matter was, was that because they were needles, they could have been apparently used as either: a) weapons or b) use with illicit substances What a fucking load of bullshit. Security is one thing, but not allowing her onto the flight because of a MEDICAL CONDITION is bullshit. Complete bullshit. Watch out diabetics. You're next ITS PEOPLE LIKE U THAT WILL ALLOW TERROR ATTACKS TO CONTINUE..THATS NOT A DISS ITS JUST A FACT...PEOPLE THAT HATE EXTREME MEASURES TO ASSURE SAFTEY ALWAYS ARE THE REASON SAFTEY IS COMPROMISED SO " POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" CAN WIN OUT...NEXT TIME THERES A ATTACK THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED ..REMEMBER YOUR VIEW IT WILL BE THE MAIN REASON WHY THE SAFTEY MEASURES WERE NO THERE
|
|
|
Post by Kamikazi on Jun 20, 2005 16:30:52 GMT -5
I'm not a fucking terrorist
I just think that its ridiculous that she couldn't bring medication
Do you even understand the disease Kalas?
|
|
|
Post by Kamikazi on Jun 20, 2005 16:35:15 GMT -5
scenario: you get 20 t#######s on a plane with doctors notes and 4 needles each. would you like it. i totally agree with the precautions. some people have to suffer for the good of the masses. Webby might want to look at that
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jun 20, 2005 18:57:22 GMT -5
It's a question of cost-benefit analysis:
I don't know where you stand but this is where I stand:
A person comes with a doctor's note, that can and is verified as legitimate to carry their diabetes needles and medicine on board with them. The likelihood that it is a sham and they want to take over the plane. I think. Roughly 0.001%. In one out of every tons of cases there may be a hijacking and tons of death. I think the odds of this are fairly ridiciulously low. Therefore is it worht preventing people who have diabetes from flying for the sake of the slim chance that they are actually terrorists in addition to diabetics (for note that they have doctor's notes that are verifiable).? I think not.
We make such sacrifices all the time. There would be virtually no deaths from car crashes if we were willing to spend half a million on cars and safe roads. We are not willing to do this. We think the expense compared to the risks is too great. (ie - look at formula one deaths despite the speeds)
Similarly I think the infringement for the minimal risk is too great.
Disagree? Fine. Hire a fucking cop to put on each plane to watch over the diabetics but I don't think that people should be prevented from doing things they otherwise would be able to do because of paranoia. If you really think so then you need to compensate them for your paranoia that is depriving them of something that was their right. Such a thing might be subsideized buses or hiring cops to be on planes. But you can't just limit people's rights due to your paranoia and not compensate them for their new restricted rights that specifically penalise them and have come about through no fault of their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2005 20:08:32 GMT -5
I'm not a fucking terrorist I just think that its ridiculous that she couldn't bring medication Do you even understand the disease Kalas? yes i do....but sadly because of sept 11 people who need needles or anything else will have to compromise let me pose a question...u have a kid or a wife they get killed because someone in a wheelchair was ''posing'' AS A INVALID and blows up or takes down a plane because they were allowed to boasd the plane with needles....its extreme i agree but after 9/11 its the only way we can act..i am sorry for your freind but sadly werlcome to the 21st century
|
|
|
Post by Kamikazi on Jun 20, 2005 20:16:06 GMT -5
I think it's ridiculous that people who have actual diseases suffer.
The problem with not carrying on meds is this: People with Diabetes need insulin to function. Insulin which is administered through syringes. Say an airline fucks up, you know, in the small, teeny-tiny chance that for the first time in history they lose someone's bag, and that person had their insulin in it. Say that happens and that same person gets to an airport without their insulin and needs to take a certain shot to stabilize their blood sugar level. Now if that bag is missing, that can very easily cause cardiac arrest, temporary paralysis, seizures and a whole slew of other crap that just isn't cool.
So, in light of that possibility, I think either airport baggage handlers should get infinitely better. Or there should be some changes made.
|
|
|
Post by Kamikazi on Jun 20, 2005 20:20:24 GMT -5
yes i do....but sadly because of sept 11 people who need needles or anything else will have to compromise let me pose a question...u have a kid or a wife they get killed because someone in a wheelchair was ''posing'' AS A INVALID and blows up or takes down a plane because they were allowed to boasd the plane with needles....its extreme i agree but after 9/11 its the only way we can act..i am sorry for your freind but sadly werlcome to the 21st century How about this: Say there's a designated area for carry-ons on planes. But that area is monitored by say a police officer or two and a nurse in the case that someone is carrying meds. That way, people can travel with their meds, security is there on the plane and there's no discimination on disability
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2005 20:25:13 GMT -5
I think it's ridiculous that people who have actual diseases suffer. The problem with not carrying on meds is this: People with Diabetes need insulin to function. Insulin which is administered through syringes. Say an airline fucks up, you know, in the small, teeny-tiny chance that for the first time in history they lose someone's bag, and that person had their insulin in it. Say that happens and that same person gets to an airport without their insulin and needs to take a certain shot to stabilize their blood sugar level. Now if that bag is missing, that can very easily cause cardiac arrest, temporary paralysis, seizures and a whole slew of other crap that just isn't cool. So, in light of that possibility, I think either airport baggage handlers should get infinitely better. Or there should be some changes made. what u propose cannot happen because of the way of the world..i agree with your idea but it cannot be implemented without opening up air travel to terrorists who will pose as invalids....i am sorry but its a fact
|
|
|
Post by Kamikazi on Jun 20, 2005 20:26:01 GMT -5
Sadly enough I suppose
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2005 20:28:29 GMT -5
yes i do....but sadly because of sept 11 people who need needles or anything else will have to compromise let me pose a question...u have a kid or a wife they get killed because someone in a wheelchair was ''posing'' AS A INVALID and blows up or takes down a plane because they were allowed to boasd the plane with needles....its extreme i agree but after 9/11 its the only way we can act..i am sorry for your freind but sadly werlcome to the 21st century How about this: Say there's a designated area for carry-ons on planes. But that area is monitored by say a police officer or two and a nurse in the case that someone is carrying meds. That way, people can travel with their meds, security is there on the plane and there's no discimination on disability again after 9/11 everything you propose...which makes sense may i say cannot happen ...the world has changed and unfortunatlly cewrtain freedoms and rights will suffer so the masses dont get blown up
|
|
|
Post by Kamikazi on Jun 20, 2005 20:44:26 GMT -5
like I said, its sad, but you're right
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jun 20, 2005 20:52:03 GMT -5
the world has not changed. The world is exactly the same as it was before 9/11 as after. It is only different due to irrational, emotional over-reactions that cuase us to prohibit disabled people from flying and make us attack the wrong countries.
it's a cost-benefit analysis and I think you're infringing people's rights too much in the interest of protecting their security when the risk to their security is too slim. Admittedly, I don't have the facts before me BUT if you discount 9/11, then the risk of dying in a terrorist attack in the US compared to that of getting killed by a blow to the head by a donkey is the same.
Look 3 000 people is tragic. But in all honesty out of 250 million it really isn't that many. Compare it to all the other causes of death and all the other things we could be spending our money taking precuations against and you'll see it ranks pretty low.
Why do only 5% of ships that come into this country have their luggage searched while the other 95% go unchecked? Because it costs too much. That money can be better spent elsewhere. The risk is too small to too few people. It's tragic if you happen to be that person but it's more tragic if funds are misallocated. We want to protect and help as many people as possible and that's best done through safety measures against terrorist when there's actually a threat of attack ,but when there's not that money is better spent on health and education on people. This may sound harsh but fucking get over 9/11.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2005 20:59:49 GMT -5
the world has not changed. The world is exactly the same as it was before 9/11 as after. It is only different due to irrational, emotional over-reactions that cuase us to prohibit disabled people from flying and make us attack the wrong countries. it's a cost-benefit analysis and I think you're infringing people's rights too much in the interest of protecting their security when the risk to their security is too slim. Admittedly, I don't have the facts before me BUT if you discount 9/11, then the risk of dying in a terrorist attack in the US compared to that of getting killed by a blow to the head by a donkey is the same. Look 3 000 people is tragic. But in all honesty out of 250 million it really isn't that many. Compare it to all the other causes of death and all the other things we could be spending our money taking precuations against and you'll see it ranks pretty low. Why do only 5% of ships that come into this country have their luggage searched while the other 95% go unchecked? Because it costs too much. That money can be better spent elsewhere. The risk is too small to too few people. It's tragic if you happen to be that person but it's more tragic if funds are misallocated. We want to protect and help as many people as possible and that's best done through safety measures against terrorist when there's actually a threat of attack ,but when there's not that money is better spent on health and education on people. This may sound harsh but fucking get over 9/11. ok i will get over 9/11//and when the next tradgedy occurs if any of your loved ones are killed .. DO THE SAME.... THIS HAS TO BE THE MOST IGNORANT , CALLOUS POST EVER..FUCK OFF
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2005 21:01:24 GMT -5
ALBERTZZ if u lose your mother or father or sibling to terrists..remember your words..my freind
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jun 20, 2005 21:09:51 GMT -5
thanks kalas,
I'm sorry about 9/11. It was tragic. BUT you can't simply refer to 9/11's tragedy as a justification for ANY MEASURE WHATSOEVER. THAT:S what I was trying to say. Just as Israel cannot simply bring up the Holocaust or the Arab-Israeli war as justification for ANYTHING It does (ie - its wall) so too cannot the US use 9/11 for justification for ANYTHING it does.
Yes, 9/11 was tragic. We should learn from our mistake that lead to it. BUT that doesn't mean that you can just say "9/11" and pretend that justifies anything.
So, should diabetics be allowed needles on the plane, (either directly with them or in a separate locked place with a police officer on board etc)?
Welll "9/11"
what about 9/11? there is a risk of a repeat. Ok. How great is that risk? Is it worth restricting disabled people from travelling.
Personally, I do not think security is an all-conquering refutation. If it were, then we would all be driving around $500 000 cars (b/c think about it when F1 cars crash at 200 mph they rarely die, but when we do, we do) and every single ship that comes into this country would be thoroughly searched. If this happened the chances of harm would be greatly reduced. Why don't we do this? Because it costs too much money, time, effort and energy to combat a comparatively negligible risk. Instead we focus on the bigger risks.
We search suspect ship's cargo, we impose speed limits and put in air bags but we don't do everything we possibly can for "safety". We could do so but we don't because the risk is simply not great enough.
So sorry if I sounded insensitive. 9/11 was tragic, but you need to justify every new proposal on its own grounds not purely by reference to 9/11. To do otherwise is not convincing and a poor argument. Ie - if you're arguing that we should kill saddam you can't just say "hitler" you have to show why he is like hitler.
all in all, I hope you get my point. Choices don't exist in a vacuum. Spending money on one things implies not spending it on another thing. If any of my loved ones are killed in an accident I will be devestated. But I won't constantly use this as an argument for whatever the fuck I want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2005 21:12:45 GMT -5
thanks kalas, I'm sorry about 9/11. It was tragic. BUT you can't simply refer to 9/11's tragedy as a justification for ANY MEASURE WHATSOEVER. THAT:S what I was trying to say. Just as Israel cannot simply bring up the Holocaust or the Arab-Israeli war as justification for ANYTHING It does (ie - its wall) so too cannot the US use 9/11 for justification for ANYTHING it does. Yes, 9/11 was tragic. We should learn from our mistake that lead to it. BUT that doesn't mean that you can just say "9/11" and pretend that justifies anything. So, should diabetics be allowed needles on the plane, (either directly with them or in a separate locked place with a police officer on board etc)? Welll "9/11" what about 9/11? there is a risk of a repeat. Ok. How great is that risk? Is it worth restricting disabled people from travelling. Personally, I do not think security is not an all-conquering refutation. If it were, then we would all be driving around $500 000 cars and every single ship that comes into this country would be thoroughly searched. If this happened the chances of harm would be greatly reduced. Why don't we do this? Because it costs too much money, time, effort and energy to combat a comparatively negligible risk. Instead we focus on the bigger risks. We search suspect ship's cargo, we impose speed limits and put in air bags but we don't do everything we possibly can for "safety". We could do so but we don't because the risk is simply not great enough. So sorry if I sounded insensitive. 9/11 was tragic, but you need to justify every new proposal on its own grounds not purely by reference to 9/11. To do otherwise is not convincing and a poor argument. Ie - if you're arguing that we should kill saddam you can't just say "hitler" you have to show why he is like hitler. all in all, I hope you get my point. Choices don't exist in a vacuum. Spending money on one things implies not spending it on another thing. If any of my loved ones are killed in an accident I will be devestated. But I won't constantly use this as an argument for whatever the fuck I want. as i said..remember your words ... CAUSE IF YOU ARE UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO LOSE A LOVED ONE TO TERROISTS OR LACK OF SECURITY ..U WILL BE PART OF THE REASON WHY....I AM DONE WITH TIS TOPIC AND THIS BOARD ...SO IF U WANT TO CONTINUE PM ME,,OTHERWISE ITS BACK TO OASIS AND LIGHT STUFF
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2005 21:15:14 GMT -5
AND ALBERTZZ..I RESPECT YOUR VIEW BUT WE CLEARLY DONT AGREE ..SO IF U WANT TO KEEP UP THE DEBATE LETS DO IT ON PMS MAN..PEACE
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jun 20, 2005 21:16:58 GMT -5
I will dude.
Look, I will greatly miss them and I will be angry. I will also not be in a position to make key political judgments since making decision swhen you are emotionally over-heated is a bad idea.
BUT EVEN THEN I won't use that tragic fact to justify ANYTHING. I will use it only to justify WHAT IT ACTUALLY JUSTIFIES. IE - let's say (heaven forbid) that someone I care about is killed by a bomb in the white house when they're visiting.
I might then say that we should ahve bomb detectors at the entrance. I won't say NO arabs allowed in because of what happened to my parents. I won't say no one allowed in because of what happened to my parents I won't say let's go blow up Iraq because of what happened to my parents. It is something you shouldn't lose sight of, obviously, but it does not BY ITSELF justify ANY proposal. The proposal must be justified on its own terms.
It's just that if you say let's spend 100 billion on searching ships' cargo taht's 100 billion you're not spending on something else - say health, or education. Where is the money better spent? Well it depends on the risk. Statistically in the past the risk of terrorism has been so negligible it is practically insignificant. You believe 9/11 changed all taht. I don't think the world changed that much. Is the risk still negligible? Well, it appears to have increased, but still, statistically the individual's chance of terrorism as a cause of death is negligible. So should we be spending a disproportionate amount of money here? Your call. I mean, think about it this way. Statistically the chances of a tornatdo going through your home are fairly remote. Should you build a tornado proof home costing you millions of dollars (assuming you can afford it). Well, given that the risk of dying in an automobile is greater, I would say no. It's the same thing here - America is trying to provide the best for its citizens. Thsi is done through providing health, education, security and so on and so forth. If the risk of terrorism is fairly minimal should you spend that money on terrorism or education. Well, it's like the tornado vs. car accident example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2005 21:19:51 GMT -5
I will dude. Look, I will greatly miss them and I will be angry. I will also not be in a position to make key political judgments since making decision swhen you are emotionally over-heated is a bad idea. BUT EVEN THEN I won't use that tragic fact to justify ANYTHING. I will use it only to justify WHAT IT ACTUALLY JUSTIFIES. IE - let's say (heaven forbid) that someone I care about is killed by a bomb in the white house when they're visiting. I might then say that we should ahve bomb detectors at the entrance. I won't say NO arabs allowed in because of what happened to my parents. I won't say no one allowed in because of what happened to my parents I won't say let's go blow up Iraq because of what happened to my parents. It is something you shouldn't lose sight of, obviously, but it does not BY ITSELF justify ANY proposal. The proposal must be justified on its own terms. FAIR ENOUGH MATE.. your posts are intelligent and while i disagree i respect your view... PM when u want to discuss
|
|