:( :( :(
At least he walked away.
http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/harrison-ford-plane-crash-1201447290/
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_Xl6cRUsAEwud5.jpg)
QuoteMarch 5, 2015 | 03:34PM PT
Alex Stedman
News Editor, Variety.com@a_sted
Harrison Ford is in critical condition after crash landing a plane in Venice, Calif. on Thursday, according to several reports.
The 72-year-old crash landed on Penmar Golf Course after something apparently went wrong mechanically with the single-engine plane at around 2:25 p.m. Ford was transferred to a local hospital in critical condition with head injuries. The actor was the only one aboard the plane and the only person who sustained injuries.
Ford reportedly walked away from the crash, and was later attended to by two physicians who were on the scene.
There was blood all over his face," Howard Tabe, an employee at the Penmar Golf Course, told NBC News. "Two very fine doctors were treating him, taking good care of him. I helped put a blanket under his hip."
Ford is an avid pilot, and has crashed before with minimal injuries.
TMZ was the first to report the news about Ford.
Did he finish his bits for Star wars?
Quote from: Josephus on March 05, 2015, 07:02:23 PM
Did he finish his bits for Star wars?
I sure hope so. :( And that he survives this.
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2015, 07:09:43 PM
And that he survives this.
"The actor, who was conscious and breathing when rescue crews reached him, was stabilized and taken to a hospital, where he was in fair to moderate condition"
Sounds like he will.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 05, 2015, 06:58:55 PM
Ford is an avid pilot, and has crashed before with minimal injuries.
Just last night I was watching a replay of him on Conan where he talked about his flying (and his emergency response: "shit and die, in that order"), and was thinking, I don't know if I'd be comfortable with him as a pilot.
:nelson: I beat Tim to the punch in the OTT.
QuotePenmar Golf Course
---
later attended to by two physicians who were on the scene.
Wouldn't have found as many doctors if he had flown it into Cedar Sinai.
What's the plane a P-23 ?
No idea if that's it, the number just rings a bell.
Everyone's so down on drug addicts and smokers (who actually use less healthcare dollars than nonsmokers since) for wasting medical attention, but what about these private pilots and skiers and extreme sportsmen who are really just taking huge physical risks for kicks? They don't seem to get the same reprimands.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 05, 2015, 08:23:43 PM
Everyone's so down on drug addicts and smokers (who actually use less healthcare dollars than nonsmokers since) for wasting medical attention, but what about these private pilots and skiers and extreme sportsmen who are really just taking huge physical risks for kicks? They don't seem to get the same reprimands.
They're hardly the societal strain that tens of millions of smokers, heavy drinkers and drug useres are, there just aren't that many of them and on the whole they're mostly middle or upper class.
ER beds are ER beds. Note my parenthetical, smokers actually aren't a strain on the medical system: they die earlier and cheaper than healthier non-smokers who have countless interventions for things in their 80s, etc. And drug users requiring ER care are a very small number of people, who've usually OD'd and can be resuscitated with a single injection or have abscesses that are easily lanced. Unlike complex orthopedic problems from skiing accidents or private plane crashes.
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2015, 08:20:26 PM
What's the plane a P-23 ?
No idea if that's it, the number just rings a bell.
Looks like some sort of trainer or maybe just a barnstormer with interwar livery.
edit: it's a Ryan PT-22 Recruit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_PT-22_Recruit
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 05, 2015, 08:28:25 PM
ER beds are ER beds. Note my parenthetical, smokers actually aren't a strain on the medical system: they die earlier and cheaper than healthier non-smokers who have countless interventions for things in their 80s, etc. And drug users requiring ER care are a very small number of people, who've usually OD'd and can be resuscitated with a single injection or have abscesses that are easily lanced. Unlike complex orthopedic problems from skiing accidents or private plane crashes.
I find it incredibly interesting that I am applying to medical systems that are no longer hiring smokers, are conducting pre-employment screening for nicotine and smoking-cessation aids, and are conducting random testing for nicotine products as a condition of employment--particularly since in all my travels I've never once seen an accident victim peeled out of a windshield and zipped into a body bag from smoking, never locked up or bailed out anybody for beating the shit out of the family due to smoking, or tripped over a doctor passed out in a hospital stairwell from being drunk on cigarettes.
You can't have that celebratory cigar at your best friend's wedding over the weekend and keep your job if you're tested--but you can suck down a fifth of Jack Daniels like it's nobody's fucking business, beat the shit out of your kid and keep your job.
The hypocrisy is positively staggering.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2015, 08:46:51 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 05, 2015, 08:28:25 PM
ER beds are ER beds. Note my parenthetical, smokers actually aren't a strain on the medical system: they die earlier and cheaper than healthier non-smokers who have countless interventions for things in their 80s, etc. And drug users requiring ER care are a very small number of people, who've usually OD'd and can be resuscitated with a single injection or have abscesses that are easily lanced. Unlike complex orthopedic problems from skiing accidents or private plane crashes.
I find it incredibly interesting that I am applying to medical systems that are no longer hiring smokers, are conducting pre-employment screening for nicotine and smoking-cessation aids, and are conducting random testing for nicotine products as a condition of employment--particularly since in all my travels I've never once seen an accident victim peeled out of a windshield and zipped into a body bag from smoking, never locked up or bailed out anybody for beating the shit out of the family due to smoking, or tripped over a doctor passed out in a hospital stairwell from being drunk on cigarettes.
You can't have that celebratory cigar at your best friend's wedding over the weekend and keep your job if you're tested--but you can suck down a fifth of Jack Daniels like it's nobody's fucking business, beat the shit out of your kid and keep your job.
The hypocrisy is positively staggering.
Smoking is bad.
Quote from: PDH on March 05, 2015, 09:33:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2015, 08:46:51 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 05, 2015, 08:28:25 PM
ER beds are ER beds. Note my parenthetical, smokers actually aren't a strain on the medical system: they die earlier and cheaper than healthier non-smokers who have countless interventions for things in their 80s, etc. And drug users requiring ER care are a very small number of people, who've usually OD'd and can be resuscitated with a single injection or have abscesses that are easily lanced. Unlike complex orthopedic problems from skiing accidents or private plane crashes.
I find it incredibly interesting that I am applying to medical systems that are no longer hiring smokers, are conducting pre-employment screening for nicotine and smoking-cessation aids, and are conducting random testing for nicotine products as a condition of employment--particularly since in all my travels I've never once seen an accident victim peeled out of a windshield and zipped into a body bag from smoking, never locked up or bailed out anybody for beating the shit out of the family due to smoking, or tripped over a doctor passed out in a hospital stairwell from being drunk on cigarettes.
You can't have that celebratory cigar at your best friend's wedding over the weekend and keep your job if you're tested--but you can suck down a fifth of Jack Daniels like it's nobody's fucking business, beat the shit out of your kid and keep your job.
The hypocrisy is positively staggering.
Smoking is bad.
Exactly. Smoking is a moral failing, whereas drinking is just a life decision. Or something.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2015, 08:33:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2015, 08:20:26 PM
What's the plane a P-23 ?
No idea if that's it, the number just rings a bell.
Looks like some sort of trainer or maybe just a barnstormer with interwar livery.
edit: it's a Ryan PT-22 Recruit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_PT-22_Recruit
Well identified, I had a bit of a wander on wiki but couldn't find it, for some reason ended up reading about Italian WW2 fighters. :)
At least I got that there was a P and a 2 in it's name. :D
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2015, 09:52:27 PM
Well identified, I had a bit of a wander on wiki but couldn't find it, for some reason ended up reading about Italian WW2 fighters. :)
They are only capable of flying in reverse. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2015, 09:34:51 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 05, 2015, 09:33:01 PM
Smoking is bad.
Drinking is worse.
Isn't smoking more carcinogenic? Granted, drinking might be a worse 'social ill'... but then it's also a much more interesting experience than smoking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2015, 09:34:51 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 05, 2015, 09:33:01 PM
Smoking is bad.
Drinking is worse.
We already caused a massive social disaster trying to get rid of drinking. What more do you want us to do to prove we are not hypocrites?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flXCWdhJnGY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flXCWdhJnGY)
Quote from: Liep on March 05, 2015, 07:15:50 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2015, 07:09:43 PM
And that he survives this.
"The actor, who was conscious and breathing when rescue crews reached him, was stabilized and taken to a hospital, where he was in fair to moderate condition"
Sounds like he will.
Well, he is 72. At this age you can die from a routine surgery.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 05, 2015, 08:23:43 PM
Everyone's so down on drug addicts and smokers (who actually use less healthcare dollars than nonsmokers since) for wasting medical attention, but what about these private pilots and skiers and extreme sportsmen who are really just taking huge physical risks for kicks? They don't seem to get the same reprimands.
I think they are. Especially those idiot mountain climbers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2015, 08:46:51 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 05, 2015, 08:28:25 PM
ER beds are ER beds. Note my parenthetical, smokers actually aren't a strain on the medical system: they die earlier and cheaper than healthier non-smokers who have countless interventions for things in their 80s, etc. And drug users requiring ER care are a very small number of people, who've usually OD'd and can be resuscitated with a single injection or have abscesses that are easily lanced. Unlike complex orthopedic problems from skiing accidents or private plane crashes.
I find it incredibly interesting that I am applying to medical systems that are no longer hiring smokers, are conducting pre-employment screening for nicotine and smoking-cessation aids, and are conducting random testing for nicotine products as a condition of employment--particularly since in all my travels I've never once seen an accident victim peeled out of a windshield and zipped into a body bag from smoking, never locked up or bailed out anybody for beating the shit out of the family due to smoking, or tripped over a doctor passed out in a hospital stairwell from being drunk on cigarettes.
You can't have that celebratory cigar at your best friend's wedding over the weekend and keep your job if you're tested--but you can suck down a fifth of Jack Daniels like it's nobody's fucking business, beat the shit out of your kid and keep your job.
The hypocrisy is positively staggering.
Wow. This is insane. I never even suspected anyone would be doing that. That would probably be illegal in most of Europe, too.
Also, in Poland, if you excluded alcoholics and smokers, you would probably get almost no doctors. Especially surgeons. :P
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 05, 2015, 10:51:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2015, 09:34:51 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 05, 2015, 09:33:01 PM
Smoking is bad.
Drinking is worse.
Isn't smoking more carcinogenic? Granted, drinking might be a worse 'social ill'... but then it's also a much more interesting experience than smoking.
Trans fats are also more carcinogenic. And smoking makes you look much more cool than eating a double whooper with large fries.
Besides, it's not like cancer is the only disease that is relevant. Smoking does not give you a liver failure.
I have a feeling that the last 15-20 years were the free-est period in modern human history and it will be downhill from now. This is the time when we got greater acceptance for gays and self-sufficient women; anti-drug laws were relaxed; and we got the Internet. Now, the gay and women rights have reached the plateau, but the other freedoms are slowly chipped away. The employers are going to have a much greater appetite for surveillance (and it will have a much greater impact on our lives) than governments, which means that enjoying many legal activities such as smoking or drinking will soon make you a pariah. Internet is not going to stay free (at least not the way it was) for long, with anonymity being gone and again employers wanting to get access to more and more information about you (already, I found from The Elegant Sophist, public employees in Arkansas are required to submit their social media accounts - even if private and not referring to their employment position - to the employer and the private employees are soon to follow). And of course we will eventually get to the point where employers will want you to turn on the tracking devices in your phones and you won't be able to stop it (other than by moving to the wilderness and living like a hermit).
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2015, 01:47:39 AM
I found from The Elegant Sophist, public employees in Arkansas are required to submit their social media accounts - even if private and not referring to their employment position - to the employer and the private employees are soon to follow).
The Supreme Court will smack that down when it goes before them.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2015, 01:50:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2015, 01:47:39 AM
I found from The Elegant Sophist, public employees in Arkansas are required to submit their social media accounts - even if private and not referring to their employment position - to the employer and the private employees are soon to follow).
The Supreme Court will smack that down when it goes before them.
That's good to hear. Still, I think we have had our freedom and now it will slowly go away. At least when it comes to the Internet.
You smoking social justice warriors forget one tiny detail. If you OD on French fries or alcohol you are only hurting yourself (well, apart from being an aggressive dick while drunk of course) but smoking affects the people around you.
Smoking is a great indicator. A person who smokes (and isn't really old) is obviously a moran.
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 02:36:11 AM
You smoking social justice warriors forget one tiny detail. If you OD on French fries or alcohol you are only hurting yourself (well, apart from being an aggressive dick while drunk of course) but smoking affects the people around you.
Have you ever sat on a plane next to a fat person? We have enough laws to protect us from second hand smoking but not this.
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 02:36:11 AM
You smoking social justice warriors forget one tiny detail. If you OD on French fries or alcohol you are only hurting yourself (well, apart from being an aggressive dick while drunk of course) but smoking affects the people around you.
Alcoholism awareness campaigns literally use those words: "It affects the people around you".
Quote from: Liep on March 06, 2015, 04:40:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 02:36:11 AM
You smoking social justice warriors forget one tiny detail. If you OD on French fries or alcohol you are only hurting yourself (well, apart from being an aggressive dick while drunk of course) but smoking affects the people around you.
Alcoholism awareness campaigns literally use those words: "It affects the people around you".
You might be ignoring them, but we have plenty of laws around the world trying to limit the public impact of alcohol drinking. With mixed success, true, but they are there.
So stop this smoking QQ. That's one of the things with smoking: makes smokers whiny.
Public drinking isn't what they mean by "people around you". They mean the family, the children especially. A child with an alcoholic parent will be scarred for life, a child with a smoking parent will have healthy lungs again 10 years after they move out.
Quote from: Liep on March 06, 2015, 06:02:42 AM
Public drinking isn't what they mean by "people around you". They mean the family, the children especially. A child with an alcoholic parent will be scarred for life, a child with a smoking parent will have healthy lungs again 10 years after they move out.
Yeah I get that, and I have no desire of protecting alcoholics. Alcohol is a pretty nasty drug. I just don't want to reinforce the persecution complex of smokers, because their little hobby is also very unhealthy to others, vile, and immensely inconsiderate.
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 06:11:30 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 06, 2015, 06:02:42 AM
Public drinking isn't what they mean by "people around you". They mean the family, the children especially. A child with an alcoholic parent will be scarred for life, a child with a smoking parent will have healthy lungs again 10 years after they move out.
Yeah I get that, and I have no desire of protecting alcoholics. Alcohol is a pretty nasty drug. I just don't want to reinforce the persecution complex of smokers, because their little hobby is also very unhealthy to others, vile, and immensely inconsiderate.
My point is that alcohol addiction can also be unhealthy to others (mentally), vile (vomit everywhere in the weekend) and immensely inconsiderate (public disorder, smell), yet there doesn't seem to be the same outrage about drinking.
Quote from: Liep on March 06, 2015, 06:20:59 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 06:11:30 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 06, 2015, 06:02:42 AM
Public drinking isn't what they mean by "people around you". They mean the family, the children especially. A child with an alcoholic parent will be scarred for life, a child with a smoking parent will have healthy lungs again 10 years after they move out.
Yeah I get that, and I have no desire of protecting alcoholics. Alcohol is a pretty nasty drug. I just don't want to reinforce the persecution complex of smokers, because their little hobby is also very unhealthy to others, vile, and immensely inconsiderate.
My point is that alcohol addiction can also be unhealthy to others (mentally), vile (vomit everywhere in the weekend) and immensely inconsiderate (public disorder, smell), yet there doesn't seem to be the same outrage about drinking.
Well there should be, we agree on that. But that doesn't make "outrage" over smoking unjustified.
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 06:25:07 AM
Well there should be, we agree on that. But that doesn't make "outrage" over smoking unjustified.
I just find it a bit bizarre that smokers get so much hate, the smell is annoying, yes, but it only pisses me off when someone smokes where there's a ban, like in a bus or train. And that just doesn't happen often. And even then it only pisses me off because of the implied disrespect.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2015, 01:50:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2015, 01:47:39 AM
I found from The Elegant Sophist, public employees in Arkansas are required to submit their social media accounts - even if private and not referring to their employment position - to the employer and the private employees are soon to follow).
The Supreme Court will smack that down when it goes before them.
They don't need to; it is a myth. Arkansas, in fact, two years ago became one of the few states to prohibit employers from doing this: http://www.infolawgroup.com/2013/05/articles/privacy-law/arkansas-becomes-the-seventh-state-to-enact-employer-social-media-law-questions-arise-regarding-supervisor-employee-connections/ (http://www.infolawgroup.com/2013/05/articles/privacy-law/arkansas-becomes-the-seventh-state-to-enact-employer-social-media-law-questions-arise-regarding-supervisor-employee-connections/) I'm thinking that either The Elegant Sophist is trolling Marti, knowing he won't check, or Marti is just poor at reading comprehension.
Quote from: Liep on March 06, 2015, 06:26:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 06:25:07 AM
Well there should be, we agree on that. But that doesn't make "outrage" over smoking unjustified.
I just find it a bit bizarre that smokers get so much hate, the smell is annoying, yes, but it only pisses me off when someone smokes where there's a ban, like in a bus or train. And that just doesn't happen often. And even then it only pisses me off because of the implied disrespect.
Isn't that precisely why they get so much hate, what else? Well, they kind of carry the smell around on their clothes, too.
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 06:45:36 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 06, 2015, 06:26:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 06:25:07 AM
Well there should be, we agree on that. But that doesn't make "outrage" over smoking unjustified.
I just find it a bit bizarre that smokers get so much hate, the smell is annoying, yes, but it only pisses me off when someone smokes where there's a ban, like in a bus or train. And that just doesn't happen often. And even then it only pisses me off because of the implied disrespect.
Isn't that precisely why they get so much hate, what else? Well, they kind of carry the smell around on their clothes, too.
Yes, that is why, I just find it weird because it rarely happens, and when it does it's most likely because they're drunk. :P
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 06:25:07 AM
Well there should be, we agree on that. But that doesn't make "outrage" over smoking unjustified.
The "outrage" over smoking does make me (a former smoker myself) LOL quite often: the self-satisfied puritans who are moaning about smoking all the time are quite pathetic. However, there is no question that the no-nonsense "fuck that smoking shit in my company/restaurant/transportation/hotel" approach has worked remarkably well. Smoking has gone, in a couple of decades, from de rigueur to anathema. Since there is no good to smoking under any conditions I can think of (bar a temporary pleasure) and lots of downside, this has been a major success story. An "outrage" that is both highly amusing
and socially constructive is rare, and we should celebrate it.
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 06:45:36 AM
Isn't that precisely why they get so much hate, what else? Well, they kind of carry the smell around on their clothes, too.
That's not the worst smell people carry around on their clothes! :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2015, 03:07:18 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 02:36:11 AM
You smoking social justice warriors forget one tiny detail. If you OD on French fries or alcohol you are only hurting yourself (well, apart from being an aggressive dick while drunk of course) but smoking affects the people around you.
Have you ever sat on a plane next to a fat person? We have enough laws to protect us from second hand smoking but not this.
Hell, Martinus has used actually sat in a seat on a plane that was sold to a fat person! He used that fat person's luggage, and he ate the fat person's meal. Imagine his struggles.
Quote from: Liep on March 06, 2015, 06:20:59 AM
My point is that alcohol addiction can also be unhealthy to others (mentally), vile (vomit everywhere in the weekend) and immensely inconsiderate (public disorder, smell), yet there doesn't seem to be the same outrage about drinking.
We already had a massive decade long crusade demonizing all drinkers that resulted in a nationwide ban. Do you think we should do this again? The only reason we do not still have the huge social condemnation of drinking is because of how that went last time.
And Marty shouldn't worry. The fat police, out trying to pass legislation to regulate food that can be sold, is still a thing.
The anti-smoking thing does get a little extreme but I am not sure the proper response is to demand we do that same thing with every other social vice just to be consistent. Because we are Americans, we have lots of people who want to do just that.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 08:36:38 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 06, 2015, 06:20:59 AM
My point is that alcohol addiction can also be unhealthy to others (mentally), vile (vomit everywhere in the weekend) and immensely inconsiderate (public disorder, smell), yet there doesn't seem to be the same outrage about drinking.
We already had a massive decade long crusade demonizing all drinkers that resulted in a nationwide ban. Do you think we should do this again? The only reason we do not still have the huge social condemnation of drinking is because of how that went last time.
Not at all. Just that it's weird that there is a crusade on smokers (that actually seems to be working) when drinking still is a national sport and obesity is just one's own problem.
EDIT: To add to your edit: I'm merely wondering why smokers in particular suffer this fate, is it really only the smoke? Or do people actually fear lung cancer from 2nd hand smoking?
Quote from: Liep on March 06, 2015, 08:42:50 AM
Not at all. Just that it's weird that there is a crusade on smokers (that actually seems to be working) when drinking still is a national sport and obesity is just one's own problem.
Nothing weird about it. It is what we do. Plenty of people would love to stamp out drinking and obesity the same way if they could get away with it.
Quote from: Liep on March 06, 2015, 08:42:50 AM
EDIT: To add to your edit: I'm merely wondering why smokers in particular suffer this fate, is it really only the smoke? Or do people actually fear lung cancer from 2nd hand smoking?
The second hand smoke thing provides a justification. Sort of like how the anti-drinking crusade was all about helping the women and children from the evil drinking men. When obesity is attacked it is about trying to keep health care costs down.
If it turns out he had a smoke to calm his nerves after crashing, damn he's a dead man.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11044623_10153718423277516_8234521908392443857_n.jpg?oh=e3b4fd402643f7cbe3034e3ad5f60c26&oe=55718024&__gda__=1433400155_67b533a24251371a5c76d19eef6f3cc3)
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2015, 06:48:42 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 06:25:07 AM
Well there should be, we agree on that. But that doesn't make "outrage" over smoking unjustified.
The "outrage" over smoking does make me (a former smoker myself) LOL quite often: the self-satisfied puritans who are moaning about smoking all the time are quite pathetic. However, there is no question that the no-nonsense "fuck that smoking shit in my company/restaurant/transportation/hotel" approach has worked remarkably well. Smoking has gone, in a couple of decades, from de rigueur to anathema. Since there is no good to smoking under any conditions I can think of (bar a temporary pleasure) and lots of downside, this has been a major success story. An "outrage" that is both highly amusing and socially constructive is rare, and we should celebrate it.
I am not outraged, I just hate the smell and get to cough a lot when I am around smokers for a long time. Still, I find the lengths of smokers' vilification pretty dumb.
I am reading the updated version of Kate Fox's watching the English. She noted that Americans make up the one citizenship she knows who still judge people for smoking e-cigarettes, even after any mistaken assumptions that it is a real cigarette. :blush:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FL6xeCGn.jpg&hash=012df830bda3733a2743ab699cdc421889fb3c9e)
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2015, 03:01:41 PM
I am reading the updated version of Kate Fox's watching the English. She noted that Americans make up the one citizenship she knows who still judge people for smoking e-cigarettes, even after any mistaken assumptions that it is a real cigarette. :blush:
I know that kind of exposes how this is not about second hand smoke. The mentality is to use all the social tools to stomp out this ill like we are wiping out small pox or something, for our own good. Fanatics take over everything over here it seems.
People who bitch about second hand smoke and odor haven't smelled enough people the day after a bender. The smell of booze coming through somebody's skin is disgusting.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2015, 03:52:59 PM
People who bitch about second hand smoke and odor haven't smelled enough people the day after a bender. The smell of booze coming through somebody's skin is disgusting.
So? A pile of goat crap is also disgusting. I don't see why that means I cannot also complain about other disgusting things.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 03:54:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2015, 03:52:59 PM
People who bitch about second hand smoke and odor haven't smelled enough people the day after a bender. The smell of booze coming through somebody's skin is disgusting.
So? A pile of goat crap is also disgusting. I don't see why that means I cannot also complain about other disgusting things.
Your hypocrisy is stifling, Spuds McKenzie.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2015, 03:58:40 PM
Your hypocrisy is stifling, Spuds McKenzie.
Not like second hand smoke on its own is hypocritical? Huh. Strange definition of hypocrisy there.
If I thought a similar campaign had any chance of wiping out binge drinking, I would be all for it.
Smoking is one of those things that you know if they invented it at a time where we were capable of understanding the damage it does, it never would have become as prevalent as it became.
Smoking's a lot more pleasurable than people give it credit for, it must be said.
And the effects of secondhand smoke have to be put into context. Working 30 years in an office where everyone is smoking without ventilation, yes there is an increased chance of harm; occasionally smelling someone having a cigarette two benches down in a public park, or spending 8 seconds walking past smokers outside a building, is just not an appreciable health hazard at any level.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 06, 2015, 04:08:32 PM
Smoking's a lot more pleasurable than people give it credit for, it must be said.
:yes:
7 years after quitting there are usually 3-4 times a year I really want a smoke. Not a craving for nicotine, but actually want to smoke a cigarette.
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2015, 03:01:41 PM
I am reading the updated version of Kate Fox's watching the English. She noted that Americans make up the one citizenship she knows who still judge people for smoking e-cigarettes, even after any mistaken assumptions that it is a real cigarette. :blush:
One of the cities here recently attached e-cigs to their smoking ordinances, effectively treating them as the equivalent of real cigs.
Just to poke Seedy, this was about a year after passing a popular referendum to permit liquor stores. :P
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 06, 2015, 06:46:22 PM
One of the cities here recently attached e-cigs to their smoking ordinances, effectively treating them as the equivalent of real cigs.
I know UT also declared this. Which blew me away. I mean just come out and say you are legislating everybody to stop smoking.
Does anyone hide the fact that they want to ban smoking entirely? :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2015, 08:46:51 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 05, 2015, 08:28:25 PM
ER beds are ER beds. Note my parenthetical, smokers actually aren't a strain on the medical system: they die earlier and cheaper than healthier non-smokers who have countless interventions for things in their 80s, etc. And drug users requiring ER care are a very small number of people, who've usually OD'd and can be resuscitated with a single injection or have abscesses that are easily lanced. Unlike complex orthopedic problems from skiing accidents or private plane crashes.
I find it incredibly interesting that I am applying to medical systems that are no longer hiring smokers, are conducting pre-employment screening for nicotine and smoking-cessation aids, and are conducting random testing for nicotine products as a condition of employment--particularly since in all my travels I've never once seen an accident victim peeled out of a windshield and zipped into a body bag from smoking, never locked up or bailed out anybody for beating the shit out of the family due to smoking, or tripped over a doctor passed out in a hospital stairwell from being drunk on cigarettes.
You can't have that celebratory cigar at your best friend's wedding over the weekend and keep your job if you're tested--but you can suck down a fifth of Jack Daniels like it's nobody's fucking business, beat the shit out of your kid and keep your job.
The hypocrisy is positively staggering.
Two reason it isn't hypocrisy:
1) Not hiring smokers is a plausible way to reduce the cost of medical benefits,
2) Someone in the medical industry may not want to have employees visibly smoking and undermining the industry's health messaging while on duty. I think they assume that it is understood that getting blitzed on Jack Daniels while at work will also disqualify you from continued employment.
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2015, 06:52:34 PM
Does anyone hide the fact that they want to ban smoking entirely? :huh:
I think you mean ban tobacco and nicotine entirely. Yes, the advocates of these changes are still hiding behind specific, somewhat tangential issues. Universities claim they are "protecting students in their formative years". E-cig bans are justified because "nobody knows what is in the vapor" and "it makes actual smokers harder to spot when enforcing smoking bans". I have not heard anyone outside of fringe elements suggest total prohibition.
I'm still waiting for the inevitable clash between the anti-tobacco and pro-marijuana camps.
Why smoke mary jane when you can get the same effect from a tasty brownie?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 06, 2015, 06:59:26 PM
Two reason it isn't hypocrisy:
1) Not hiring smokers is a plausible way to reduce the cost of medical benefits,
2) Someone in the medical industry may not want to have employees visibly smoking and undermining the industry's health messaging while on duty. I think they assume that it is understood that getting blitzed on Jack Daniels while at work will also disqualify you from continued employment.
First point applies to alcohol as well, albeit to a lesser degree.
Second point explains the smoke-free medical campuses, but does not explain the demand for total abstinence. Your patients don't see you having a cigar and scotch on your back patio on Saturday.
Plus, in Seedy's defense, drinkers provide other externalities to a business that smokers don't. A smoker won't get himself on the news for wrapping his Mercedes around a telephone pole, for instance.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 06, 2015, 07:03:34 PM
Why smoke mary jane when you can get the same effect from a tasty brownie?
The anti-tobacco crowd doesn't give a shit how you get your nicotine, why will they give a shit how you get your weed?
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 06, 2015, 07:03:34 PM
Why smoke mary jane when you can get the same effect from a tasty brownie?
I think uptake is slower with the bakery products. At least that's been my experience.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 06, 2015, 07:08:56 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 06, 2015, 07:03:34 PM
Why smoke mary jane when you can get the same effect from a tasty brownie?
The anti-tobacco crowd doesn't give a shit how you get your nicotine, why will they give a shit how you get your weed?
I'm anti-tobacco, I'm not anti-weed. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2015, 07:09:21 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 06, 2015, 07:03:34 PM
Why smoke mary jane when you can get the same effect from a tasty brownie?
I think uptake is slower with the bakery products. At least that's been my experience.
Yeah.
Politicians don't want to ban tobacco, they want to tax it. There's your hypocrisy--they'll pass laws putting more and more restrictions on where and when people can smoke, but they don't really want everyone to stop, because that'll cause a fairly substantial revenue stream to dry up.
Plus having people die sooner rather than later saves the States a ton of money.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 06, 2015, 07:08:09 PM
Second point explains the smoke-free medical campuses, but does not explain the demand for total abstinence. Your patients don't see you having a cigar and scotch on your back patio on Saturday.
smokers are innefficient workers. At all times, they need a break to smoke a cig, or they become stressed while working because it's been 20 minutes since the last cig and they're totally wasting time in the offiice billing 250 000$ worth of contracts in 20 minutes.
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2015, 02:16:40 AM
smokers are innefficient workers. At all times, they need a break to smoke a cig, or they become stressed while working because it's been 20 minutes since the last cig and they're totally wasting time in the offiice billing 250 000$ worth of contracts in 20 minutes.
Gentlemen, I give you: Exhibit A. :lol:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 06, 2015, 04:08:32 PM
Smoking's a lot more pleasurable than people give it credit for, it must be said.
Yeah. It an affordable joy. Something tasty.
QuoteOne of the cities here recently attached e-cigs to their smoking ordinances, effectively treating them as the equivalent of real cigs.
That's such idiocy :ultra:
I find the idea of not hiring smokers an unacceptable intrusion into someone's personal life.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 02:50:56 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2015, 02:16:40 AM
smokers are innefficient workers. At all times, they need a break to smoke a cig, or they become stressed while working because it's been 20 minutes since the last cig and they're totally wasting time in the offiice billing 250 000$ worth of contracts in 20 minutes.
Gentlemen, I give you: Exhibit A. :lol:
still, true story.
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2015, 12:21:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 02:50:56 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2015, 02:16:40 AM
smokers are innefficient workers. At all times, they need a break to smoke a cig, or they become stressed while working because it's been 20 minutes since the last cig and they're totally wasting time in the offiice billing 250 000$ worth of contracts in 20 minutes.
Gentlemen, I give you: Exhibit A. :lol:
still, true story.
they smoke more but spend less time on buzzfeed. It evens out :P
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2015, 02:50:56 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2015, 02:16:40 AM
smokers are innefficient workers. At all times, they need a break to smoke a cig, or they become stressed while working because it's been 20 minutes since the last cig and they're totally wasting time in the offiice billing 250 000$ worth of contracts in 20 minutes.
Gentlemen, I give you: Exhibit A. :lol:
Yeah, because alcoholism is a much efficent force multiplier over time.
Well it is rather easy to drink without becoming an alcoholic. Seems harder to smoke without becoming a chain smoker.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 06, 2015, 07:08:09 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 06, 2015, 06:59:26 PM
Two reason it isn't hypocrisy:
1) Not hiring smokers is a plausible way to reduce the cost of medical benefits,
2) Someone in the medical industry may not want to have employees visibly smoking and undermining the industry's health messaging while on duty. I think they assume that it is understood that getting blitzed on Jack Daniels while at work will also disqualify you from continued employment.
First point applies to alcohol as well, albeit to a lesser degree.
Second point explains the smoke-free medical campuses, but does not explain the demand for total abstinence. Your patients don't see you having a cigar and scotch on your back patio on Saturday.
Plus, in Seedy's defense, drinkers provide other externalities to a business that smokers don't. A smoker won't get himself on the news for wrapping his Mercedes around a telephone pole, for instance.
I don't think the first point does apply to alcohol. The majority of the population drinks. I'm not sure how you achieve a tee-totaling workforce without serious disruption and turn that into a medical deduction. Also alcoholism is a disability under the ADA, so I'm not sure how you achieve reasonable accomodation with alcoholics while excluding all drinkers.
Also, I don't think I want a medical professional who is jonesing for a smoke working on me.
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2015, 01:22:26 PM
Well it is rather easy to drink without becoming an alcoholic. Seems harder to smoke without becoming a chain smoker.
And yet here I am.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 07, 2015, 01:52:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2015, 01:22:26 PM
Well it is rather easy to drink without becoming an alcoholic. Seems harder to smoke without becoming a chain smoker.
And yet here I am.
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of thing.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 07, 2015, 01:32:13 PM
I don't think the first point does apply to alcohol. The majority of the population drinks.
At one point the majority of the population smoked.
QuoteI'm not sure how you achieve a tee-totaling workforce without serious disruption and turn that into a medical deduction.
I think the anti-tobacco movement has been writing a playbook over the past few decades that other anti-vice groups are going to crib from. Alcohol is a tough one, though, because it can be made by people in their own homes pretty easily.
QuoteAlso alcoholism is a disability under the ADA, so I'm not sure how you achieve reasonable accomodation with alcoholics while excluding all drinkers.
Which, honestly, is ridiculous. Of course, at the rate the system is going
every addiction is going to be an ADA condition soon. Shit, I recently found out that
I could get myself covered by the ADA if I got someone to give me an official ASD diagnosis.
QuoteAlso, I don't think I want a medical professional who is jonesing for a smoke working on me.
You, like viper, are extending heavy cigarette smokers to all of tobacco users. You both ignored my example of a non-cigarette smoker, and you both ignored the indirect impact that tobacco-free medical campuses would have on filtering out cigarette-smoking employees.
Additionally, your example does not justify extending this requirement to
every single employee. That is nothing but lifestyle manipulation. Your comeback will probably include something about needing to treat all employees equally, but I doubt any court would find a clearly role-based scheme controlling a non-protected activity to be illegal.
Wait. How did we get to discussing smoking and drinking in a thread about Harrison Ford trashing his awesome Ryan on a golf course?
E: (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F9d%2FRyan_PT-22_Recruit_N46502_OTT_2013_02.jpg%2F1920px-Ryan_PT-22_Recruit_N46502_OTT_2013_02.jpg&hash=71b005784ef80a7931d55e2681d843256b36536d)
So cool.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 07, 2015, 04:31:46 PM
Wait. How did we get to discussing smoking and drinking in a thread about Harrison Ford trashing his awesome Ryan on a golf course?
E: (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F9d%2FRyan_PT-22_Recruit_N46502_OTT_2013_02.jpg%2F1920px-Ryan_PT-22_Recruit_N46502_OTT_2013_02.jpg&hash=71b005784ef80a7931d55e2681d843256b36536d)
So cool.
maybe they've been smoking Chewbacca's hair?
Who cares.
Another rich liberal guy supporting th enslaving of the masses for his own benefit.
Another elite dude who thinks he knows what's better for the rest of us.
Do not think. Just watch TV and read magazines. Books too.
Also, vote Democrat. Theh have your best interest at heart while they dine at a 2,000 plate with the Ozombies.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 07, 2015, 04:31:46 PM
Wait. How did we get to discussing smoking and drinking in a thread about Harrison Ford trashing his awesome Ryan on a golf course?
My perfectly apt Indy reference drew no notice whatsoever. <_<
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 08, 2015, 04:10:22 AM
My perfectly apt Indy reference drew no notice whatsoever. <_<
Nobody clicks on random links that are given with no context. Sorry, Timmay, but we've learned better. :hug:
Quote from: Siege on March 08, 2015, 02:55:15 AM
Do not think. Just watch TV and read magazines. Books too.
It does take a certain kind of thinking to think actors are brutal slave masters and that reading leads to ignorance. But I guess that explains you calling for abuse of individual and constitutional rights while boasting you are some sort of champion of the people.
Quote from: Siege on March 08, 2015, 02:55:15 AM
Who cares.
Another rich liberal guy supporting th enslaving of the masses for his own benefit.
Another elite dude who thinks he knows what's better for the rest of us.
Do not think. Just watch TV and read magazines. Books too.
Also, vote Democrat. Theh have your best interest at heart while they dine at a 2,000 plate with the Ozombies.
Don't change your shtick, Siege. This stuff is good.
Quote from: PDH on March 08, 2015, 07:35:48 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 08, 2015, 02:55:15 AM
Who cares.
Another rich liberal guy supporting th enslaving of the masses for his own benefit.
Another elite dude who thinks he knows what's better for the rest of us.
Do not think. Just watch TV and read magazines. Books too.
Also, vote Democrat. Theh have your best interest at heart while they dine at a 2,000 plate with the Ozombies.
Don't change your shtick, Siege. This stuff is good.
But not this time. Siege, this isn't some random hollywood guy, this is Han Solo and Indiana Jones!