6 ms·
I'm all in favor of people who need them having emotional support animals, but for as long as this has been a thing I have been totally shocked at how many peop
by mwfunk 6y ago
I'm all in favor of people who need them having emotional support animals, but for as long as this has been a thing I have been totally shocked at how many people I personally know (who I thought were better people than this) completely abusing it to bring their pets with them everywhere (planes or anywhere else where you don't normally take pets). And joking about abusing the system, and joking about how awesome it is that they can just pretend to have this need, et voila now they can take their pet everywhere.
And of course, the reason this was bad was because inevitably, people abusing the system would screw it up for the people who actually need it or would benefit from it. Which is what happened.
- mindslight 6y agoI'm with you on the overall abuse of the system. But given that the alternative is often putting the animal in the cargo hold, it's understandable. It's too bad regulators haven't banned that practice while they're at it.
- Ericson2314 6y agoYeah if we make it so the best legal and ethical way to move you and your pet is take the train....hell yeah.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago> I'm with you on the overall abuse of the system. But given that the alternative is often putting the animal in the cargo hold That is hardly the only alternative. There are other forms of travel and it is quite likely that your pet will be better off at home with a sitter or boarded while you're gone.
- mindslight 6y agoI personally tend to do inconvenient things instead of justifying the least worst expedient option, but it's wrong to pretend that everyone does. From what I've read about stowing your pet, it's basically inviting animal abuse (being left to sit on a hot tarmac, etc).
- cj 6y agoEdit: Removed comment, sparked unconstructive discussion.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago> A lot of people are very attached to their pets, there's nothing wrong with that. Particularly single people living alone without kids (I fall in that bucket). I'm in that category as well, but that by no means entitles me to abuse measures meant to help the genuinely disabled for my own convenience.
- cj 6y ago> by no means entitles me to abuse measures meant to help the genuinely disabled for my own convenience. The decision wasn't for my personal convenience. It's much more convenient to throw an animal in the cargo hold. It really is not fun to deal with an animal with you on a crowded plane. Convenience is not the motivating factor at least for me... it's simply treating the animal humanely, which to me means avoiding throwing them in the cargo hold for long haul flights.
- flflfppp 6y agoThen you should have absorbed the inconvenience of driving cross-country, not abusing a system meant to help people that need it. Also, I'm perplexed by people's use of the word "humane" when it comes to pets. If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the human.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- freeflight 6y ago
- wisty 6y agoThere's also the grey area of self-medication. I generally trust people with physical disabilities to "self-medicate". If someone with a wheelchair says that something will help them live like a normal person, I'm inclined to think they're telling the truth. But an awful lot of mental health issues are ones where the people tend to make terrible choices when it comes to dealing with their mental health (not every disease, but an awful lot these days). A lot of these disabilities are sustained and enabled by poor coping strategies (e.g. avoiding things they don't like, acting in destructive ways, expecting and getting special treatment, etc). What about the cases where allowing people to use their mental health as an excuse is making their mental health worse?
- WalterBright 6y ago> What about the cases where allowing people to use their mental health as an excuse is making their mental health worse? Much as we imagine we know what's best for them, ultimately they have a right to their free choice.
- jrochkind1 6y agoI don't think criminalizing "poor coping strategies" is likely to be an effective intervention, if the health and well-being of the people engaging in them is your concern.
- tarboreus 6y agoYes, as a blind person I support restrictions on emotional support animals, which is a concept that has been abused more often than it is used. I'm sympathetic to people who want to bring their animals with them, but pretending that your animal is needed to support you emotionally isn't the answer. If you want to create a movement to allow animals at every venue, then start it and society can have that debate. But fibs about medical necessity, and sending away to get a certificate from a random website, isn't the answer.
- hackeraccount 6y agoWorked for pot.
- objectivetruth 6y agoSay what you will about shady California weed doctors, but they don't usually poop on a plane or bite people sitting next to them. :-)
- leetcrew 6y agoit worked in the sense that we now have "wink-wink nudge-nudge" recreational weed in states where it would not be politically feasible to have it explicitly legalized. it's still an abuse of the system. MMJ practices in medical-only states are basically the weed equivalent of pill mills. jury's still out on whether this will have any lasting implications, but I do wonder if this doesn't detract from the legitimacy of weed as a bona-fide medicine.
- mindslight 6y agoAs someone who is attempting to employ weed for its bona-fide medicinal properties while having little personal interest in it, gatekeeping it behind the backwards medical industry would be extremely counterproductive. Doubly so for for a drug that the establishment doesn't have much experience with, and therefore won't necessarily recommend. Our current healthcare system is a disgrace of paternalism and bureaucracy, amounting to a constructive denial of care. If anything many more drugs need to be made available directly over the counter - a consultation with the pharmacist should be enough. I've arrived at these conclusions even with most of the costs being covered by Medicare (family member), good relationships with providers, intelligence/bandwidth to understand what they do, and now free telehealth visits. I can't even imagine the financial-bureaucratic world of pain for people on private "insurance" (or even worse, without) trying to get care for themselves while the system just milks them.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y agoKeep in mind that an Emotional Support Animal <> Service Animal. It appears they will still allow service animals, but not the "I just need my Great Dane by me on the flight damnit!!" emotional support animals.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoIt sounds like dogs only, so you can probably still take your Great Dane.
- jasonlaramburu 6y agoIs there a limit to the number of service animals that can be on board a plane at any given time? It seems like the airlines will happily allow an unlimited # of passengers to pay $200 to fly with their pet under the seat in front of them.
- casey77 6y agoThey should just make the back three rows specific for people with dogs. That would at least force people to decide how much they want to bring the dog with them.
- paulddraper 6y agoI would be shocked if the abuse wasnt >50%
- macdamaniac 6y agoI have a pretty unpopular take on this, being married to someone with severe pet allergies. That take is, dogs (and cats) have no place on an airplane, and responsible adults shouldn't get pets that they can't find sitters for or board while they are away. Planes are enclosed-air spaces, and the allergens from your dog make anyone with allergies miserable for the entire duration of the flight. Every single time we end up on a plane with a dog (even the "hypoallergenic" ones), my wife ends up sick. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people with severe phobias of dogs, and that the animals themselves tend to be extremely uncomfortable on flights. That last factor has actually led to a number of innocent people sitting next to folks with dogs getting bit, etc on planes. Actual service animals do still belong, because they provide an actual service, are extremely well-trained, and are worth the allergen/phobia tradeoff because folks who need them literally need them. The amount of entitlement that pet owners have to impose the downsides of their pets on others boggles my mind sometimes.
- harperlee 6y ago> Actual service animals do still belong, because they provide an actual service, are extremely well-trained, and are worth the allergen/phobia tradeoff because folks who need them literally need them. If your opinion includes that proviso then then I can’t see how’s unpopular! It is quite reasonable overall.