CHICAGO (AP) — The dead woman who was found entangled in a baggage conveyor belt at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport died by suicide, authorities said Friday.
The Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office concluded following an autopsy that the 57-year-old woman died by asphyxiation from hanging.
Firefighters responding to a 911 call found the woman’s body entangled in the belt around 7:45 a.m. Thursday in a baggage room near a terminal that serves international flights.
According to police, surveillance footage shows the woman entering the area around 2:27 a.m. Thursday, but it doesn’t show what happened to her. The room where the woman was found is off limits to the public.
Police declined to comment further on the matter pending the outcome of an investigation.
Editor’s Note: This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know is If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, help is available. Call or text 988 or chat 988lifeline.org.
Mashable - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Mashable:
> MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Sky News UK - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Sky News UK:
> MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
Personally, I want FDA approval to mean it is as provably safe and effective as possible. They said they wanted more evidence before approval, and I think that’s okay. Good, even.
The way the US treats recreational drug use and self-medication is horrific, but it’s not really the domain of the FDA.
I would rather have not-yet-FDA-approved legal-for-personal-use mdma than what we have now or an unproven drug approved by the FDA.
Shouldn’t it need to be shown to be unsafe to remove people’s choice to use it though? Proving it safe would be great, but the claim to prevent usage should be that it’s harmful. It’s removing a choice. We shouldn’t have to prove everything is safe to be allowed to do it. We do plenty of things that are unsafe, but these drugs aren’t allowed for no good reason.
K, well, you also have the choice to eat literally any mushroom you find growing in the ground, doesn’t mean it’d be legal to sell them as shishkabs on the street. Wtf are you on about mate
It’s illegal to use these drugs, no matter how you get them. Should that be the case just because some old people don’t like people using them, not because they’re particularly harmful? Alcohol causes a ton of harm, but it’s legal to use. Why is it different?
Strawman. You aren’t legally allowed to make ecstacy at home even if you are capable, nor are you allowed to consume it if you have it. Also, ecstacy wasn’t illegal during the prohibition. That’s all irrelevant.
People should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn’t pose a serious risk to others. Racism is most of what caused the war on drugs, and it’s mostly futile, and often actively harmful. It prevents people from accessing things that may help them (or they may just enjoy), and creating black markets where none need exist. It also creates situations where people may buy stuff and it not be pure, which could be controlled for if legal.
Yes, you are a straw man. Alcohol worked because it’s different from ecstasy. Everyone could and did make it at home out of food. Can you make ecstasy at home out of regular food or does everyone do it regardless of law? No. The two are too different in circumstances and so can’t be placed in the same category.
Black markets exist because they’re profitable. The war on drugs was for money, racism was just the hook to get the investors on board.
Also, legality is dependent on the legalizers. Where corruption is rife and consequences nil, legality is worthless when it comes to quality control.
Lol. What does that mean? Your argument was a strawman argument. You constructed something new to argue against instead of my original argument.
Everyone could and did make it at home out of food. Can you make ecstasy at home out of regular food or does everyone do it regardless of law? No. The two are too different in circumstances and so can’t be placed in the same category.
I can grow my own mushrooms with psilocybin. It’s under the same controls as ecstacy. Do you stand by your logic and agree it should be legal to grow and consume? That isn’t the logic used to make it illegal though, which is what matters.
Black markets exist because they’re profitable.
Yes, and it’s profitable because there’s no legal alternative. There are very few black markets for alcohol, for example, because it’s not necessary and not profitable when a legal option is easily available with checks to ensure it’s safe and actually what it says it is. Legalize drugs and we can make them safer to use and mostly eliminate black markets, which create a lot of danger and criminal activity.
The war on drugs was for money, racism was just the hook to get the investors on board.
No, it was mostly for politics, and winning them through racism. It’s fairly well documented.
Also, legality is dependent on the legalizers. Where corruption is rife and consequences nil, legality is worthless when it comes to quality control.
If there is proof of quality, even without consequences from the government (which should probably also be in place), consumers wouldn’t purchase from places selling a bad product unless it’s significantly cheaper. The consequence would be fewer buyers and having to have lower prices. Legality also allows people to seek treatment without fear of being held accountable for using an illegal product. It let’s people openly discuss options and issues. It also creates an environment for legal competition, not just turf wars. Legalizing drugs has a huge number of benefits without going into things like the harm caused by policing.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
You asked what’s different about alcohol. I gave an answer. How is that a strawman? Also, the reason I called you a straw man is because you seem to be grasping at straws.
_
My logic is that alcohol is so easily made and of such variety that attempting to outlaw it was proven to be a pointless endeavor. Do psilocybin mushrooms share the same circumstances? If so, then attempting to ban them completely would likely end up in a similar situation as with alcohol.
_
Again, legalizing something doesn’t automatically make it safer. Without proper supervision, legality only provides free reign over production and distribution. Which can mean more product, faster sales, lower quality. Can it be safer? Yes. Will it? By looking at current examples of similar persuasion, it’s doubtful.
_
Documentation changes all the time, so I won’t stick to my point of view for long on any matters that prove otherwise.
Fucking sickening. As if parents are never the abusers. Someone ought to find the names and faces of everyone who pushed this bill forward and plaster them on billboards all across Idaho with the tagline "Defenders of Incest".
From the text of the bill:
(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply, and a health care provider may authorize or furnish a health care service without obtaining the informed consent of the minor child's parent, if:
(a) A parent of the minor child has given blanket consent authorizing the health care provider to furnish the health care service; or
(b) The health care provider reasonably determines that a medical emergency exists and:
(i) Furnishing the health care service is necessary in order to prevent death or imminent, irreparable physical injury to the minor child; or
(ii) After a reasonably diligent effort, the health care provider cannot locate or contact a parent of the minor child and the minor child's life or health would be seriously endangered by further delay in the furnishing of health care services.
I fail to see how a sexually-assaulted child doesn't qualify as a medical emergency, or how providing care wouldn't be considered "preventing imminent, irreparable physical injury". What the fuck is wrong with you, Idaho? Who do you think you are? Texas?
looks like the whole global far right was against her
Lock 'em up!
More seriously - I’d bet it’s not all that hard to trace back to the first person who made the online claim of her being trans. Maybe that person and/or a related platform that refused to take down the misinformation?
And for the record, I support her rights as a woman even if she had been trans. (And will spend 0 seconds of time arguing with anyone here about why.)
Equally, wouldnt be surprised at them being behind that Turkish shooter who didnt use the special glasses.
Even though: it was a pairs event and he had a partner(who was using the glasses) and he wasnt the only person not using them.
He did nothing other than get a silver medal with his partner.
But my suspicion is that he's being used as s dog whistle meme. Because its a White-passing guy not using special gear, often being contrasted against an asian woman who is using special glasses.
They have the best emails. Like MIT. Emm Eye Tee. Ya know, I have a thing with MIT. Genius. Smart people. So I said to them, “what do you think of Iran having my emails?” And they said, “are you sure it’s Iran? it’s probably the Democrats.” They’re like sharks, Democrats! Sharks swarming this beautiful boat with a battery. Which, if you ask me is a very dangerous thing, the battery. Because what if it electrocutes you? I’ll take the sharks over electrocution any day. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner, folks. Just like that nasty, nasty woman. I bet she feeds the sharks, Nancy Pelosi. AND HER HUSBAND! The leader of the transgenders. They want to take it all away. Take it all away. They want to give your job to transgendered immigrants. Let me tell you. The late great Hannibal Lecter would know what to do.
But when Trump told Russia to go ahead and hack the Clinton campaign and release the data, and like three days later, Russia did exactly that, that was fine.
In reality his campaign was working directly with Russian agents to get dirt on Clinton campaign. This was not just wishful thinking on Donny’s part. It was a willful malice.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.