View Full Version : California repeals law that made intentional HIV transmission a felony
Eurodriver
10-10-17, 06:35
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/10/10/report-knowingly-exposing-others-to-hiv-will-no-longer-be-felony-in-california.html
Unreal.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-10-17, 06:44
So they they do this, but they make people wear condoms in porn?
There is a reason that it was a felony, and it was because of the AIDS 'scare'- because AIDS was scary. What other STD kills you in a couple of years with no treatment- and has no cure? Syphilis can be treated. Hepatitis comes close, so let's up the penalty for that.
Eurodriver
10-10-17, 06:53
Hepatitis comes close, so let's up the penalty for that.
That's covered in the link. Because intentional hepatitis transmission is a misdemeanor, AIDS should be too - say the loony left.
It is literally the equivalent of if stabbing someone was a misdemeanor and shooting someone was a felony, making shooting someone a misdemeanor to level it out.
What the absolute eff...
If I wasn't going to Cali before, sure as hell aint now.
Ridiculous. They already have AIDs revenge transmissions already with it being a felony. The people contracting it suffer sever mental disorders as a backlash of having it. Not all, infact it is a small percentage, but when we are talking about deadly diseases, it's no laughing matter.
People claim it's not okay to judge someone because of HIV/AIDs. I agree, but they're still responsible for maintaining and not promoting the disease. Everyone should wear condoms unless you want a child, but giving it to someone on purpose "just because" screw that. Lock emup and throw away the key for murder.
skywalkrNCSU
10-10-17, 08:19
That's covered in the link. Because intentional hepatitis transmission is a misdemeanor, AIDS should be too - say the loony left.
It is literally the equivalent of if stabbing someone was a misdemeanor and shooting someone was a felony, making shooting someone a misdemeanor to level it out.
Sounds like we should up the penalty for intentional hepatitis to me then
Speaking of cali, what do you guys think of THIS (http://m.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-law-sex-offenders-Jerry-Brown-12259564.php) one? Feel free to make this it's own thread.
NYH1.
Speaking of cali, what do you guys think of THIS (http://m.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-law-sex-offenders-Jerry-Brown-12259564.php) one? Feel free to make this it's own thread.
NYH1.
What the fu...
For real? 1 in 400 and they would allow 90 percent or more, if they qualify?
Nuts...
What the fu...
For real? 1 in 400 and they would allow 90 percent or more, if they qualify?
Nuts...
Isn't that something?
NYH1.
SomeOtherGuy
10-10-17, 08:59
There is a reason that it was a felony, and it was because of the AIDS 'scare'- because AIDS was scary. What other STD kills you in a couple of years with no treatment- and has no cure? Syphilis can be treated. Hepatitis comes close, so let's up the penalty for that.
Important footnote - HIV is less deadly than it was 25 years ago, and some of the other STDs are much harder to treat now than they used to be. We could be heading to a point where HIV is not the scariest STD.
That doesn't excuse anything. It seems reasonable that intentionally infecting someone else with any serious disease should be a felony. Need to define intent carefully, but if it's an STD and you have it, having sex with a person without telling them is intent.
It’s amazing what the thought process is that goes on in the progressive brain.
6 months in jail for intentionally infecting someone with HIV either via sex or donating blood, but 1 year in jail for not using a senior citizens preferred pronoun.
Back on topic please, CA and HIV or near thereto. Off topic content removed.
California is a failed state and sad as it is to say, deserves what its elected representatives vote for. That sentiment doesn't apply just to CA but we've been reminded to keep it on topic.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2017/02/22/ca-the-physical-collapse-of-a-social-state/#722506d16bdb
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/california-first-failed-state
For those in California, in the immortal words of USCM Platoon Sergeant Apone "Don't nobody touch nothin'"
HIV destroys your immune system. Without immune system you die. Yes there are drugs but drugs can be unobtainable for some people.
Trying to spin this as the same as diabetes is lame because diabetes reduces quakity of life and can kill you. I have seen enough people going through DKA to say "no thanks".
I know there are certain segments of the population who want this to "not be a big deal" but, it is. It really is.
But the real reason is that housing HIV/AIDS patients is expensive and California is hemorrhaging money due to effete and corrupt leaderrship therefore catch amd release or suspended sentences make financial sense to to them.
It costs money to house, feed, clothe, and provide medical care for inmates.
Thats why it is called Day Care for Adults.
Your moral outrage, while justified, means absolutely nothing to elected officials moving money around.
You could always vote at em.
Too bad nobody quarantined this shit when the opportunity existed.
By failing to do so when it was still an option in the late 80s, they have condemned everyone who has contracted HIV ever since.
I'm still somewhat amazed that AIDS didn't do far more damage than it has done.
SomeOtherGuy
10-10-17, 14:02
I'm still somewhat amazed that AIDS didn't do far more damage than it has done.
I look at Ebola the same way. I'm amazed it hasn't killed a large proportion of Africa. But in history, the vast majority of nasty fatal diseases are self-limiting. They either kill so fast that transmission is prevented, or they mutate into less deadly forms, so that the virus or bacteria continues to exist and reproduce. That's what makes the 1918 "Spanish flu" and the medieval plague so terrifying - they were two big exceptions to this general rule.
I guess this is thread veer, but at least it's not political.
Wow, just wow. A loss for words for such erroneous decisions.
Moose-Knuckle
10-10-17, 14:44
You guys are surprised by this, seriously?
The LGBT agenda pushers have always sought to dial down the stigma with homosexuals and AIDS/HIV. This is a HUGE moral victory for them.
Mean while not only can you be given AIDS/HIV deliberately via the traditional route AND blood donations and it not be a felony but now you better get your gender pronouns down or else . . .
New California law allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun, sponsor denies that would happen
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/09/new-california-law-allows-jail-time-for-using-wrong-gender-pronoun-sponsor-denies-that-would-happen.html
We need a wall around California more than one along Mexico.
Too bad nobody quarantined this shit when the opportunity existed.
By failing to do so when it was still an option in the late 80s, they have condemned everyone who has contracted HIV ever since.
I'm still somewhat amazed that AIDS didn't do far more damage than it has done.
Probably because there is there is a prevention. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (or PrEP) provides 92%–99% reduction in HIV risk for HIV-negative individuals who take the pills every day as directed. I know that I was ALWAYS on malaria prophylaxis and the success rate is less then PrEP. Education is the key and that is the problem..... because there are some truly stupid people out there and WE are paying for it. (I am not calling you stupid :) )
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html
I'll try again. In my beautiful and evil state, the powers that be essentially equate the heinousness of possessing one over 10 rd magazine, with purposefully giving someone HIV. I'm amazed that God doesn't burn the whole place to ashes.
Probably because there is there is a prevention. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (or PrEP) provides 92%–99% reduction in HIV risk for HIV-negative individuals who take the pills every day as directed. I know that I was ALWAYS on malaria prophylaxis and the success rate is less then PrEP. Education is the key and that is the problem..... because there are some truly stupid people out there and WE are paying for it. (I am not calling you stupid :) )
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html
But did those exist in the late 80s? Also if someone is not infection then they shouldn't be quarantined. All I'm saying is there was a time when it was possible to prevent any further infection to anyone, of course that time is now long gone.
I'll try again. In my beautiful and evil state, the powers that be essentially equate the heinousness of possessing one over 10 rd magazine, with purposefully giving someone HIV. I'm amazed that God doesn't burn the whole place to ashes.
Aren't there currently raging fires in the state right now? Maybe he's listening....
Probably because there is there is a prevention. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (or PrEP) provides 92%–99% reduction in HIV risk for HIV-negative individuals who take the pills every day as directed. I know that I was ALWAYS on malaria prophylaxis and the success rate is less then PrEP. Education is the key and that is the problem..... because there are some truly stupid people out there and WE are paying for it. (I am not calling you stupid :) )
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html
That's fine for people who are choosing to put themselves at risk by engaging in behavior that does so.
Why should someone who chooses not to engage in risky behavior even have to consider taking a drug that could prevent HIV?
Are there any health risks or undesirable side effects associated with taking PrEP?
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-10-17, 17:50
I guess maybe putting people with AIDS in prison isn't the best idea when you think about it. Making them felons good. Giving them the social equivalent of a petri dish, not so good.
Meanwhile in California a massive wildfire burns out of control and has destroyed hundreds of homes / killed 10+ people with over a hundred more missing. But hey, thanks to the tiresome efforts of those in charge, at least you can spread HIV/AIDS there now and not catch a a felony wrap! Good thing the state .gov has their punch list of items to tackle in the right order! :rolleyes:
I guess maybe putting people with AIDS in prison isn't the best idea when you think about it. Making them felons good. Giving them the social equivalent of a petri dish, not so good.
Not sure who suggested jail, when I said quarantine I meant "in your home" like they did in the past when you had some incurable infectious disease.
Truly amazing. In other states you catch a felony, the same as if you shot someone, for engaging in sexual activity without disclosing HIV Pos. status. Transmission is not even a consideration, just engaging in the conduct is sufficient.
HIV has been in the US since the 1950s. Thats confirmed.
We arent exactly at plague levels yet where we pile the dead onto carts to have them burned.
In fact, the US has, on a global level, a fairly contained HIV population.
If we were in Subsaharan Africa, Indochina, Brazil, or Eastern Europe; it'd be way, way different.
I dont think house arrest is realistic. If you get HIV somehow you CAN live a relatively normal life.
I can see, begrudgingly, their point on tying up jails with HIV patients in a high homosexual concentrated area.
Felonizing them wont change anything.
Still it is pretty cruel to engage in risky sexual activity and knowingly infect someone.
If enough people sue, it might revert to felony status but wont change anything.
skywalkrNCSU
10-10-17, 21:20
Not sure who suggested jail, when I said quarantine I meant "in your home" like they did in the past when you had some incurable infectious disease.
Containing it in the US might have been possible if we understood the disease early enough but it took a long time before we cleared up a lot of misconceptions. However, even if we did contain it here it would be impossible to do the same in Africa. Ebola is possible because it kills people quick enough, you can go around spreading HIV for years and have no idea.
HIV has been in the US since the 1950s. Thats confirmed.
We arent exactly at plague levels yet where we pile the dead onto carts to have them burned.
In fact, the US has, on a global level, a fairly contained HIV population.
If we were in Subsaharan Africa, Indochina, Brazil, or Eastern Europe; it'd be way, way different.
I dont think house arrest is realistic. If you get HIV somehow you CAN live a relatively normal life.
I can see, begrudgingly, their point on tying up jails with HIV patients in a high homosexual concentrated area.
Felonizing them wont change anything.
Still it is pretty cruel to engage in risky sexual activity and knowingly infect someone.
If enough people sue, it might revert to felony status but wont change anything.
Not saying anything about your post except that the numbers that have been reported by the WHO in Africa for HIV rates are a lie. The take the the numbers from the capitol and use them for the entire country. I know this for a FACT. Greater the numbers the more funding they get and they don't have to leave the relative safety of the capitols ..... And the bars they have there........
Not saying anything about your post except that the numbers that have been reported by the WHO in Africa for HIV rates are a lie. The take the the numbers from the capitol and use them for the entire country. I know this for a FACT. Greater the numbers the more funding they get and they don't have to leave the relative safety of the capitols ..... And the bars they have there........
While we agree HIV is high in Africa, are you saying it is actually not as bad and there is money grubbing or that it is worse in rural areas and underreported?
I consider you a scholarly source as you A) BTDT and B) are a doc.
I ask for my own edification.
FWIW I dont think AIDS in the US is still as bad as other places. Despite Leftist revisionism, HIV/AIDS was taken seriously when discovered and people were able to lock it down in relatively good time. It went from a 3 year or less death sentence to a chronic, treatable disease. Not bad IMHO
Containing it in the US might have been possible if we understood the disease early enough but it took a long time before we cleared up a lot of misconceptions. However, even if we did contain it here it would be impossible to do the same in Africa. Ebola is possible because it kills people quick enough, you can go around spreading HIV for years and have no idea.
Well yes, continued responsibility would have been necessary. If we recognized the threat to the population at large and didn't treat it like something that only impacted homosexual men, IV drug users and hemophiliacs we could have contained and eradicated the threat in the US. Of course that would have required a screening process for anyone entering the US and that is a level of responsibility that I don't think we are capable of.
Even now, if we were willing to do what is necessary to prevent transmission, we could eradicate it in this country within a generation. Of course that would mean we would have to treat people who have HIV / AIDS like people who have a lethal virus that is sexually transmittable rather than courageous heroes. We would also have to recognize the tendency of some individuals who have a fatal illness to want to inflict the same level of suffering on others.
That might sound harsh, but it would save the lives of generation after generation of future victims because we are unlikely to develop the necessary immunities to the virus where the majority of the population is no longer at risk. Additionally, all it would take is another unprecedented health risk to make something like HIV run like wildfire.
Moose-Knuckle
10-11-17, 08:12
I'll try again. In my beautiful and evil state, the powers that be essentially equate the heinousness of possessing one over 10 rd magazine, with purposefully giving someone HIV. I'm amazed that God doesn't burn the whole place to ashes.
Are you familiar with the open air and very public "Folsom Street Fair" in San Francisco? :bad:
It's a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, you guys probably shouldn't execute an image search on that one especially without filters lol!
While we agree HIV is high in Africa, are you saying it is actually not as bad and there is money grubbing or that it is worse in rural areas and underreported?
I consider you a scholarly source as you A) BTDT and B) are a doc.
I ask for my own edification.
FWIW I dont think AIDS in the US is still as bad as other places. Despite Leftist revisionism, HIV/AIDS was taken seriously when discovered and people were able to lock it down in relatively good time. It went from a 3 year or less death sentence to a chronic, treatable disease. Not bad IMHO
Here is one sourse: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12319962
The second is ME. I have had many "conversations" with these people in Africa. They are worst than used car salesmen. The UN in Africa in a business. There is so much money involved that many shortcuts are taken and there is almost as much corruption in their organization as there is in the countries they work in.
But did those exist in the late 80s? Also if someone is not infection then they shouldn't be quarantined. All I'm saying is there was a time when it was possible to prevent any further infection to anyone, of course that time is now long gone.
No it did not exist in the 1980's. But unless you have a time machine (a Delorean preferably) we can't do anything about it now other than move forward trying to eliminate it.
That's fine for people who are choosing to put themselves at risk by engaging in behavior that does so.
Why should someone who chooses not to engage in risky behavior even have to consider taking a drug that could prevent HIV?
Are there any health risks or undesirable side effects associated with taking PrEP?
There has to be some basic metabolic panel run to monitor your liver function test one a year.
There is also PEP:
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/pep.html
One of the fastest growing risk groups is Black woman. Why you ask? Not because of risky behavior. It is because of the Extremely high HIV rate in prison. What is the first thing that men do when they get out of prison?
Are you familiar with the open air and very public "Folsom Street Fair" in San Francisco? :bad:
It's a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, you guys probably shouldn't execute an image search on that one especially without filters lol!
Yeah, I've seen the pictures of it online. I think I was reading something in American Thinker and the article had a link to it......so I looked. I knew gay pride parades were pretty bad, but Folsom seemed even worst. Those poor saps are totally ate up with their perversions.
No it did not exist in the 1980's. But unless you have a time machine (a Delorean preferably) we can't do anything about it now other than move forward trying to eliminate it.
That was kinda my point, that we missed the window of opportunity when we could have done something very meaningful and isolated and quarantined the virus.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.