Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 3daysgone

That's what I've heard.

Yeah. I just told ya.

a reply to: Sheye

You deserve a medal for wisdom and self-discipline!

AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). By leading to the destruction and/or functional impairment of cells of the immune system, notably CD4+ T cells, HIV progressively destroys the body's ability to fight infections and certain cancers.

aidsinfo.nih.gov...#

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

The state is a trainwreck morally and legally.

Ah. So HIV is gay.

HIV has been gay since the 80's.

What about lesbians? Can their sexual encounters carry HIV from one female to the other?

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: Phage

Seriously, you need to lose your personal problem with me and imagine someone intentionally giving your family members AIDS.

WITF does gay have to do with this?

Sounds like you need a nap old man.

THIS ^

originally posted by: Lolliek
a reply to: Phage

Phage, really? That comment was beneath you! The OP never implied anything of the kind. Why would you even go there?

In the early 80’s I had several blood transfusions. I got tested for HIV afterwards and it was the longest, most frightening two weeks of my life. Now I think you can get the results almost immediately. But still, it’s not like you can take antibiotics for it! If someone willfully exposes you to it - by unprotected sex (like Charlie Sheen did) or by giving blood - it’s a life altering act. Not necessarily a death sentence any more, but still has to be managed and lived with. It’s (and forgive the over-used word, but it’s close) like a form of terrorism. Making it a misdemeanor is awful, imo. There are serious consequences and should be treated seriously.

Absolutely this this and THIS ^^ I would personally treat it as an attempted murder charge but that’s just me.

And Phage... Really

originally posted by: Tempter

HIV has been gay since the 80's.

Look at the stats. HIV affects blacks and gays at a very much higher rate than any other population group.

Liberals once again taking care of their base.

Someone seeking bit of attention this morning.. 😂😂😂😂

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Phage

Is HIV special because it's gay?

Really? There are 100s of thousands of heterosexual people with HIV.

What an idiotic statement.

I'm pretty sure HIV affects mostly gay people. Yes there are some hetero cases, but they are in the minority.

a reply to: Phage

Then our laws need changing.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Sheye

You deserve a medal for wisdom and self-discipline!

😊 Thank you .. you made my day as I rarely get compliments.

originally posted by: Pandaram

originally posted by: Tempter

HIV has been gay since the 80's.

Look at the stats. HIV affects blacks and gays at a very much higher rate than any other population group.

Liberals once again taking care of their base.

Someone seeking bit of attention this morning.. 😂😂😂😂

What?

These laws served to PROTECT those most likely to be victims of of contracting HIV.

This just means more blacks and gays disproportionately will be affected by the virus.

Nice job, California! That's a great way to treat people.

Reading through the comments, and the only thing I've gathered is that Phage will argue for argument's sake.

The fact that HIV/AIDS is being compared to Syphilis, something easily treated with penicillin and was pretty much wiped out until recently, is... well, I can't say here.

Justifying this because it's "very discriminatory" is ridiculous. The law currently in place does not state that just because you have HIV automatically gets you a felony.

a reply to: Mandroid7

In that case, maybe I should stick to waiting until marriage.

originally posted by: PillarOfFire
I think if people are dumb enough to stick it all over the place, they deserve to get aids. Now the TV ads are things like " if you're from the baby boomers era you have a high chance of having shingles." Wonder how that happened? Could it be that society has become a FCK clustering orgy fest and now any disease is treated as just something that happens to people, no big deal right?

Shingles is not a sexually transmitted disease. Shingles happens to people who had chicken pox in the past--like herpes, the chicken pox virus never goes away, it just goes dormant. And if it reactivates at a later date it doesn't present as chicken pox but as shingles. Most of us baby boomers had chicken pox when we were kids and so have varicella virus (chicken pox virus) lying dormant in our nerve roots, and are thus likely to have shingles at some point. What on earth does that have to do with orgies? And yeah, shingles IS just something that happens to people. Maybe you're confusing shingles with syphilis?

originally posted by: Phage

Right, and millions with other communicable diseases. Why should HIV be different?

I do not understand the logic to the bill. They said that because of the felony people do not want to be tested to put them legally responsible, so by reducing it more people will get tested and treated.

The problem I have is if a person doesn't know or suspect they are HIV then how would they know not to get tested to avoid legal responsibility?

It seems this would be a small percentage, but in any case if a person suspects they are HIV or any infectious disease they should be held criminally liable for their actions.

Criminal liability: responsibility for any illegal behaviour that causes harm or damage to someone.

Knowingly inflicting someone with a disease should be illegal. With the case of HIV this is a life long, life limiting, life shortening, extremely expensive event.

originally posted by: Phage
Does criminalizing heroin use do anything to fight the problem?

That's a classic "Red Herring" fallacy is it not? Considered an intellectually dishonest debate tactic?

I have no idea how much good making intentionally giving another person a possibly fatal disease a felony would or would not do, but still it seems reasonable. In reality is there any real difference between mailing someone Anthrax in a envelope which may or may not be fatal or having sex with someone to knowingly transmit HIV/AIDS which may or may not be fatal? I think that's a more appropriate comparison.

That's a classic "Red Herring" fallacy is it not?

Since the transmission of HIV is a public health issue, no it is not a logical fallacy.

In reality is there any real difference between mailing someone Anthrax in a envelope which may or may not be fatal or having sex with someone to knowingly transmit HIV/AIDS which may or may not be fatal?

Yes, there is a very real difference. Do you think that everyone who is exposed to HIV contracts the disease?

The risk for male-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the absence of any prevention measures is estimated to be approximately 8 per 10,000 episodes of condomless intercourse (95% confidence intervals = 6–11) (5). Three multinational studies, HPTN 052 (2), PARTNER (3), and Opposites Attract (4), have provided data regarding the effectiveness of suppressing HIV replication with ART to reduce the risk for sexual HIV transmission. These studies followed approximately 3,000 sexually active mixed HIV-status couples over many years while they did not use condoms. The PARTNER and Opposites Attract studies quantified the extent of sexual exposure; 548 heterosexual couples (269 [49%] with a male HIV-infected partner) and 658 male-male couples from 14 European countries, Australia, Brazil, and Thailand engaged in >74,000 condomless episodes of vaginal or anal intercourse during >1,500 couple-years of observation (3,4). All three studies observed no HIV transmission to the uninfected partner while the partner with HIV was virologically suppressed with ART (2–4).

www.cdc.gov...

8 in 10,000 with unprotected sex. No transmission at all with those undergoing therapy.

It should be noted that all states have general criminal laws—such as assault and battery, reckless endangerment, and attempted murder—that can and have been used to prosecute individuals for any of the above-mentioned behaviors.

www.cdc.gov...

Criminalization of sex by infected people does nothing to address the public health issue and may well be counterproductive.

Burris' findings here are consistent with other completed studies, all of which, to date, have failed to find any evidence that criminal law has an influence on sexual risk behavior. Given concerns about possible negative effects of criminal law, including increased stigma and reluctance to cooperate with health authorities, the findings suggest caution in using criminal law as a behavior change intervention for people who are HIV positive.

www.hivlawandpolicy.org...


papers.ssrn.com...

a reply to: Phage
no it i disease that can cause a long lingering death . and to willfully spread it is assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. i don't care if it is hiv, smallpox, typhoid ebola, buboonic plague if you spread it knowingly then you need to go to jail. people trying to say its because its a gay disease is a blanking moron. stuff like this is so rampant because pc crowd stupidity.
i have seen a guy at a friends house say after he tested positive he was going to spread it as much as he could i reported it and the health department and police did nothing about it . he ended up at a nursing home while there he started talking to a 16 year old girl who worked there as a volunteer . nobody told her he was there because he had hiv because pc laws prevented that. she got pregnant and now her and baby have hiv. no charges were filed on deviant.
disease knows no gender no sexual preference. most of africa's cases come from heterosexual couplings