• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

koji kabuto
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:22 PM)
koji kabuto's Avatar

Modern medicine allows those with HIV to live longer lives and nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission, according to state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblyman Todd Gloria (D-San Diego), authors of the bill.
“Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals,” Wiener said in a statement. “HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that’s what SB 239 does.”
Supporters of the change said the current law requires an intent to transmit HIV to justify a felony, but others noted cases have been prosecuted where there was no physical contact, so there was an argument intent was lacking.
Brown declined to comment on his action.
HIV has been the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law. The current law, Wiener argued, may convince people not to be tested for HIV, because without a test they cannot be charged with a felony if they expose a partner to the infection.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/esse...htmlstory.html
Plumbob
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:24 PM)
Plumbob's Avatar
As a gay in SF I do not support this
Kebiinu
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:25 PM)
Kebiinu's Avatar
As a gay in NYC, I support this.
FiggyCal
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:25 PM)
FiggyCal's Avatar
This doesn't seem like a great idea.

Also I don't know how this could be true:

Modern medicine [...] nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission

Is it?
Captain Zyrain
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:25 PM)
Captain Zyrain's Avatar
So now even if you admit to doing it on purpose, you're in the clear?

That doesn't seem right.

I see their points and that makes sense, but if there is clear intent to harm it should be a crime.
Transistor
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:26 PM)
Transistor's Avatar
That's fucked up
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:26 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar
If your viral load is zero, I see zero reason why you should have to tell anyone.

Why should one infectious disease be singled out?

You've got to look at it from the perspective not of 'Should it be a crime to expose people to HIV?' but of 'Should HIV be the only disease it is a crime to expose people to?'

The answer to that second question is clearly "Fuck no."
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:26 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar
Hiv is the only disease where it is even a crime to 'knowingly' expose it so that should tell you all you need to know the intention of the original law.
Temeculan3000
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:27 PM)
Temeculan3000's Avatar

Originally Posted by Captain Zyrain

So now even if you admit to doing it on purpose, you're in the clear?

That doesn't seem right.

I see their points and that makes sense, but if there is clear intent to harm it should be a crime.

Nah it says it is still a felony if you intend to spread it.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:27 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

Hiv is the only disease where it is even a crime to 'knowingly' expose it so that should tell you all you need to know the intention of the original law.

*ding* *ding* *ding* *ding*
FiggyCal
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:28 PM)
FiggyCal's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

Hiv is the only disease where it is even a crime to 'knowingly' expose it so that should tell you all you need to know the intention of the original law.

Maybe, but AIDS is a pretty serious disease. It's not totally unreasonable that people treat it differently.
Captain Zyrain
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:28 PM)
Captain Zyrain's Avatar

Originally Posted by Temeculan3000

Nah it says it is still a felony if you intend to spread it.

Oh OK. I need to read better. Good then.
Amory
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:28 PM)
Amory's Avatar
Wow, wtf. This seems like it should absolutely be illegal

What a POS thing to do
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:29 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

Maybe, but AIDS is a pretty serious disease. It's not totally unreasonable that people treat it differently.

It is totally unreasonable.

So I can knowingly expose you to something worse and more infectious, and that's not a problem?

Of course it is.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:29 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

Maybe, but AIDS is a pretty serious disease. It's not totally unreasonable that people treat it differently.

So is Hep C. And HPV. Hep B. And syphilis.

They are also more infectious than HIV.
GaimeGuy
Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
(10-07-2017, 06:29 PM)
GaimeGuy's Avatar
The solution is to make it a crime to knowingly expose others to all STDs without telling them, not to decriminalize spreading HIV.


One step back
BreezyLimbo
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:30 PM)
BreezyLimbo's Avatar
Lol what the fuck

Nah bro
Thats dangerous.
Temeculan3000
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:30 PM)
Temeculan3000's Avatar

Originally Posted by Captain Zyrain

Oh OK. I need to read better. Good then.

Edit: it says the current law requires intent, which I assume is the law just signed.
Last edited by Temeculan3000; 10-07-2017 at 06:33 PM.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
(10-07-2017, 06:31 PM)
Suikoguy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Captain Zyrain

Oh OK. I need to read better. Good then.

Just wanted to say it's rare to see someone say they fucked up.

Kudos.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:31 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

So is Hep C. And HPV. Hep B. And syphilis. And...

Right?

I can't think of any reason why this one disease may have been singled out to get treated differently.

Surely this must *only* be about protecting peoples health.

It can't possibly have more to do with horrendously dated attitudes towards a disease that is now very much in control and that for people receiving proper treatment has an almost 0% chance of spreading.

Surely not in America.
Beer Monkey
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:31 PM)
It should be a felony to knowingly expose anyone to ANY disease.

Originally Posted by Kebiinu

As a gay in NYC, I support this.

Not sure if serious.
WaterAstro
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:31 PM)
WaterAstro's Avatar
So you can't be charged for literally destroying someone's life because you didn't tell them you have HIV?
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:32 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Beer Monkey

It should be a felony to knowingly expose anyone to ANY disease.

Not sure if serious.

Because I mean, you've basically just said it should be illegal to go the Doctors when you have a cold.
kiyomi
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:32 PM)
kiyomi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Beer Monkey

It should be a felony to knowingly expose anyone to ANY disease.

"Hey, sorry I got in late to work, I have a bit of a cold coming on."
"ARREST HIM!"
Geno Breaker
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:32 PM)
Geno Breaker's Avatar
LOL fuck that.
legacyzero
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:32 PM)
legacyzero's Avatar
That's bullshit. Maybe when we have a full-fledged cure available. Getting WAY ahead of ourselves.

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

Hiv is the only disease where it is even a crime to 'knowingly' expose it so that should tell you all you need to know the intention of the original law.

I think we looking in the wrong direction here. HIV and Aids were a huge epidemic 30 years or so ago, weren't they? Just how many deaths did it cause? Now, I admit, that it being the only disease covered under the original law makes no sense, but let's not pretend it's not a shitty thing to tell a partner about. Even if we've made strides in finding the cure.
Beer Monkey
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:33 PM)

Originally Posted by kiyomi

"Hey, sorry I got in late to work, I have a bit of a cold coming on."
"ARREST HIM!"

Yeah, that's totally the same thing.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:33 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by WaterAstro

So you can't be charged for literally destroying someone's life because you didn't tell them you have HIV?

If you are undetectable (someone on treatment) it is impossible for you to infect someone.

Originally Posted by legacyzero

I think we looking in the wrong direction here. HIV and Aids were a huge epidemic 30 years or so ago, weren't they? Just how many deaths did it cause? Now, I admit, that it being the only disease covered under the original law makes no sense, but let's not pretend it's not a shitty thing to tell a partner about. Even if we've made strides in finding the cure.

We also progressed quite a bit since 30 years ago. HIV is now a manageable infection with modern medicine. You cannot infect someone if you are undetectable.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:33 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by WaterAstro

So you can't be charged for literally destroying someone's life because you didn't tell them you have HIV?

OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
(10-07-2017, 06:33 PM)
Suikoguy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Beer Monkey

Yeah, that's totally the same thing.

Kinda difficult to decide where the line should be though.
Baraka Obama
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 06:34 PM)
Baraka Obama's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

Maybe, but AIDS is a pretty serious disease. It's not totally unreasonable that people treat it differently.

Tons of diseases are far worse and way easier to transmit so I donít see how thats an argument.
Plumbob
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:34 PM)
Plumbob's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Right?

I can't think of any reason why this one disease may have been singled out to get treated differently.

Surely this must *only* be about protecting peoples health.

It can't possibly have more to do with horrendously dated attitudes towards a disease that is now very much in control and that for people receiving proper treatment has an almost 0% chance of spreading.

Surely not in America.

The financial cost of treatment alone can be devastating.

1 in 8 people do not know they have HIV.
FiggyCal
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:34 PM)
FiggyCal's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

So is Hep C. And HPV. Hep B. And syphilis.

They are also more infectious than HIV.

Are they more lethal than hiv? LIke we can cure syphilis, I thought. You can't cure AIDS.
OG Shaka Zulu
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:34 PM)
OG Shaka Zulu's Avatar
I'm all for it. You assume the risk of being exposed to disease when you have sex and should protect yourself accordingly. Courts would bogged down to a halt if STDs were the basis for lawsuits and incarceration.
greatgeek
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:35 PM)
greatgeek's Avatar

Originally Posted by Beer Monkey

It should be a felony to knowingly expose anyone to ANY disease.


.

More like it should be a felony to expose someone to a disease with the intent to infect that person. But I doubt you could effectively separate criminal and innocent conduct under such a rule.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:35 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

Are they more lethal than hiv? LIke we can cure syphilis, I thought. You can't cure AIDS.

We can treat HIV. Being undetectable means it is impossible for you to infect someone.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:35 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by legacyzero

I think we looking in the wrong direction here. HIV and Aids were a huge epidemic 30 years or so ago, weren't they? Just how many deaths did it cause? Now, I admit, that it being the only disease covered under the original law makes no sense, but let's not pretend it's not a shitty thing to tell a partner about. Even if we've made strides in finding the cure.

Looking at how lethal a disease was decades ago and ignoring modern medicine is 100% looking in the wrong direction.

Because, yes in the 80s it was a death sentence, but now with proper treatment you can live a completely normal life without risk of infecting anyone else.
Slayven
gimme some o dat God-crafted alabaster greatness
(10-07-2017, 06:35 PM)
Slayven's Avatar
Do not agree with this

Originally Posted by plagiarize

OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.

Yes with expensive drugs not always covered b y insurance.
AoM
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:35 PM)
AoM's Avatar

Originally Posted by Suikoguy

Kinda difficult to decide where the line should be though.

Originally Posted by GaimeGuy

The solution is to make it a crime to knowingly expose others to all STDs without telling them, not to decriminalize spreading HIV.


One step back

.
kirblar
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:36 PM)
kirblar's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

If you are undetectable (someone on treatment) it is impossible for you to infect someone.

This is what's complicating this right now.

It absolutely should be a crime to try and deliberately infect someone, but how you make the distinction between that and an undetectable person going w/o a condom is going to be difficult.
Elandyll
Wants his cup full of frames
(10-07-2017, 06:36 PM)
Elandyll's Avatar
Knowingly transmitting -any- serious disease should potentially be a felony...
shoreu
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:36 PM)
shoreu's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Right?

I can't think of any reason why this one disease may have been singled out to get treated differently.

Surely this must *only* be about protecting peoples health.

It can't possibly have more to do with horrendously dated attitudes towards a disease that is now very much in control and that for people receiving proper treatment has an almost 0% chance of spreading.

Surely not in America.

How about we just add those to the list too
Temeculan3000
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:37 PM)
Temeculan3000's Avatar

Originally Posted by greatgeek

More like it should be a felony to expose someone to a disease with the intent to infect that person. But I doubt you could effectively separate criminal and innocent conduct under such a rule.

Well if you took a syringe of diseased blood and inject it into an infant, I'm guessing you are going to jail.
neshcom
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:37 PM)
neshcom's Avatar
I donít think this will get more people to get tested and it can only embolden people who intentionally try to infect others.
Baraka Obama
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 06:37 PM)
Baraka Obama's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

Are they more lethal than hiv? LIke we can cure syphilis, I thought. You can't cure AIDS.

I feel as if you donít know anything about HIV and current medicine.
FiggyCal
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:39 PM)
FiggyCal's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

We can treat HIV. Being undetectable means it is impossible for you to infect someone.

Well if the law was originally made to be discriminatory towards certain groups of people, then obviously that's not okay. But on a purely surface level it seems to be a bad idea to ease the penalty for knowingly exposing other people to HIV.

Originally Posted by Baraka Obama

I feel as if you don’t know anything about HIV and current medicine.

Okay.
legacyzero
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:39 PM)
legacyzero's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.

I know exactly how treatable it is. And? It's TREATABLE. Not cured. If I can't wake up one morning and say "Damn... Got the HIV... Guess I'll hit the clinic up for that affordable cure.", then this is too much. And I'll be clear- I feel this way about ANY STD or communicable disease, sexual or otherwise. Just because it's treatable, doesn't mean I want the risk or the hassle. Got Herpes? tell me. Got a cold? Please warn me before I hug you, or sit next to you on a plane.

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Looking at how lethal a disease was decades ago and ignoring modern medicine is 100% looking in the wrong direction.

Because, yes in the 80s it was a death sentence, but now with proper treatment you can live a completely normal life without risk of infecting anyone else.

You can't tell me that you wouldn't be fucking PISSED, and a little worried if you found out somebody gave you HIV and didn't warn you when they damn well should have. HIV and Aids still carries a lot of stigma, and treatment isn't as easy as "There ya go! All better! Here's your Snoopy Band-Aid." The "undetectable" information just became available.. When? This YEAR?"
Last edited by legacyzero; 10-07-2017 at 06:43 PM.
metalslimer
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:39 PM)
metalslimer's Avatar
If you are being treated I don't see how you have a responsibility to tell other people. I think morally you get into an issue where I do think people should be honest with their partner especially if they aren't using protection.
Alavard
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:39 PM)
Alavard's Avatar

Originally Posted by neshcom

I donít think this will get more people to get tested and it can only embolden people who intentionally try to infect others.

You really think there's no other law on the books they can use if you actually try to infect someone else with a disease, HIV or otherwise?
Hollywood Duo
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:40 PM)
Hollywood Duo's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.

How much does it cost though? If someone sticks me with 100s of thousands in medical bills Iím going to sue. So I guess itís slightly better?

Thread Tools