KonradLaw
Member
Well, that makes more sense.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
- Thread starter koji kabuto
- Start date
Well, that makes more sense.
There's plenty of other STDs that can be life-altering as well. As I say, this is more about putting HIV on a scare pedestal and the negative social effects that has.
God Dayumm
Banned
Nasty. But that is why you should always demand to use protection.
At least HIV is easily preventable, unlike herpes. Gross
At least HIV is easily preventable, unlike herpes. Gross
KonradLaw
Member
Better get used to idea of having herpes. You can be 99,99% certain you will get it one day.
Everyone will like this law until they fuck or get fucked by someone with HIV . HIV ain't herpes. You should declare whether you have HIV to any partner. Yes it's treatable but you still will die earlier than you would normally have (lucky to reach 70), you are more likely to develop chronic illness and you have to take ARV's for the rest of your days.
Also the window for prevention is only 3 months. After 3 months from initial contraction it develops into HIV AIDS.
Also the window for prevention is only 3 months. After 3 months from initial contraction it develops into HIV AIDS.
Im guessing it was probably one study saying they were linked. Until we see further evidence I wouldnt really worry about it. I think someone earlier in this thread said that 60-80% of Adults in America have Herpes, I would imagine the rate of Alzheimers in Americans is a very small fraction compared to that.
Sorry, what?
AIDS is when your CD4 count (the basis of your immune system, effectively) dips under 200, leaving you more susceptible to illnesses that your body would normally fight easily. It has nothing to do with the amount of time you've had the disease. For most people with the virus it would take years to reach the AIDS stage left untreated, but most people nowadays will never actually reach the AIDS stage because they'll be put on treatment before their immune system is that damaged.
HIV and AIDS are not the same thing.
I also don't know what you mean when you say the window for prevention is three months. If you are exposed to the HIV virus you have a very limited time window where you can take medication to try to stop it taking hold in the body. This time period is days, not months. HIV often won't show up in tests until up to three months after exposure though.
titiklabingapat
Member
That's bullshit.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
So I get that this is to not discriminate vs one particular ailment, especially with the homophobic sentiment it was probably originally implemented with.
But why the fuck go 1000 steps backwards and not just make it illegal to knowingly expose AMYONE to potentially dangerous diseases and such?
But why the fuck go 1000 steps backwards and not just make it illegal to knowingly expose AMYONE to potentially dangerous diseases and such?
sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
Gaf bitched about a 5 dollar PSN subscription but would be fine if someone made them have to take medicine for the rest of their life. Priorities.
ShironRedshift
Member
Because it is still illegal; it's just a misdemeanor instead of a felony now. That's pretty much literally exactly what happened, really. They're all illegal now; they're all just misdemeanors instead of HIV being the odd one out and being the only felony.
I swear, a lot of the responses just seem to be because of the titles articles are going with. If articles were titled something like "California updates laws to treat HIV exposure exactly like all other illnesses--just as illegal, no more, no less," this thread would probably be pretty different. At least I hope it would be...
skullmuffins
Banned
it is illegal, it's just now a misdemeanor like every other disease
8BitsAtATime
Member
So couldnt there be someone out there thats a scumbag and use this as weapon. Like sleeping a with a bunch of people and pretty much ruining their lives. I remember reading about a pornstar doing this
ShironRedshift
Member
No more or less than they already could. It's still illegal. It's just a misdemeanor now instead of a felony. Like doing the same thing with every other illness is.
We should PM a mod or something for a title change and OP update tbh.
8BitsAtATime
Member
Shouldnt it be a felony. Im so confused
ShironRedshift
Member
Why should it be a felony when knowing exposing anyone to any other illness is only a misdemeanor? Why should HIV be different?
It shouldn't. Other than vestigial homophobia/the remnants of the HIV/AIDS panic of the 80's, there's no reason for HIV to be singled out like that, and treated above and beyond any other virus/bacteria/etc. That's why it was changed. It's still illegal. Just no more illegal than anything else for no good reason.
What happened to GAF trusting scientists and research over their own gut feeling? Because there seems to be a broad consensus that laws specifically targeting HIV are based on outdated knowledge and cause more harm on a personal and communal level than they help protect.
For example, this is what the US Department of Justice said in a 2014 message designed to help states reform laws:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-best-practices-guide-reform-hiv-specific-criminal-laws-align
https://www.ada.gov/hiv/HIV-guide-reform-crim.pdf
Neither of these cases seem to apply in the new CA law, from what I see in the OP.
Here's what some other HIV prevention agencies say in a consensus statement:
(Also, you can't prove a negative which is why no study can ever correctly say zero probability unless only pure logic is involved. Otherwise they can only at best say 0 hits in their sample.)
For example, this is what the US Department of Justice said in a 2014 message designed to help states reform laws:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-best-practices-guide-reform-hiv-specific-criminal-laws-align
https://www.ada.gov/hiv/HIV-guide-reform-crim.pdf
Neither of these cases seem to apply in the new CA law, from what I see in the OP.
Here's what some other HIV prevention agencies say in a consensus statement:
https://www.hivtaspcrimlaw.org/the-consensus-statement
(Also, you can't prove a negative which is why no study can ever correctly say zero probability unless only pure logic is involved. Otherwise they can only at best say 0 hits in their sample.)
Weird question, because if they are following a doctor's recommendation they won't so there's no point debating that hypothetical. If it's intentional, it's seemingly covered by other laws already which means that it doesn't adhere to what this thread is discussing.
Would you be ok if someone gave you Chlamydia/Gonorrhea/Hepatitis/Syphilis without your knowledge?
People aren't perfect. Might miss their tablets/not control their disease properly.
HIV is a level up from those though. And yea that would be bad too.
HIV is not a level up from Hepatitis, in particular Hepatitis C. You ask me if I wanted HIV or Hepatitis C and I would pick HIV every day of the week. Hepatitis is sone nasty, liver destroying shit and the C variation in particular is a bitch to treat. I've seen people with Hepatitis C take the treatment and it is not a pretty sight and it's hit and miss as to whether it even works or not.
And yes, people aren't perfect, but if someone is taking their meds properly they pose effectively zero risk. You're safer having sex with someone poz and on meds than someone who tested negative 2 months ago and has had several sexual encounters since then. But no-one is going to hound the negative person to disclose their recent sexual history since testing negative are they? They're neg so they're 'safe' and don't have to disclose shit.
It's insane how people let their preconceived prejudices get in the way of reason and scientific fact.
So what is the older legislation solving here, exactly?
Father_Brain
Banned
because HIV is gross and icky! Eww, yuck!
plagiarize
Banned
That remains a felony. This law covers knowingly exposing (even if the person exposed doesn't get infected) someone to the virus without telling them.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
Solution is to make it a felony for Hep C as well instead of lowering HIV to a misdemeanor.
Because with a condom i have control of the situation myself. If a person has hiv but forgets his medicine then its possible to get infected. Very simple. I like to be in control of the situation myself. Even if yes its fale control sense becaus a condom can break
Uh.... no?
"Knowingly" is a key distinction here. You can live with HIV without knowingly transmitting it to people. It's not like HIV spreads by shaking hands.
Too idealistic of an approach though. If there is no push to stop the stigma, then many simply will not tell or get tested for it.
Anyways, I am not too surprised uninformed GAF objects to this California law change as if a person infecting/exposing others to HIV is now not a crime. It still very much is a crime, just one that isn't carrying a felony charge because HIV is no longer the deadly virus it once was and the stigma of it only hurts the goal of getting people tested and treated. This is one of those ways of dealing with the stigma.
Yup, I see people making the excuse, well others ain't!! Well others should be too.
And how will this help in dealing with the spread of STD's and where does it stop? Is Herpes also going to be a felony charge for exposing others to?
Abstrusity
Member
The psychology behind it is pretty sound. When you say "I'm going to take an HIV test," people tend to assume you mean "There's a chance I have HIV."
That just leads to fewer people being tested for it, and increased incidence of sexual transmission.
It's kind of similar to the needle sharing programs for heroin users -- they're going to use heroin anyway. That's a given. They're addicted, and they need to be helped. But until we can get around to helping them, we can at least dramatically reduce blood-borne pathogen transmission. Hepatitis and HIV chief among them.
People with HIV are still going to have sex, but getting them to inform themselves on whether they have it or not will lead to safer practices.
Of course, every other LGBT person I've met gets tested regularly, just in case. I suspect with this anecdote that it's people who are afraid of being considered gay, for instance, who are most at risk for transmitting HIV, because HIV is, in some peoples' minds, "the disease that gay people get."
So basically, this should be a good thing. It's one of those things that seem backwards or wrong on the surface, but then when you dig deeper, it all makes sense.
That just leads to fewer people being tested for it, and increased incidence of sexual transmission.
It's kind of similar to the needle sharing programs for heroin users -- they're going to use heroin anyway. That's a given. They're addicted, and they need to be helped. But until we can get around to helping them, we can at least dramatically reduce blood-borne pathogen transmission. Hepatitis and HIV chief among them.
People with HIV are still going to have sex, but getting them to inform themselves on whether they have it or not will lead to safer practices.
Of course, every other LGBT person I've met gets tested regularly, just in case. I suspect with this anecdote that it's people who are afraid of being considered gay, for instance, who are most at risk for transmitting HIV, because HIV is, in some peoples' minds, "the disease that gay people get."
So basically, this should be a good thing. It's one of those things that seem backwards or wrong on the surface, but then when you dig deeper, it all makes sense.
crazy monkey
Banned
It's not just spread. People need to face consequences for their actions. It depends how curable and/or life changing the disease is. Herpes is bad, yes. Should it be a felony? It depends on how life altering it is. It's great progress has been made for HIV but it still requires the medication and the financial cost can be massive, hence why I think it should still be up there, unless it becomes much less of an issue.
Lol exactly. So many loud and wrong people in this topic, when this bill is progress. I'm here for it. We need to help these people, not send them to jail and pretend it's not a real issue. Especially when chances are greater that you'll contract it with someone who tells you they're "clean" than someone who doesn't. Nevermind the fact that many people who do, don't even know.
The previous bill helped no one. And raising all other STDs to felonies will be absolutely ridiculous, lol. You know how many people would get sent to jail? Nevermind the trials and tribulations of the accuser and the accused. That's not progress.
In the meantime, make sure you're getting tested every six months, and wear a condom. Your health is your responsibility.
Well yeah, obviously they assume that, because the reason you say it is because you think there's a chance you have HIV. Duh.
Here is the great part though. You don't actually have to say that you are going to take an HIV-test. You just do it without telling anyone. If you think there's a chance you have HIV, of course.
TheSpaceBetween
Member
It is true. However, it's incredibly expensive and meds can have some bad side effects.
plagiarize
Banned
You'd think the news that HIV isn't nearly as infectious as people fear it is, or as deadly as it used to be would be met with relief, not denial.
I guess it's that backlash effect thing.
If you aren't infectious you have no obligation to inform and shouldn't go to jail for it.
If you are infectious, then yes. Inform the other person.
People refusing to believe there are people with HIV that aren't infectious to hold onto their stigma is depressing. You'd rather be scared? Have fun with that I guess.
I guess it's that backlash effect thing.
If you aren't infectious you have no obligation to inform and shouldn't go to jail for it.
If you are infectious, then yes. Inform the other person.
People refusing to believe there are people with HIV that aren't infectious to hold onto their stigma is depressing. You'd rather be scared? Have fun with that I guess.
One Eyed Willy
Member
Nah, I practiced safe sex when single and I'm married to someone else who did. Raw doggin for the rest of my life. Also, when people talk about Herpes, they are not remotely including oral type A herpes.
They're talking about blisters on your dick for life, which people do not want and will "get used to".
Just because something is treatable doesnt mean its getting treated. How responsible are people with anything in their life like birth control, getting to work on time, not drinking to much etc? Had a patient encounter a few months ago while tracking positive syphilis tests. Had tested positive for HIV but negative for syphilis 6 months ago. In that time they had over 10 partners and admitted not telling any of them their HIV status. Patient went months without having antiviral medications and was only back on them after going to a clinical because of the syphilis symptoms.
The changes to the law should have gone the way of bring up other diseases. I dont think people should be jailed but have forced treatment and community service.
The changes to the law should have gone the way of bring up other diseases. I dont think people should be jailed but have forced treatment and community service.
Yoshimitsu126
Member
Uh, with my current knowledge of STD and HIV, Im not sure if its a good or bad thing. But this is definitely going to make me do research so I guess thats good at the end.
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
Reread.
a bit harsh, but there's a certain truth to it. This discussion is obviously agenda-driven. Okay, so with the help of medication it's unlikely that you spread it, but people in here talk like infecting someone with HIV is not even a big deal, like as if Herpes was the greater evil, really
SugarDaddy
Member
Hep c is way fucking scarier than HIV and knowingly giving someone hepatitis is only a misdemeanor so the change makes sense to me. No need to single out HIV