Support NeoGAF

[titiklabingapat]

Perhaps many of you were young when the HIV hysteria was at its heights so perhaps a little history lesson is in order.

The reason why HIV was specifically targeted by the old California law (current law in many states) is partly homophobia, pure and simple. HIV was seen as the gay virus. It was another way to criminalize the marginalized. Bonus points for also affecting injection drug users. Having it seen as a criminal crisis instead of a public health crisis made it really easy for society at large to ignore it as long as possible. Thankfully that has changed but the stigma is still very real.

'Gays trying to rape and infect your young sons' was a thing. Still is, actually.

 

[Earthbound64]

Didn't say it did. Which is why intentional nondisclosure and engaging in unprotected sex is still a misdemeanor.

Not strong enough.
Again, increase the penalty for all of it.

 

[plagiarize]

Where did I say HIV was the worst? You equated living with a cold to living with HIV. That's ridiculous and you need to admit it. You're now also fucking up making comparisons to pneumonia, a disease most people are able to get over by resting at home. A disease that has a fraction of the mortality rate of HIV related deaths. Am I going to get over HIV by going to bed with a glass of OJ??

The issue I take with the previous law is that it singled out HIV and only HIV. You can see that from my very first post in this thread.

The change keeps it illegal to knowingly expose the disease to someone without disclosure, it just brings the punishment down in line with every other communicable disease.

So if you are saying the change in law is bad, I want to know why you think HIV should be treated more harshly than every other communicable disease.

 

[Byakuya769]

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."

Depends on how expensive it is to control and medicate in my view.

 

[One Eyed Willy]

Wow, wtf. This seems like it should absolutely be illegal

What a POS thing to do

Thats Jerry Brown for you.

 

[royalan]

Not strong enough.
Again, increase the penalty for all of it.

And I suppose you think prohibition worked, too?

"Make it extra illegal" rarely works as a solution.

 

[Earthbound64]

And I suppose you think prohibition worked, too?

"Make it extra illegal" rarely works as a solution.

So because one thing didn't work, nothing will work?

"Make everything minimally illegal" then.
Misdemeanors as max penalties for everything!

 

[XenodudeX]

You willingly want to post that shit but in the gay community it's fucking ridiculous with HIV and how they view it. Especially with pep and prep, they treat it like a cold. Be mad, be angry about what I'm saying, but I have personally experienced my partner lie directly in my fucking face about his status and wanted me to get infected along with him so we could have some happy life. Im still negative thank God but that dude single handedly ruined at least 13 lives with HIV that I know of. Hes a frequent at the RAM manhole club in Chicago. God knows how many men he passed HIV to. This law is insane.

He should be arrested then, but those people he slept with should also be using protection. People need to stop putting their own protection into other peoples hands.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Thats Jerry Brown for you.

It's still illegal to knowingly infect someone with any communicable disease, HIV included.

 

[plagiarize]

So because one thing didn't work, nothing will work?

"Make everything minimally illegal" then.
Misdemeanors as max penalties for everything!

Except we tried this.

And like prohibition which we also tried, it didn't work. So like prohibition the law has been rightly retired.

 

[Earthbound64]

The issue I take with the previous law is that it singled out HIV and only HIV. You can see that from my very first post in this thread.

The change keeps it illegal to knowingly expose the disease to someone without disclosure, it just brings the punishment down in line with every other communicable disease.

So if you are saying the change in law is bad, I want to know why you think HIV should be treated more harshly than every other communicable disease.

You just keep at this, don't you?

Your main arguments seem to be based around:
1) Others aren't criminalized, so decriminalize this.
2) Other things are worse
3) Repeating "undetectable viral load" over and over and over and over again.

No.
Try making a post without those three things.
If you can't, then there's really nothing worth discussing.

Except we tried this.

And like prohibition which we also tried, it didn't work. So like prohibition the law has been rightly retired.

Man, I give up on you.

 

[Kebiinu]

The law didn't require transmission of the disease and people were charged with the felony in cases where no transmission took place.

People are clearly still very afraid of catching HIV. That doesn't excuse treating it as worse than every other communicable disease, and no one has argued successfully that it is the worst communicable disease.

They are just so scared of catching it that they think anyone with it who doesn't disclose should go to prison for at least a year. Irrespective of any risky behavior on their own part and irrespective of any steps the person with the virus is taking to ensure they aren't infectious.

But I guess I'm a sociopath for not being irrationally afraid of something.

You know people don't like to take responsibility for their actions, lol. Never mind they both consented to sex, and they trusted them with their false disclosure. Now that person needs to be in jail for a year, because they didn't use a condom.

Fuck outta here.

 

[whitehawk]

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 don't dispute your point, but it's also the until STD that can potentially kill you.

 

[Transhuman]

There's nothing in the bible about intentionally exposing others to HIV in California

 

[plagiarize]

You just keep at this, don't you?






Man, I give up on you. It's like talking to a brick wall.

It isn't decriminalized. I am not arguing for it to be. Please keep up with what the previous law was and what has actually been changed.

 

[ElfArmy177]

Why was the penalty for exposing people to it higher than exposing people to malaria or avian bird flu?

Why was HIV in a higher category than diseases like those?

Are you serious? The transmission.. Jesus

 

[hipbabboom]

This is really fucked up

 

[Earthbound64]

It isn't decriminalized. I am not arguing for it to be. Please keep up with what the previous law was and what has actually been changed.

Please keep up with what has been posted previously.

Alright:
"The logic failures of some people here, suggesting to reduce the consideration of HIV vis-à-vis other STDs, as opposed to increasing the consideration of other STDs, is astounding."

But, yeah, you're not going anywhere. Please just never have sex with me, thanks.

 

[pixelation]

Now instead of death the spreader merely transfers crippling debt!

ROFL!, i know right?

 

[plagiarize]

Are you serious? The transmission.. Jesus

The key reason given for why it shouldn't still be a felony is that transmission is now recognized as being much less likely. But keep holding onto your dated fears, because who cares about the actual science?

Well other than the state of California it seems anyway.

 

[ElfArmy177]

Am I understanding some people here that HIV infected people shouldn't have to let someone know they are positive or it's ok to lie to them before sex? Because... Their feelings?

 

[Brock Reiher]

The key reason given for why it shouldn't still be a felony is that transmission is now recognized as being much less likely. But keep holding onto your dated fears, because who cares about the actual science?

Well other than the state of California it seems anyway.

I still don't understand how you would even expose someone to malaria tho

 

[mentallyinept]

The law didn't require transmission of the disease and people were charged with the felony in cases where no transmission took place.

People are clearly still very afraid of catching HIV. That doesn't excuse treating it as worse than every other communicable disease, and no one has argued successfully that it is the worst communicable disease.

They are just so scared of catching it that they think anyone with it who doesn't disclose should go to prison for at least a year. Irrespective of any risky behavior on their own part and irrespective of any steps the person with the virus is taking to ensure they aren't infectious.

But I guess I'm a sociopath for not being irrationally afraid of something.

Wait.. what?

This is a whole 'nother thing. I thought you would need to actually infect the other person.

I take back what I said. This law was nuts and should have been removed a ages ago.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Am I understanding some people here that HIV infected people shouldn't have to let someone know they are positive or it's ok to lie to them before sex? Because... Their feelings?

It's not as simple as that you know it, being a nurse and all.

Wait.. what?

This is a whole 'nother thing. I thought you would need to actually infect the other person.

I take back what I said. This law was nuts and should have been removed a ages ago.

These laws have been abused like that, yes. That, I believe is the intention of the original laws.

 

[Nategc20]

Wait.. what?

This is a whole 'nother thing. I thought you would need to actually infect the other person.

I take back what I said. This law was nuts and should have been removed a ages ago.

Yea but what was the cases though? Did they lie about having HIV? Intent to infect? I would like sources.

 

[plagiarize]

Please keep up with what has been posted previously.



But, yeah, you're not going anywhere. Please just never have sex with me, thanks.

My point remains that it was never about comparing it to other STDs, but about comparing it to all other communicable diseases. It's literally one of the key reasons it has been changed... Because there is no good reason for it to be in a class of its own compared to every other communicable disease.

Now it's 'only' as bad as doing the same thing with any other highly lethal or incurable disease. Oh no! Now you are going to AIDS for certain!!!

 

[ElfArmy177]

The key reason given for why it shouldn't still be a felony is that transmission is now recognized as being much less likely. But keep holding onto your dated fears, because who cares about the actual science?

Well other than the state of California it seems anyway.

What? Lol so because the chances are "low" that makes it ok? Lol

 

[Brock Reiher]

My point remains that it was never about comparing it to other STDs, but about comparing it to all other communicable diseases. It's literally one of the key reasons it has been changed... Because there is no good reason for it to be in a class of its own compared to every other communicable disease.

Now it's 'only' as bad as doing the same thing with any other highly lethal or incurable disease. Oh no! Now you are going to AIDS for certain!!!

You picked reaaaaally bad examples if that was your point. You didn't list highly lethal diseases lol

 

[Syriel]

See, now that's something I didn't know.

And kudos for wearing protection.

It's crazy that anyone this day and age has unprotected sex with strangers.

Plagiarize is lying about the CDC's stance (see quotes from the CDC website below). There is no 100% chance of no infection as he claims.

I'm a sociopath because I believe the CDC? Okay.

The CDC disagrees with you.

It's funny how you guys claim that the "CDC says" one thing, yet what is actually published on the CDC site aligns with my claim.

If you're going to appeal to authority, maybe don't make up a claim that is so easily proven false?

Viral load is the amount of HIV in the blood of someone who is HIV-positive. When the viral load is very low, it is called viral suppression. Undetectable viral load is when the amount of HIV in the blood is so low that it can’t be measured.

In general, the higher someone’s viral load, the more likely that person is to transmit HIV. People who have HIV but are in care, taking HIV medicines, and have a very low or undetectable viral load are much less likely to transmit HIV than people who have HIV and do not have a low viral load.

However, a person with HIV can still potentially transmit HIV to a partner even if they have an undetectable viral load, because

• HIV may still be found in genital fluids (semen, vaginal fluids). The viral load test only measures virus in blood.
• A person’s viral load may go up between tests. When this happens, they may be more likely to transmit HIV to partners.
• Sexually transmitted diseases increase viral load in genital fluids.

If you’re HIV-positive, getting into care and taking HIV medicines (called antiretroviral therapy or ART) the right way, every day will give you the greatest chance to get and stay virally suppressed, live a longer, healthier life, and reduce the chance of transmitting HIV to your partners.

https://www.cdc.gov/actagainstaids/basics/transmission.html

The goal of HIV treatment is to reduce viral load to very low or undetectable levels. When the viral load is very low, it is called viral suppression. Undetectable viral load is when the amount of HIV in the blood is so low that it can't be measured. Being virally suppressed or having an undetectable viral load is good for an HIV-positive person's overall health. + It also greatly reduces the chance of transmitting the virus to a sexual or drug-using partner who does not have HIV. However, this is only true if a person can get and stay virally suppressed. One thing that can increase viral load is not taking HIV medicines the right way, every day.

In general, the higher someone's viral load, the more likely that person is to transmit HIV. Someone with acute HIV infection has a very high viral load. People who have HIV but are in care, taking HIV medicines, and are virally suppressed are much less likely to transmit HIV than people who have HIV and do not have a low viral load.

https://wwwn.cdc.gov/hivrisk/increased_risk/viral_load/index.html

According to the CDC risk is reduced, but is not zero.

 

[Earthbound64]

What? Lol so because the chances are "low" that makes it ok? Lol

Yeah, that poster just keeps repeating the same things over and over. If you want to know their response to this, just go back to the first page of the thread, because it will be there already.

 

[plagiarize]

What? Lol so because the chances are "low" that makes it ok? Lol

That makes it sensible to be punishable with a lower sentence yes. Like speeding vs drunk driving. Both could kill. One is more likely to. Drunk driving gets a harsher penalty in cases when no one died than in speeding cases where no one died.

 

[GameAddict411]

Std spreading is a complex topic. Apart from rape, the risk is solely on both sexual partners. Choosing not to use condoms based on any reasoning is an invalid excuse even if one is infected with HIV and fully knows he could spread it.

 

[Mung]

Presumably this is only if you inform the other person before? Otherwise, whether legal or not, that would be a terrible thing to do.

 

[Earthbound64]

Yeah, that poster just keeps repeating the same things over and over. If you want to know their response to this, just go back to the first page of the thread, because it will be there already.

Well, let's see...

That makes it sensible to be punishable with a lower sentence yes. Like speeding vs drunk driving. Both could kill. One is more likely to. Drunk driving gets a harsher penalty in cases when no one died than in speeding cases where no one died.

And here's the 1st-page parallel:

Pneumonia is way more lethal than HIV and is caused by the common flu virus. If you have ever knowingly exposed people to flu, congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

 

[nkarafo]

Am I understanding some people here that HIV infected people shouldn't have to let someone know they are positive or it's ok to lie to them before sex? Because... Their feelings?

That's my question as well. Because if that's the case they should put their priorities straight. Other people's health > your feelings.

 

[plagiarize]

Plagiarize is lying about the CDC's stance (see quotes from the CDC website below). There is no 100% chance of no infection as he claims.





It's funny how you guys claim that the "CDC says" one thing, yet what is actually published on the CDC site aligns with my claim.

If you're going to appeal to authority, maybe don't make up a claim that is so easily proven false?



https://www.cdc.gov/actagainstaids/basics/transmission.html



https://wwwn.cdc.gov/hivrisk/increased_risk/viral_load/index.html

According to the CDC risk is reduced, but is not zero.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/dcl/dcl/092717.html

Scientific advances have shown that antiretroviral therapy (ART) preserves the health of people living with HIV. We also have strong evidence of the prevention effectiveness of ART. When ART results in viral suppression, defined as less than 200 copies/ml or undetectable levels, it prevents sexual HIV transmission. Across three different studies, including thousands of couples and many thousand acts of sex without a condom or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), no HIV transmissions to an HIV-negative partner were observed when the HIV-positive person was virally suppressed. This means that people who take ART daily as prescribed and achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load have effectively no risk of sexually transmitting the virus to an HIV-negative partner.

Posting outdated information that happens to still be linked by the CDC doesn't demonstrate that I'm a liar.

It just demonstrates that you don't pay much attention to the news.

 

[royalan]

What? Lol so because the chances are "low" that makes it ok? Lol

It's pretty clear that isn't what plagiarize is arguing.

 

[Double Donut]

GAF is a really weird fucking place that at times seems really disconnected from the outside world. If you have the disease, you should let the other person know. Educate them if need be, but let THEM make that choice. Fuck your feelings. You don't get to make that decision for them no matter how treatable the disease is.

Seriously. Even beyond HIV, if you have ANY infectious disease, it is common fucking sense and decency to let someone know about it before literally affecting them for life. Fuck’s sake.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Plagiarize is lying about the CDC's stance (see quotes from the CDC website below). There is no 100% chance of no infection as he claims.





It's funny how you guys claim that the "CDC says" one thing, yet what is actually published on the CDC site aligns with my claim.

If you're going to appeal to authority, maybe don't make up a claim that is so easily proven false?



https://www.cdc.gov/actagainstaids/basics/transmission.html



https://wwwn.cdc.gov/hivrisk/increased_risk/viral_load/index.html

According to the CDC risk is reduced, but is not zero.

There is a wider debate about it amongst HIV experts. The CDC's recommendations, while finally catching up with the times, is still one of the more conservative ones. The latest study, PARTNER, which included 58,000 sex acts and included 900 people resulted in zero transmissions. I don;t want to say it is absolutely impossible but in practical terms, yeah its impossible. More data is needed and they are being compiled as we speak but I'm pretty confident that the transmission rate will be zero.

 

[ElfArmy177]

Plagiarize is lying about the CDC's stance (see quotes from the CDC website below). There is no 100% chance of no infection as he claims.





It's funny how you guys claim that the "CDC says" one thing, yet what is actually published on the CDC site aligns with my claim.

If you're going to appeal to authority, maybe don't make up a claim that is so easily proven false?



https://www.cdc.gov/actagainstaids/basics/transmission.html



https://wwwn.cdc.gov/hivrisk/increased_risk/viral_load/index.html

According to the CDC risk is reduced, but is not zero.

Thank you.

For the record my first year as a nurse I worked with a young man about 32 who got HIV and eventually aids. He then got common infection ( I can't remember what) and fucking died of sepsis. At the ripe old age of 32. In his chart he specifically stated to the ER doctor upon admission that he contracted it from an ex boyfriend who knew he had it and didn't disclose he contracted it. He asked the nurses and doctors who knew he was dying to not tell his parents he was dying of aids and that he was gay. This guy was the nicest fucking dude ever and he died because some asswad didn't tell him he had HIV.

Why did it get so bad? Because he didn't KNOW he had it and never got TREATMENT for it. So pardon me for having an emotional opinion on assholes infecting someone with a diseases that could kill them.

Edit: 32, not 22

 

[metalslimer]

People are taking plagiarize out of context to make it seem like he is somehow ok with people infecting others. The criminilization and stigmatization of HIV has been a failure and needs to be addresssed

 

[Brock Reiher]

That's my question as well. Because if that's the case they should put their priorities straight. Other people's health > your feelings.

Not really, at least not legally. You're not allowed to tell someone that their roommate in the hospital has HIV, you just have to trust them to take proper precautions.

People are taking plagiarize out of context to make it seem like he is somehow ok with people infecting others. The criminilization and stigmatization of HIV has been a failure and needs to be addresssed

They're not very good at getting that point across, honestly.

 

[royalan]

Seriously. Even beyond HIV, if you have ANY infectious disease, it is common fucking sense and decency to let someone know about it before literally affecting them for life. Fuck’s sake.

And nobody is arguing otherwise.

Seriously, WHO in here is arguing this?

There's a lot of people jumping in with half-cocked arguments and a lot of shoving words in others mouths.

 

[metalslimer]

Thank you.

For the record my first year as a nurse I worked with a young man about 22 who got HIV and eventually aids. He then got common infection ( I can't remember what) and fucking died of sepsis. At the ripe old age of 22. In his chart he specifically stated to the ER doctor upon admission that he contracted it from an ex boyfriend who knew he had it and didn't disclose he contracted it. He asked the nurses and doctors who knew he was dying to not tell his parents he was dying of aids and that he was gay. This guy was the nicest fucking dude ever and he died because some asswad didn't tell him he had HIV.

Why did it get so bad? Because he didn't KNOW he had it and never got TREATMENT for it. So pardon me for having an emotional opinion on assholes infecting someone with a diseases that could kill them.

Your emotional response to a case shouldn't affect public policy

 

[Maintenance]

What? This is completely fucked up.

 

[Earthbound64]

People are taking plagiarize out of context to make it seem like he is somehow ok with people infecting others.

No, we're making it seem like he is somehow ok with people not telling other people that they have been diagnosed with HIV.
Because that's what he's doing.

Seriously. Even beyond HIV, if you have ANY infectious disease, it is common fucking sense and decency to let someone know about it before literally affecting them for life. Fuck’s sake.

And nobody is arguing otherwise.

Seriously, WHO in here is arguing this?

plagiarize

 

[Tyraniboah]

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.

If it's something that can be avoided with some disclosure then we shouldn't be letting people with any disease or infection spread it knowingly. We can change the culture surrounding treatment of STI's while still holding them responsible for disclosing their condition before transmission. "Man it's treatable so why do you care if you get it?" is absolutely the wrong way to go about this.

 

[plagiarize]

No, we're making it seem like he is somehow ok with people not telling other people that they have been diagnosed with HIV.
Because that's what he's doing.

I'm only okay with it in cases where I believe that there is zero risk of transmitting the disease. But you know that already.

 

[Syriel]

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/dcl/dcl/092717.html



Posting outdated information that happens to still be linked by the CDC doesn't demonstrate that I'm a liar.

It just demonstrates that you don't pay much attention to the news.

"Effectively no risk" is not the same as "no risk" and you know that.

What I said, that transmission is extremely unlikely, but still possible, aligns with the CDC assessment.

What you keep claiming, that transmission is impossible, contradicts with the CDC assessment.

If you are going to use the CDC as a source for your claim, then argue what the CDC states, not what you want the CDC to say.

And that claim is also dependent on 100% adhesion to taking meds on schedule. Deviating from said schedule (aka human error) can allow the viral load to increase.

 

[ElfArmy177]

People are missing the damn point. It doesn't matter how good treatment is if you don't know you have the diseases because it wasnt disclosed to you.... I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this thread. Some selfish people live on this planet

I'm only okay with it in cases where I believe that there is zero risk of transmitting the disease. But you know that already.

You have no clue what you're even talking about anymore. Good God, I really hope you respect your partner as much as they trust you plagarized.... That's some scary selfish mindset you have there.

"I have HIV but was told I have almost zero risk of transmitting it so I don't have to say anything".

Unreal