Current Events > Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California.

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-downgrades-from-felony-to-1507331544-htmlstory.html

http://kmph.com/news/local/knowingly-infecting-someone-with-hiv-is-now-a-misdemeanor-in-california

https://www.aclusandiego.org/governor-signs-bill-modernizing-california-hiv-laws/

This is dangerous.
---

what in the fuck

Yet another example of what liberal lead government leads to. And people wonder why conservatives are in charge of the entire country. Disgusting.
---

..............

why?
---

Lmaofornia, always one step forward and two steps back
---

What could possibly be the argument in favour of this? We don't want to hurt the feelings of people who have HIV now?

Well, at least Charlie Sheen is happy.
---

It's probably to lessen the prison population.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

what in the fuck

---

E32005 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

what in the fuck

---

"The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive."

The fuck?
---

tremain07 posted...

Yet another example of what liberal lead government leads to. And people wonder why conservatives are in charge of the entire country. Disgusting.

This makes zero sense WTF California
---

ruining someone's life intentionally shouldn't be rewarded with a misdemeanor
---

According to that last article, this was unfair to gays, black people, and drug users who are the largest groups who have HIV. In typical liberal fashion, the left-wing policy makers can't tell who the proper victims are in this case and simply rely of the Pyramid of Oppression. Anything unfair to "marginalized groups" must be an injustice.

To be honest, I would say knowingly and deliberately infecting someone with HIV is a justifiable reason for murder. I would absolutely acquit someone for that if I was on a jury in that situation.
---

What the god damn fuck
---

This is... I have no words.
---

The Admiral posted...

To be honest, I would say knowingly and deliberately infecting someone with HIV is a justifiable reason for murder. I would absolutely acquit someone for that if I was on a jury in that situation.

knowingly infecting someone with HIV should definitely be a life sentence or a death penalty

probably a life sentence since it's more of a punishment than being put to sleep forever imo

West coast is the best coast right?

Hundreds of health organizations with research and evidence on HIV believe this will help public safety.

Its not the liberals when hundreds health organizations backed this. But just judging by the clickbait titles will skew your perception.

voldothegr8 posted...

This makes zero sense WTF California

Classic California
---

lowtides posted...

Hundreds of health organizations with research and evidence on HIV believe this will help public safety.

Its not the liberals when hundreds health organizations backed this. But just judging by the clickbait titles will skew your perception.

how in the fuck

pikachupwnage posted...

"The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive."

The fuck?

i would imagine they test blood for HIV before giving it to people, however it just makes more sense to defer such people before taking their blood as to not waste resources and unneeded lab work

lowtides posted...

Hundreds of health organizations with research and evidence on HIV believe this will help public safety.

Its not the liberals when hundreds health organizations backed this. But just judging by the clickbait titles will skew your perception.

Prove it, show us the research because all I can find is that it's "discriminatory."
---

smoliske posted...

pikachupwnage posted...

"The measure also applies to those who give blood without telling the blood bank that they are HIV-positive."

The fuck?

i would imagine they test blood for HIV before giving it to people, however it just makes more sense to defer such people before taking their blood as to not waste resources and unneeded lab work

and in the case where it's not detectable but still there? IIRC we don't know 100% if it can still be passed in those circumstances

lowtides posted...

Hundreds of health organizations with research and evidence on HIV believe this will help public safety.

LOL, no. All of the "health organizations" mentioned are political advocacy groups, many for LGBT and black people.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lowtides posted...

Hundreds of health organizations with research and evidence on HIV believe this will help public safety.

Its not the liberals when hundreds health organizations backed this. But just judging by the clickbait titles will skew your perception.

how in the fuck

Yeah I really want to see some compelling evidence because right now I don't understand how willingly infecting someone with something you know will lower their quality of life isn't being considered up there with willingly crippling someone.
---

Looks like our politicians are now receiving more money from big pharma than the prison industry. Step ya corruption game up.
---

Unquestionable posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lowtides posted...

Hundreds of health organizations with research and evidence on HIV believe this will help public safety.

Its not the liberals when hundreds health organizations backed this. But just judging by the clickbait titles will skew your perception.

how in the fuck

Yeah I really want to see some compelling evidence because right now I don't understand how willingly infecting someone with something you know will lower their quality of life isn't being considered up there with willingly crippling someone.

it wouldn't just lower their quality of life. it'd basically end it.

HIV treatment medication is expensive as fuck (several thousand per month without insurance) and it has some awful side effects and you have to take it religiously. and it doesn't cure it, it just makes it undetectable so that hopefully you don't get AIDS later.

and you still have the stigma of telling your sexual partners you have it, which 99% of the time is going to mean that you're getting rejected.

Tappor posted...

ruining someone's life intentionally shouldn't be rewarded with a misdemeanor

literally the argument was that "there's drugs to fix it now." It's not a death sentence because you can just take drugs for the rest of your like and that makes it ok.

like the biggest facepalm I've ever made.
---

Criminalization serves only to fuel continued stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV, Equality California argued in a paper supporting a change in the law. These laws work against public health. They provide an incentive not to know your HIV status because you can only be prosecuted if you know you are HIV-positive. They create mistrust of public health professionals, making people who have tested HIV-positive less likely to cooperate with partner notification, treatment adherence and prevention programs. And they place HIV-negative people in harm's way by making them believe they can engage in risky behaviors without the risk.

lowtides posted...

Criminalization serves only to fuel continued stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV, Equality California argued in a paper supporting a change in the law. These laws work against public health. They provide an incentive not to know your HIV status because you can only be prosecuted if you know you are HIV-positive. They create mistrust of public health professionals, making people who have tested HIV-positive less likely to cooperate with partner notification, treatment adherence and prevention programs. And they place HIV-negative people in harm's way by making them believe they can engage in risky behaviors without the risk.

So Equality California is one of those "hundreds of health organizations" you mentioned?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Unquestionable posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

lowtides posted...

Hundreds of health organizations with research and evidence on HIV believe this will help public safety.

Its not the liberals when hundreds health organizations backed this. But just judging by the clickbait titles will skew your perception.

how in the fuck

Yeah I really want to see some compelling evidence because right now I don't understand how willingly infecting someone with something you know will lower their quality of life isn't being considered up there with willingly crippling someone.

it wouldn't just lower their quality of life. it'd basically end it.

HIV treatment medication is expensive as fuck (several thousand per month without insurance) and it has some awful side effects and you have to take it religiously. and it doesn't cure it, it just makes it undetectable so that hopefully you don't get AIDS later.

and you still have the stigma of telling your sexual partners you have it, which 99% of the time is going to mean that you're getting rejected.

Except now you wouldn't have to really tell anyone as there is basically no consequence.
---

time to gtfo of california
---

What a stupid thing
---

The Admiral posted...

lowtides posted...

Criminalization serves only to fuel continued stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV, Equality California argued in a paper supporting a change in the law. These laws work against public health. They provide an incentive not to know your HIV status because you can only be prosecuted if you know you are HIV-positive. They create mistrust of public health professionals, making people who have tested HIV-positive less likely to cooperate with partner notification, treatment adherence and prevention programs. And they place HIV-negative people in harm's way by making them believe they can engage in risky behaviors without the risk.

So Equality California is one of those "hundreds of health organizations" you mentioned?

Im just bringing up one argument for the bill

And yeah Id trust organizations that have had tons of contact, research, and experiences with/on those with HIV over randoms on the internet

"How in the world did Trump become president?!" Asked the left as they finished drafting their bill to decriminalize knowingly infecting someone with HIV.

Crazy times we live in.
---

lowtides posted...

They provide an incentive not to know your HIV status because you can only be prosecuted if you know you are HIV-positive.

Ok, finally a valid point.

It's still wrong. It should remain a felony.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Except now you wouldn't have to really tell anyone as there is basically no consequence.

This is really the crux of it. It basically allows HIV+ gay men and MtF transgenders -- who are the primary ones being charged with these felonies -- to no longer even worry about the consequences of having reckless, unprotected sex.
---

Fishy posted...

"How in the world did Trump become president?!" Asked the left as they finished drafting their bill to decriminalize knowingly infecting someone with HIV.

Crazy times we live in.

Not decriminalize its being brought in line with the criminalization of spreading of other diseases

lowtides posted...

Fishy posted...

"How in the world did Trump become president?!" Asked the left as they finished drafting their bill to decriminalize knowingly infecting someone with HIV.

Crazy times we live in.

Not decriminalize its being brought in line with the criminalization of spreading of other diseases

What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?
---

The Admiral posted...

What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?

All of them. HIV was the only one you could get charged with a felony for.

The Admiral posted...

lowtides posted...

Fishy posted...

"How in the world did Trump become president?!" Asked the left as they finished drafting their bill to decriminalize knowingly infecting someone with HIV.

Crazy times we live in.

Not decriminalize its being brought in line with the criminalization of spreading of other diseases

What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?

Cancer? Like I mean just look at the tobacco industry.
---

JE19426 posted...

The Admiral posted...

What other terminal diseases can you deliberately infect someone with and not get charged with a felony?

All of them. HIV was the only one you could get charged with a felony for.

Uh, no. Pretty sure if I deliberately inject you with cancer cells and you contract the disease, I'm not getting a slap on the wrist. So don't think you're quite right on this one.
---

The Admiral posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Except now you wouldn't have to really tell anyone as there is basically no consequence.

This is really the crux of it. It basically allows HIV+ gay men and MtF transgenders -- who are the primary ones being charged with these felonies -- to no longer even worry about the consequences of having reckless, unprotected sex.

I'd be interested to see the trends of HIV transmission in response to new medications and legislation. It's plausible that felony charges had a reverse effect.
---

The Admiral posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Except now you wouldn't have to really tell anyone as there is basically no consequence.

This is really the crux of it. It basically allows HIV+ gay men and MtF transgenders -- who are the primary ones being charged with these felonies -- to no longer even worry about the consequences of having reckless, unprotected sex.

Actually studies show women and POC (in particular black people and latinos) are disproportionately targeted by these laws

HIV criminalization disproportionately affects women and people of color. Forty-three percent of those criminalized under Californias HIV-specific criminal laws are women, despite comprising only 13 percent of people living with HIV in the state. Blacks and Latinos make up two-thirds of people who came into contact with the criminal justice system based on their HIV status, despite comprising only about half of people living with HIV/AIDS in California.

The Admiral posted...

Uh, no. Pretty sure if I deliberately inject you with cancer cells and you contract the disease, I'm not getting a slap on the wrist. So don't think you're quite right on this one.

You couldn't give someone cancer by doing that.

@lowtides

you are literally defending not punishing people who knowingly infect others with HIV

Seriously what other terminal communicable disease is there that would even have this same situation. I doubt if you have Ebola you'll be in any shape to go spitting on people. We dont need a law for each disease, if CA wants to fold HIV under an all-inclusive "No Purposefully Infecting Someone With a Deadly Disease" law that's one thing but reducing the penalty is just lunacy.
---