Cali is the other end of the horseshoe.
Honestly, neither CA or FL are bad places to live, it's just your more likely to see crazy shit due to population % and the fact both are major tourist destinations. TX, NY and IL have their fair share as well.
"Starting January 1 (2018), it will no longer be a felony in California to knowingly expose a sexual partner to HIV with the intent of transmitting the virus. Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Friday that lowers the offense to a misdemeanour.
'
The California legislature passed SB 239 in September.
'
The law previously punished people who intentionally exposed or infected others with HIV by up to eight years in prison. The new legislation will lower jail time to a maximum of six months.
'
The new law will also eliminate the penalty for knowingly donating HIV-infected blood. This action is a felony under current law and will be decriminalized starting in January. Supporters of the change argue the previous law was antiquated because all donated blood is tested for HIV.
sponsors Sen. Scott Wiener and Assemblyman Todd Gloria, both Democrats, argued California law was outdated and stigmatized people living with HIV, especially given recent advancements in medicine. Evidence has shown that a person with HIV who undergoes regular treatment has a negligible chance of spreading the infection to others through sexual contact.
'
"The most effective way to reduce HIV infections is to destigmatize HIV," Wiener told CNN. "To make people comfortable talking about their infection, get tested, get into treatment."
'
Gloria released a statement Friday saying the bill will put the state "at the forefront in the fight to stop the spread of HIV."
'
Wiener said by destigmatizing HIV, the bill would encourage people to get tested, which will in turn lower HIV transmission in the state."
'
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html
So apparently the best way to stop the spread of HIV is not, to in fact, STOP the spread of HIV, but simply make people more comfortable with the fact that someone knowingly and purposefully infected them I guess.
'
Sounds right up there with anti-vax propaganda to me, but okay.
I say this in my reply above- but one has to look at the bigger picture. HIV was SPECIFICALLY targeted by law. It wasn’t a class of dangerous or life threatening or chronic diseases. Just one. The law was passed during the “AIDS scare” when it was often considered a “gay disease” that only homosexuals got, and people with aids were shunned or stigmatized. There was no effective treatment for aids or HIV and so it was basically a mystery disease and a death sentence. People thought just touching an infected person or being in the same room could spread it, and some still do. In general people with any STD, even Herpes face misinformation and stigma in society. The point is that society needs educated but the law shouldn’t fall prey to the same prejudices. I can give you ANY disease I want and it’s a misdemeanor....
... Ebola, Rabies, Bubonic Plague, syphilis, whatever... but there was specifically a law about HIV. Such laws justify and reinforce social stigma and statistically are not shown to effectively decrease transmission rates. So unless one were to classify diseases by severity and then assign specific legal penalties by class, or give every disease its own penalty, or just make every disease or potentially life threatening disease a felony to knowingly expose others to, that law is by its nature biased against HIV and the infected. Yes- I wouldn’t be happy to find out I had HIV and I don’t consider a few years in jail a fair trade for a life time of a disease. I also however do not think adding a few years would make me feel any better and I’m at just as much risk of catching most others diseases. There comes a point in legislation where we have to weigh the cost of safety....
... the government could side step the whole thin by making sex without a condom illegal or requiring both parties to sign a disclosure and release of liability. They could mandate a vetting process and sworn statements of sexual history. Maybe keep a public database so that you can be informed of your partner’s history. At some point though- we have to just say- if you’re raw dogging people you don’t know or can’t trust to tell you they have a transmittabke disease, that’s a personal thing and not a legal issue. Who and how you have sex isn’t something the government should be involved in any more than it has to be, and most people who have been through family court will tel you the govt does a pretty shit job dealing with the arbitarting disputes from the consequences of sex and personal relationships.
@guest_ please tell me you didn't just defend a law that lowers the penalty for KNOWINGLY transmitting a POTENTIALLY DEADLY VIRUS to others. Please. Because that is fucked up.
He did. And it's a valid argument. I don't agree with the entirety of it, because HIV turning into AIDS and you showing symptoms isn't even remotely on the level of ebola, rabies or the plague; many are transmitted entirely differently, and some are only truly harmful with complications to the point many people don't even recognize they have the disease; such as syphilis.
Now, on the inverse end... if you know you have a chance to pass on Huntington's or are prone to Alzheimer's, should that preclude you from having children? I mean, you're potentially passing that on to your children... and it would be YOUR fault, because it's entirely preventable by not having children.
There is a difference. Genetic conditions are tricky by their very nature, and can be a toss up as to what is expressed because of the other partner. Some genetic conditions are masked, and a parent might be completely unaware they might be passing on something dangerous. What guest and yourself are defending is KNOWINGLY (emphasis on KNOWINGLY) passing on an incurable virus to people they had no intention of telling. A virus that has and continues to kill. Maybe not in the massive numbers it used to, but it is usually a factor in their death's. If someone KNOWINGLY gave me syphilis, or the fuckin plague, and didn't tell me, I would be fucking furious, and want someone like that put away, not getting a slap on the wrist and putting others at risk.
Oh, no, I agree, I'd be furious as well, as would anyone else, but if someone knowingly gave you the plague it would still be a misdemeanor. As @guest_ pointed out, they only changed the laws because it was specific to HIV. What they should have done, in my opinion, is just made knowingly pass on anything like that a felony.
@igotzapped- @funkmasterrex summed it up pretty well. The problem with the law wasn’t that it existed, it was that it was singular to one disease. Why or how could one justify treating a single disease- which is potentially deadly but not deadly, different than a long list of other diseases that are pretty much always deadly? If they wanted to class diseases like drugs based on ease of transmission, severity and prognosis- that would be one thing. It would also be VERY complex because we can argue all day what’s worse? A disease that kills you after a long mild suffering, or one that disfigures or handicaps you for life? One which has almost no complications with treatment but can kill you untreated, or one that has horrible ongoing complications but isn’t deadly? Then do we split it up like other crimes where there’s different degrees like murder based on premeditation and malice, or do we just make one broad rule that doesn’t take any other circumstances into account? Much of the...
.. weight is subjective based on how you feel. Ask your friends if they’d rather have herpes or TB. I bet they migh give some different answers. So that in itself is an issue- but singling out one single disease is not in the spirit of our justice system. It’s like making it a felony to stab a person with a hunting knife anywhere on their body and a misdemeanor if you stab someone with a butcher knife. It’s nonsense and it sets dangerous legal precedent. I don’t want to be infected by some disease. I don’t want to be blown up when I fly, shot in school, or discriminated against. Laws that stop those things CAN be good. But we can’t just blindly jump on the bandwagon with any law that gets us what we want, that serves a cause we support. We must consider the whole scope of the thing and what it means as far as how it shapes future law and thought. I will not make deals with the devil and trade one evil for another because it’s faster and easier than doing things the right way.
Fact check:
1. The penalty for exposing a person knowingly to ANY transmittable disease is a misdemeanor. It’s a misdemeanor to give a person smallpox, rabies, or Black Plague too. HIV was classified specially as a felony at the height of the “AIDS scare” and a law that specifically targets HIV (treatable, and not a “death sentence”) as a felony but not any other deadly or potentially life threatening or incurable disease is not right. To make it right they’d have to bump up exposure to any disease to a felony too.
2. California has a “3 strikes” felony law, which partially guides California sentencing laws because if you hit a 3rd strike for certain crimes like assaults- that’s a life sentence. So someone who used to work at a company and emailed their family and friends not to use that company (that’s a felony,) then rode their motor bike and accidentally rode into a protected range (also a felony) who then is taking HIV drugs that prevent or reduce transmission odds and gives...
... another person oral sex, could face life in prison. Harsh prison sentences are designed to deter people or to reduce repeat offenses and make sure the most dangerous or violent people are locked up. We want to start locking up people for strading STD’s? Herpes? What about Syphillis which can kill you or disfigure you? That’s not a felony either. So while it sounds absurd- it makes perfect sense that HIV not be regulated any differently than any other communicable disease.
Now- as for “why can’t you be normal...” less than half of states have laws making willful or knowing transmission of HIV a crime as or more serious than a misdemeanor. 25 states do not have laws making it a crime at all. So “normal” in context would be to not even make spreading HIV a crime, because currently in the majority of states it has no specific law against it.
Honestly, neither CA or FL are bad places to live, it's just your more likely to see crazy shit due to population % and the fact both are major tourist destinations. TX, NY and IL have their fair share as well.
'
The California legislature passed SB 239 in September.
'
The law previously punished people who intentionally exposed or infected others with HIV by up to eight years in prison. The new legislation will lower jail time to a maximum of six months.
'
The new law will also eliminate the penalty for knowingly donating HIV-infected blood. This action is a felony under current law and will be decriminalized starting in January. Supporters of the change argue the previous law was antiquated because all donated blood is tested for HIV.
'
"The most effective way to reduce HIV infections is to destigmatize HIV," Wiener told CNN. "To make people comfortable talking about their infection, get tested, get into treatment."
'
Gloria released a statement Friday saying the bill will put the state "at the forefront in the fight to stop the spread of HIV."
'
Wiener said by destigmatizing HIV, the bill would encourage people to get tested, which will in turn lower HIV transmission in the state."
'
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html
'
Sounds right up there with anti-vax propaganda to me, but okay.
Now, on the inverse end... if you know you have a chance to pass on Huntington's or are prone to Alzheimer's, should that preclude you from having children? I mean, you're potentially passing that on to your children... and it would be YOUR fault, because it's entirely preventable by not having children.
1. The penalty for exposing a person knowingly to ANY transmittable disease is a misdemeanor. It’s a misdemeanor to give a person smallpox, rabies, or Black Plague too. HIV was classified specially as a felony at the height of the “AIDS scare” and a law that specifically targets HIV (treatable, and not a “death sentence”) as a felony but not any other deadly or potentially life threatening or incurable disease is not right. To make it right they’d have to bump up exposure to any disease to a felony too.
2. California has a “3 strikes” felony law, which partially guides California sentencing laws because if you hit a 3rd strike for certain crimes like assaults- that’s a life sentence. So someone who used to work at a company and emailed their family and friends not to use that company (that’s a felony,) then rode their motor bike and accidentally rode into a protected range (also a felony) who then is taking HIV drugs that prevent or reduce transmission odds and gives...