Way to go Commiefornia

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by SPL170db, Oct 8, 2017.

  1. SPL170db

    SPL170db Trackday winner

  2. galloway840

    galloway840 Well-Known Member

    What do HIV drugs and treatment cost? The offender should at least be on the hook for that amount for life. Donating blood? Should be on the hook for the potentially thousands of infected people.

    This law is bad policy at best...
  3. Venom51

    Venom51 John Deere Equipment Expert - Not really

    It's California...it's all they know how to do.
  4. Potts N Pans

    Potts N Pans Well-Known Member

    I dont understand the reason behind making the punishment softer.
    badmoon692008 likes this.
  5. thrak410

    thrak410 My member is well known

    It's like bizzaro world there....
    GixxerBlade likes this.
  6. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck

    I saw this post and figured it was probably a line item in a bill about something totally unrelated that couldn't be excised (which is bullshit on a whole nother level, but not for this thread).

    So I went & looked up the bill and read it for myself.


    Turns out; nope. The entirety of this bill deals solely with reducing the punishment for knowingly transmitting a terminal illness (aka murder) to a misdemeanor.

    It also allows HIV positive people to donate blood.

    Perhaps best of all, it allows HIV positive people to donate semen provided that...

    ""Sperm whose donor has tested reactive for HIV or HTLV may be used for the purposes of insemination or assisted reproductive technology for a recipient testing negative for HIV or HTLV only after the donor’s sperm has been effectively processed to minimize the likelihood of transmission through the sperm for that specific donation and if informed and mutual consent has occurred.""
  7. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck

    PS. The guy that introduced the bill: named Weiner
  8. fastfreddie

    fastfreddie Midnight Oil Garage

    Why in the fuck would accepting fluids from an HIV+ individual even be a consideration?

    I'd scream/shout/yell that at the top of my lungs but no one in CA would hear me.
    Gixxerguy855 likes this.
  9. SPL170db

    SPL170db Trackday winner

    It sounds like the rationale these dumbass Dems are using is that HIV is far from a guaranteed death sentence it once was considered....provided you can foot the bill for all the medications to keep you from withering away. I guess you could call it the Magic Johnson Effect.

    Doesn't make it any less asinine and backwards thinking.
  10. pickled egg

    pickled egg Art is subjective

    Note to self: stay the fuck out of Commiefuckthisplace
  11. brex

    brex Well-Known Member

    In no situation should an HIV positive person be donating blood.
    That is fucked up even by whack job useless POS kalifornistan standards.
  12. Orvis

    Orvis Well-Known Member

    Is it a surprise to anyone? Really? I mean hell, look at the fearless leader in charge. Gov. "Moonbeam" Brown. That mofo isn't any smarter than he was when he was 10 years old. My constant wonderment is why the people of that state haven't voted for someone else yet. Of course, I think the population of Calif. is about 65 or 70% Hispanic so, for them, Moonbeam can do no wrong since he gives them everything that they could want. It's a fucked up state.
  13. R Acree

    R Acree WTF

    Wooohooo!! I guess Hep C and Syphilitic donors can be approved next.
  14. galloway840

    galloway840 Well-Known Member

    Why not? I can't see why we want to "stigmatize" anyone with any disease. Hurt feelings are more important than potential death or lifelong illness and hundreds of thousands in treatment for everyone unknowingly affected...
  15. TXFZ1

    TXFZ1 Well-Known Member

    The article claims it is still illegal to donate blood without identifing as HIV+. Just reduced penality if they fail to identify. Is the law actually different?
  16. SPL170db

    SPL170db Trackday winner

    Don't they actually test the blood that's being donated before they'd actually use it on someone? Please don't tell me the answer to that is no.
  17. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck

    You rang?...

    ...""(3) (A) Sperm whose donor has tested reactive for syphilis may be used for the purposes of insemination or assisted reproductive technology only after the donor has been treated for syphilis. Sperm whose donor has tested reactive for hepatitis B may be used for the purposes of insemination or assisted reproductive technology only after the recipient has been vaccinated against hepatitis B.""...
  18. R Acree

    R Acree WTF

    I am absolutely certain I don't get the rationale behind this move. Are they saying it is now OK to transfuse HIV positive blood or just reducing the penalty? I don't understand placing others at risk.
  19. beac83

    beac83 2 ?

    HIV is not a terminal illness any more, unless you go untreated.
    If you are treated, then HIV is a manageable disease, less disruptive than diabetes. If you are recently/newly infected at this point in time, and are in treatment, your life expectancy should not be altered by more than a few years. You are more likely to die of standard old-age stuff, like heart disease or stroke than HIV.

    MOST state HIV criminalization laws criminalize any sexual contact EVEN IF INFECTION DOES NOT OCCUR. They also cover types of sexual contact that CANNOT TRANSMIT THE VIRUS
    That is completely ludicrous.

    If you are HIV positive, in treatment, and achieve an undetectable viral load, YOU CANNOT INFECT ANYONE WITH HIV. Period.

    These HIV criminalization laws incentivize people NOT to be tested, and not to seek treatment, since if they don't know, they aren't liable. However, this works against the whole point of the law, as when you are infected, and NOT in treatment, you are MORE likely to infect a partner.

    As for the blood thing - All blood is tested. Even if you are under treatment, you will still have HIV antibodies in your blood, and it will not be used. It will instead be destroyed, and the donor will be informed of the positive test. This has been the case since about 1988.

    On sperm. HIV does not infect sperm. The sperm can be separated from the ejaculate and be safely used for IVF or insemination. If a HIV positive person has an undetectable viral load, their sperm/ejaculate cannot transmit HIV.

    Most of these laws were passed in the AIDS Hysteria of the 1980's. They are scientifically unjustified, morally flawed, and do not reflect any sort of reality.

    With modern medical treatments, You will suffer more from Herpes than HIV .
    If you want to be afraid of something, choose Hep C or HPV. They are easier to get, and harder to treat (Hep C) or impossible to cure (HPV). HPV also is responsible for a huge number of cervical, anal, and penile cancers.

    It's about damn time this law was updated.

    Illinois updated their law last year, and I'm not happy with the new law, as it still is too much on the punishment side. But at least a HIV+ person no longer can get 20 years for kissing someone.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2017
    sheepofblue and 848 like this.
  20. SPL170db

    SPL170db Trackday winner

    Well, 2 things about all that

    1) the average lifetime cost of HIV treatment medications is approx a 1/2 million dollars give or take depending on if you have insurance or not. And that's not taking into account inflation over time. You're assuming anyone can afford that in additional to their regular cost of living in this shit economy?

    2) HIV infection still carries with it a social stigma that transcends whether or not its a "manageable" disease (again, provided you can afford to manage it) and the impact to the individual's life would likely go far beyond whether they develop health complications.

Share This Page