1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Way to go Commiefornia

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

  1. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck

    Just a few years???

    I don't even know how to respond.

    Incredulous...
     
  2. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner Dungeonesque Crab AI Version


    How many people have been jailed for intentionally infecting others? Is this some big problem?
     
  3. beac83

    beac83 "My safeword is bananna"


    1) This is utter bullshit. That may have been true 10 or 20 years ago, but not today.

    2) so you are justifying a criminalization because there is a stigma? I don't even know how to respond to somethings so completely illogical.
     
    848 likes this.
  4. beac83

    beac83 "My safeword is bananna"

    Currently, the number is between 5 and 7 years for men who are between 25-24 when infected. For those under 20, the difference is less than 5 years.
     
    848 likes this.
  5. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck

    Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that it's OK to just indiscriminately give people HIV and that it's not a big deal since it'll only knock off ""a few years"" from your life expectancy???
    Are you fucking kidding? Trolling?
     
    badmoon692008 likes this.
  6. beac83

    beac83 "My safeword is bananna"

    If one is jailed is that enough? How many do you need to have it be a problem?

    And the point of revising these laws is that you get jailed under them when you are not capable of infecting anyone, because your treatment is effective.

    It's like being jailed for a murder you didn't commit.
     
  7. beac83

    beac83 "My safeword is bananna"

    Is it OK to indiscriminately give people measles, whooping cough, herpes, Hep A, B, and C (and the rest), or any other disease that is communicable?

    Of course it's not. But these laws will put you in jail even when you didn't, and even if you are incapable of doing so, merely because you are poz.

    Why is this one singled out for criminalization?
     
  8. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck

    Frankly I haven't kept up with the advances in HIV treatment since I'm in a monogamous relationship and have been for nearly 20 years, and don't anticipate having HIV transmissive relations with anyone else in my lifetime. I kinda thought that would remove my risk down to zero.

    I guess I'll have to make sure I don't get a transfusion while in California now, too.

    But if I do, I guess it'll be OK, since it'll only kill me a few years early.

    What's the regimen cost now, anyway?
     
  9. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck

    You ARE trolling..
     
  10. beac83

    beac83 "My safeword is bananna"

    Again, not understanding that the blood supply is screened for HIV.
    And since blood products are shipped all over the world, you may or may not be safe from blood borne infections from transfusions, not just HIV but a whole host of other things, too, some much more consistently deadly. Is the US blood supply screened for Ebola?
     
    848 likes this.
  11. beac83

    beac83 "My safeword is bananna"

    Actually, I'm not.

    These laws should never have been enacted in the first place. They were passed in the midst of public hysteria about AIDS after the Ryan White debacle. These laws should be rescinded, not revised. They do nothing to protect public health, do nothing to get folks at risk into testing and treatment, and merely increase and/or perpetuate the stigma that, as SPL170 has pointed out, still exists.

    The laws were counter-productive when they were enacted in the 80's and are completely absent of any public health value since around 1996 when the muliple-drug treatments were found to be extremely effective at controlling HIV and reducing transmission. They currently inhibit public health and encourage new infections by scaring folks away from testing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2017
    848 likes this.
  12. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck

    I can usually at least get my head around someone's position, even when I disagree with them... not this one.

    I seriously can't see the benefit to removing a layer of protection in public health with ZERO benefit to society.

    Sure blood is ostensibly screened. I'm also aware that there's no test that's infallible, and any system run by humans is by definition fallible. What if some lazy worker bee decides to just not test all those pints of blood & instead go fuck off all day?

    Yeah, I don't see any common ground on this one.

    Your position isn't logic based. I get it... I can only assume that HIV has affected people close to you. I understand that. I'll stipulate that you're likely far better informed on the subject than I am. But even you said that HIV only kills you "a few years" early.

    No, it's not OK to deliberately infect another person with ANY disease.

    I just don't see the reasoning behind removing any consequences for doing so to this one.
     
    Skter505 likes this.
  13. beac83

    beac83 "My safeword is bananna"

    All depends. Some places in the world, it's less than $0.75/day. In others, it's up to 20K or more/yr. All depends on whether the drugs in the regimen are generic, still under patent, or produced outside of patent laws in other countries.

    Here in the US with our totally broken health system, the price all depends on what plan you have, what drugs you are on, and whether your employer has removed the drug you need from its formulary.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2017
    848 and jrsamples like this.
  14. beac83

    beac83 "My safeword is bananna"

    But there is NO public health benefit. The laws have criminalized having sexual contact (or in some states, any fluid contact) if you KNOW you are poz.

    The way to avoid prosecution is to not get tested.

    If you haven't been tested, you most certainly will not be in treatment.

    If you are infected, and are not in treatment, you are at the absolute PEAK of your ability to infect others.

    These laws discourage testing, thus delaying treatment, and thereby increasing the number of new infections.

    There is NO layer of public protection. It is merely a layer of punishment. And since treatment in prisons is so dismal for HIV, once convicted you are unlikely to get treatment, and because of prison sex/rape, likely to pass the virus onto others, who will someday be released back into the community, again increasing the cycle of new infections.

    Additionlly, say you did get tested, are in treatment and are thus incapable of infecting others. Now you are prosecuted and convicted of criminal transmission (totally possible in most states - transmission does NOT need to happen, only the fact you are poz and know it). Now you are in prison, your access to treatment is either non-existent or sporadic, and you once again become capable of passing the virus on to others. And without treatment, you will develop complications that are much more expensive to treat than the HIV meds are.

    These laws have no winners. It's a lose-lose-lose proposition. There is no benefit, other than stroking someone's outrage.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2017
    848 likes this.
  15. Skter505

    Skter505 Well-Known Member

    Deleted

    Not getting suckered in by a troll.
     
  16. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner Dungeonesque Crab AI Version

    Even that screening fails. Common sense says that if you increase the number of donors with HIV, you will increase the number of transfusions that transmit HIV.

    transfusion hiv.png
    You say that if just one person were jailed under these laws, that would be one too many (not sure how you can say that while not having an actual case to examine, since jail may very well be where that person belongs) but you have no examples of anyone being incarcerated, while there are examples of people contracting a deadly disease from transfusions, which can and probably will increase with the law changed.
    It won't be many people but, using the same logic, if only one contracts HIV, isn't that one too many?
     
  17. beac83

    beac83 "My safeword is bananna"

    If I know I have HIV, and have fully controlled the virus through treatment such that I am incapable of transmitting the virus, why would I be subject to prosecution whether I did or did not disclose?

    I agree, people who have anything communicable should disclose. But if it's not communicable, why is there a requirement to disclose, much less a criminal penalty for not doing so?
     
  18. beac83

    beac83 "My safeword is bananna"

    You guys do realize that it is still criminal to donate blood if you have or have ever had Hepatitis, HIV, or a number of other diseases. This remains true whether or not these HIV criminalization laws are in place or not.

    And in the US, men who have had sex with men within the last two years are prohibited from donating.

    As your chart shows so dramatically, this was a problem before blood was routinely screened for HIV starting in around 1988. 6 cases of transmission in the last 10 years. Out of how many thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of transfusions? What's the rate? 0.00001 or something? Even one is too many, but there are other pathogens in blood that cause far more death than HIV at this point.

    Why do we criminalize just this one virus?

    Now go pull up the chart that shows transmission of Hep C via blood products. It will be an eye-opener.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
    848 likes this.
  19. Skter505

    Skter505 Well-Known Member

    Guess you're too fast for my edit.

    First, what you just said isn't the new law. The law specifically calls out knowingly transmitting a communicable disease, not a recovered non communicable person.

    Second even if you are non communicable I believe you should disclose it and I'd accept a misdemeanor for that. If there is even a one in a million chance you should disclose it.
     
  20. beac83

    beac83 "My safeword is bananna"

    Right, the new law does require you to actually be capable of passing the virus to someone else. That is specifically what folks are up in arms about. It's a relaxation of the former law that allowed prosecution without the ability to pass the virus.

    I agree, you should disclose. But it should not be a criminal matter, unless you also have the same penalty for any other STD, for not telling all the kids parents at your school, church, etc. that your kids haven't been vaccinated, etc.
     

Share This Page