Knowingly exposing others to HIV no longer a felony in Cali

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Their goddamn "laws" are going go get them to hell. If adultery were banned, such diseases could be mitigated severely.

Unprotected adultery. Protected adultery is still risky, but probably less so than, let's say, handling the open wounds of AIDS patients with exposed open wounds of your own.

That aside, that one is less of a "society approving of adultery" thing and more of a "the enforcement would be worse than the crime" thing. Even the "muh freedoms" characterization would be oversimplifying.

[Arlenton]

Why was this done exactly? Who were they trying to appeal to?

[Pope Joan]

What about the guy with AIDS who went around biting dentists in Florida?

Is that sort of assault still going to be a felony?

[Neutraligon]

Why was this done exactly? Who were they trying to appeal to?

Because the law made things worse. People where just not getting tested so that they would not have issues with this law.

[Proctopeo]

Why was this done exactly? Who were they trying to appeal to?

Because the law made things worse. People where just not getting tested so that they would not have issues with this law.

...if you play safely, the chances of exposing someone to HIV are quite low. Not quite zero, but still far lower than if you go "eh screw it".

[Arlenton]

Why was this done exactly? Who were they trying to appeal to?

Because the law made things worse. People where just not getting tested so that they would not have issues with this law.

I see. This doesn't seem like much of an improvement though.

[Neutraligon]

Because the law made things worse. People where just not getting tested so that they would not have issues with this law.

...if you play safely, the chances of exposing someone to HIV are quite low. Not quite zero, but still far lower than if you go "eh screw it".

Correct, but the people did not want to risk being charged under this law, and so did not get tested, which simply meant that HIV was still being spread. The law was not working as set up, so they changed it.

[Neutraligon]

Because the law made things worse. People where just not getting tested so that they would not have issues with this law.

I see. This doesn't seem like much of an improvement though.

And what exactly would you suggest be done? The law as written did not work. To change it to simply spreading HIV would not work either. So instead they made it a misdemeanor. Hopefully this means more people will be tested and so HIV can actually be dealt with and hopefully further spread prevented

[Proctopeo]

...if you play safely, the chances of exposing someone to HIV are quite low. Not quite zero, but still far lower than if you go "eh screw it".

Correct, but the people did not want to risk being charged under this law, and so did not get tested, which simply meant that HIV was still being spread. The law was not working as set up, so they changed it.

The risks of getting diagnosed and then getting charged under this law are lower than the risks of not getting diagnosed.
There's probably a more graceful solution than "lol what if: misdemeanor instead?".

The only actual risk is if you decide you want to spread it on purpose.

[Neutraligon]

Correct, but the people did not want to risk being charged under this law, and so did not get tested, which simply meant that HIV was still being spread. The law was not working as set up, so they changed it.

The risks of getting diagnosed and then getting charged under this law are lower than the risks of not getting diagnosed.
There's probably a more graceful solution than "lol what if: misdemeanor instead?".

The only actual risk is if you decide you want to spread it on purpose.

Apparently the people of the state did not agree, because the law as written was not working.

[Proctopeo]

The risks of getting diagnosed and then getting charged under this law are lower than the risks of not getting diagnosed.
There's probably a more graceful solution than "lol what if: misdemeanor instead?".

The only actual risk is if you decide you want to spread it on purpose.

Apparently the people of the state did not agree, because the law as written was not working.

You've been making that claim a lot. This thread has been dead for a while, so care to source?

[Hirota]

What about the guy with AIDS who went around biting dentists in Florida?

Is that sort of assault still going to be a felony?

It probably would fall into Aggravated Battery, which can be treated as (but not always) a felony under Californian law.

[Neutraligon]

Apparently the people of the state did not agree, because the law as written was not working.

You've been making that claim a lot. This thread has been dead for a while, so care to source?

If I recall someone else offered a source earlier in the thread.

[Hirota]

You've been making that claim a lot. This thread has been dead for a while, so care to source?

If I recall someone else offered a source earlier in the thread.

That might have been me.

[Methodological Individualism]

...why though?

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.
Bill 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."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/ca ... index.html

tl;dr - the blood supply is safe because all donations are tested and rejected if necessary anyway, and the correct solution to public health issues is health care, not rosa winkel and jail cells.

EDIT: changed "pink triangles" to "rosa winkel," to capture the original non-reclaimed meaning.

...Who were they trying to appeal to?

Medical science, decency and justice. Mainly.

[Methodological Individualism]

Because the law made things worse. People where just not getting tested so that they would not have issues with this law.

How could we have possibly guessed that a law making it a felony to know that you have a disease would encourage people to go out of their way to not know they have it, making it even more likely said disease would be spread as far and wide as possible?

See, it's not that California legislators are finally minimally intelligent enough to understand the law of unintended consequences (and we're being very generous with the "un," mind...), so much as the law was actually changed because they're obviously in the back pocket of Big Homo.

[Pope Joan]

What about the guy with AIDS who went around biting dentists in Florida?

Is that sort of assault still going to be a felony?

It probably would fall into Aggravated Battery, which can be treated as (but not always) a felony under Californian law.

You are right, many of our special modern day offenses might just as easily (and perhaps more expeditiously) be handled as aggravated battery.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

tl;dr - the blood supply is safe because all donations are tested and rejected if necessary anyway

Then what's with the "we can't pay for blood because people will lie about their sex lives and drug use" fearmongering?

and the correct solution to public health issues is health care, not rosa winkel and jail cells.

As if jail cells and health care were mutually exclusive, or as if making something a misdemeanor ruled out incarceration as a potential sentence.

And if you're going to make this out to be about homophobia, it's up to you to prove it.

[Methodological Individualism]

As if jail cells and health care were mutually exclusive, or as if making something a misdemeanor ruled out incarceration as a potential sentence.

A large, if incomplete, step in the correct direction is a good thing. Hopefully, once the lepers don't actually end up killing us all like they never were to begin with, we can go whole hog and make being sick not a crime at all.

And if you're going to make this out to be about homophobia, it's up to you to prove it.

There's nothing to prove, since it's established historical fact. For decades, men who have sex with men (MSM) were specifically targeted for automatic and permanent rejection of blood donation, while other high-risk HIV transmission populations (transfusions, blood exposures, etc) were simply deferred for around 12 months from the exposure risk event. Thus, the deciding factor in permanently rejecting gay men was the fact they were gay, and not the actual risk of HIV transmission.

The deciding factor was homophobia.

Fortunately, the FDA came to its senses two years ago, adjusting MSM deferment requirements to be in line with general populations with HIV transmission risk.

This new law in California also reflects this movement away from homophobia in favor of public health policy based on science and, you know, health care.