Jump to content

SB239


Woofers and Tweeters

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

It probably isn't any big deal.

 

"However, a 28 June 2017 editorial by two Alameda County Public Health Department officials argued that intentional exposure to the virus is rare. J. Phoenix Smith (interim head of the department’s HIV care unit) and Nicholas J. Moss (director of its HIV STD Section) wrote:

Of note, a careful examination of hundreds cases revealed only two cases of actual intentional HIV transmission — nationwide, over more than 30 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

It probably isn't any big deal.

 

"However, a 28 June 2017 editorial by two Alameda County Public Health Department officials argued that intentional exposure to the virus is rare. J. Phoenix Smith (interim head of the department’s HIV care unit) and Nicholas J. Moss (director of its HIV STD Section) wrote:

Of note, a careful examination of hundreds cases revealed only two cases of actual intentional HIV transmission — nationwide, over more than 30 years

That's two too many. And I don't believe his numbers. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Woofers and Tweeters said:

... how can this be a good thing for the country? 

From this article, the rationale is this:

 

People need sex really, really bad.  If they have AIDS and if knowingly spreading it is a felony, they will not seek to be tested and treated for AIDS.  It's better for them that they not know they have it.

 

By reducing the penalty, you encourage people to come out of hiding/denial and to get tested and get appropriate treatment for it.  This is good for society because, as says the article, people who are diligent with keeping up with their treatments are a negligible risk for spreading the virus.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

From this article, the rationale is this:

 

People need sex really, really bad.  If they have AIDS and if knowingly spreading it is a felony, they will not seek to be tested and treated for AIDS.  It's better for them that they not know they have it.

 

By reducing the penalty, you encourage people to come out of hiding/denial and to get tested and get appropriate treatment for it.  This is good for society because, as says the article, people who are diligent with keeping up with their treatments are a negligible risk for spreading the virus.

 

 

 

I read that. Makes as much sense as Sanctuary Cities will reduce crime. 

 

If reducing the punishment will help, then make it so there is no punishment and it will solve all the problems, right?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 6:14 PM, Woofers and Tweeters said:

Without going all D or R, how can this be a good thing for the country? 

I saw that you started this thread with the line above but didn't respond because I felt it could go off topic as you suggested....

 

13 hours ago, Woofers and Tweeters said:

I read that. Makes as much sense as Sanctuary Cities will reduce crime. 

...Then I read your last post just now  above which is equating two different topics and definitely have a singular political slant.

13 hours ago, Woofers and Tweeters said:

 

If reducing the punishment will help, then make it so there is no punishment and it will solve all the problems, right?    

I'm not sure what problem you are trying to solve but sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and all of the social and medical stigmas attached to both makes me want to start a non-partisan Healthcare debate which would address some of your concerns as well a situation ALL Americans need to be debating and reaching consensus...Insofar as discussing obscure California legislation in a speaker forum makes me think someone got an email from a crazy uncle or followed a foreign-based bot link . ;) 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 10/10/2017 at 8:00 PM, Woofers and Tweeters said:

I read that. Makes as much sense as Sanctuary Cities will reduce crime. 

 

If reducing the punishment will help, then make it so there is no punishment and it will solve all the problems, right?    

Yeah, unfortunately you derailed it yourself.

 

I was so optomistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...