Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
113 replies, posted
I wonder what the CDC would have to say about this.
Thanks brown you fucking retard
Yeah I truly believe the lawmaker's hearts were in the right place, but this truly isn't a good idea.
Just waiting on the statement the CDC and the doctors are going to release thanks to this dumb stunt, can't imagine a single doctor in the country wouldn't be horrified at this news.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52756421]I wonder what the CDC would have to say about this.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52756451]Just waiting on the statement the CDC and the doctors are going to release thanks to this dumb stunt, can't imagine a single doctor in the country wouldn't be horrified at this news.[/QUOTE]
Warning: this transfusion contains blood which is known to the state of California to cause HIV.
Giving a knife to a 3 year old is also genius
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;52756476]The idea that "may contain traces of nuts" will be regulated harder than HIV infected blood is making me uneasy[/QUOTE]
At first, I didn't know who in their right mind would think this is a good idea.
But then I read "California Democrats" and it made sense. Throw out legislation that sounds good and makes people's feelings better, but does nothing but make things worse for everyone else.
I thank God everyday that I made the choice to move from California to the United States.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52756517]To be fair, it'll go something like this:
The blood banks are going to continue screening for HIV like they always do (even if you say you don't have HIV, the bank screens it anyway)
The doctors are going to do what they do (treat people)
The hopsitals are going to implement a policy of "failure to disclose HIV status can/will lead to termination of care"
And nothing of value will get done. I literally don't get the point of this bill.[/QUOTE]
Meanwhile, thousands of vulnerable individuals will be exposed to HIV because predators decide to use the law as an excuse to not share their condition, which will lead to many people contracting HIV, or worse, developing AIDS.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52756530]Meanwhile, thousands of vulnerable individuals will be exposed to HIV because predators decide to use the law as an excuse to not share their condition, which will lead to many people contracting HIV, or worse, AIDS.[/QUOTE]
For future reference, you contract HIV. AIDS is what happens when the HIV virus eats so many of your t-helper cells they go down to <200/ml of blood, and is a consequence, not the cause.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52756544]For future reference, you contract HIV. AIDS is what happens when the HIV virus eats so many of your t-helper cells they go down to <200/ml of blood, and is a consequence, not the cause.[/QUOTE]
I missed the word "develop", woops
[QUOTE=Exploders;52756283]You better hope you guys don't need a blood transfusion while in Cali.[/QUOTE]
If I ever got a terminal disease from the hospital because the government legalized spreading it, I would sue the fuck out of said government. I'll be dying but maybe I'll at least die a somewhat rich man, unless the medical bills and lawyers fees take the lion's share of what I win anyway.
I shared this story with a heavily left-leaning Canadian friend who doesn't get why California gets so much shit
he understands now
Where is the fucking uproar from this?!
maybe we should encourage them to secede from the united states if they're going to make laws like this :v:
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;52756250]People in this thread seem like they don't read. How is fucking someone when you have in-transmittable HIV so there was a statistically insignificant risk of them getting it so much worse than say, exposing someone to the bubonic plague? The law has literally just been adjusted so that the penalties for HIV are in line with other infectious diseases instead of singled out with worse penalties because of stigma.[/QUOTE]
I 100% absolutely do not give a fuck what the laws are for comparative disease: If you knowingly infect somebody with a deadly disease or donate blood while you are knowingly infected by a deadly, incurable disease, you are a scum fuck who should go to prison.
What in the absolute fuck california just doesn't surprise me anymore. If I ever have to get a blood transfusion that comes from there, god forbid, and I get HIV or some other bullshit thanks to this, I will personally sue brown himself to the fucking core of the earth. Fuck anyone who thinks it's OK to willingly endanger others.
California you are one of my favourite states but can you just get your shit together
tia
It seems like people are acting pretty much like this is a complete outrage, so I just want to show people that a misdemeanor still comes with a possible punishment of up to one year and it will obviously be on your record forever.
[URL]https://www.shouselaw.com/misdemeanor.html[/URL]
I don't know why donating to a blood bank would be treated in the same way, legally, as giving someone HIV from having sex with them (given that you reduced the risks as much as you can w/ medicine), though.
[QUOTE=Mr Kotov;52756744]California you are one of my favourite states but can you just get your shit together
tia[/QUOTE]
When the big one happens and sinks LA/SD/SF below the waves, maybe. Until the. They'll just crank out feefee bills that distract from issues of massed poverty and crime
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52756779]When the big one happens and sinks LA/SD/SF below the waves, maybe. Until the. They'll just crank out feefee bills that distract from issues of massed poverty and crime[/QUOTE]
thats a... pretty fucked up thing to say dude
"if only all the people i disagree with were killed, THEN we could get some good done"
[QUOTE=Judas;52756788]thats a... pretty fucked up thing to say dude[/QUOTE]
Genocidal one could say
[editline]7th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52756779]When the big one happens and sinks LA/SD/SF below the waves, maybe. Until the. They'll just crank out feefee bills that distract from issues of massed poverty and crime[/QUOTE]
I don't even understand what you mean? You think shits getting done in other parts of the country that really get to the meat of the issues afflicting us? Like...you think that these urban centers being lost would at least come with the positive of your political opponents being purged? wtf
[QUOTE=Judas;52756788]thats a... pretty fucked up thing to say dude
"if only all the people i disagree with were killed, THEN we could get some good done"[/QUOTE]
That came off as wrong, my apologies.
Those cities represent a massive rich/poor divide, foster some of the most dangerous districts within the US, and are ruled over by a posh upper class of morons who dilly-dally in the state's senate, tossing out restrictions and rulings left and right.
Yes, the cities hold a majority of the population, but I doubt the majority of Californians would agree with this ruling at all.
Who fucking cares if they hurt someone's feelings by making it a felony. You're giving someone an incurable FATAL disease.
Holy fuck just when you think this fever dream of a country might get better if hits you with a curveball like this that just makes you question [i]what the actual hell were they thinking??[/i]
Seriously what are the pros of this? What good could this do?
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;52756250]People in this thread seem like they don't read. How is fucking someone when you have in-transmittable HIV so there was a statistically insignificant risk of them getting it so much worse than say, exposing someone to the bubonic plague? The law has literally just been adjusted so that the penalties for HIV are in line with other infectious diseases instead of singled out with worse penalties because of stigma.[/QUOTE]
Knowingly exposing someone to the plague should absolutely be an offense if they did it intentionally. Although doing so would be difficult considering how obvious plague symptoms are. The main issue with HIV is that there's no way of knowing if someone has it, you won't generally see any physical symptoms.
Doesn't matter if the transmission chance is small, the choice of the other person to decide on whether to take the risk or not should not be taken away from them. Nobody wants to be on fucking HIV drugs for the rest of their life.
What reason for this???? Who wants this???????
knowingly and willingly spreading a disease to someone is, in essence, assault with a biological agent
This law is horribly, horribly fucked up and misguided. Whatever they were trying to do here is well lost by the terms.
But, we have and continue to put trust in the blood tests prior to donation.
You best believe this law will, if anything, increase an already extremely controlled blood donation test process.
Right now, almost exactly 100% of gay people in the US cannot donate blood in any state at all just for the statistical risk.
Blood donation won't just start accepting HIV-untested blood, no matter what the law says.
I have a feeling this was actually a bill drafted by pharmaceutical companies for the sole purpose of increasing dependence for more $$$
Anyone in the right mind wouldn't think this would help anything. There's gotta be more to it than just "they're victims not criminals".
I seriously doubt any pharmaceutical company would want to be attached to this for the sole reason being it's a fucking terrible bill and the implications would be obvious enough to vilify any company even remotely considering such a disgusting attempt at increasing profit margins at the possible expense of human health.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.