Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California
113 replies, posted
[QUOTE=slapdown3;52757141]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.[/QUOTE]What I said is really just a conspiracy out of denial at how stupid this bill is.
[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;52757219]What I said is really just a conspiracy out of denial at how stupid this bill is.[/QUOTE]
Well when you put it like that, I could totally imagine some 80s Saturday cartoon villain curling his evil mustache. Because only someone that silly could think this bill was in any way a good idea.
I get their logic but I don't think they're going about it quite right. The penalty should be non-applicable to people who are on these new meds and thus are not able to transmit the disease, but should remain for those asshats that aren't and can.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52756262]even if you have some minor cuts/scrapes you shouldn't be donating[/QUOTE]
Ahh, yes, every mechanic, electrician, carpenter, fabricator, construction worker, all of them shouldn't give blood according to this. Right?
Because not a day goes by that I don't get some form of scrap or nick working on vehicles for a living. You're not gonna find another person in such a line of work that doesn't have at least one scrape or minor cut on their body somewhere, usually the knuckles, wrists, or knees if my own experience is anything to go by.
But hey, on the bright side, when someone on here tells me I should donate blood I can just go 'But Sobotnik thinks I shouldn't do so because there's cuts and scrapes from work on my hands!'.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52757232]Ahh, yes, every mechanic, electrician, carpenter, fabricator, construction worker, all of them shouldn't give blood according to this. Right?
Because not a day goes by that I don't get some form of scrap or nick working on vehicles for a living. You're not gonna find another person in such a line of work that doesn't have at least one scrape or minor cut on their body somewhere, usually the knuckles, wrists, or knees if my own experience is anything to go by.
But hey, on the bright side, when someone on here tells me I should donate blood I can just go 'But Sobotnik thinks I shouldn't do so because there's cuts and scrapes from work on my hands!'.[/QUOTE]
i went to donate blood one day and the staff there literally told me that i couldn't donate because i had a cut
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52757242]i went to donate blood one day and the staff there literally told me that i couldn't donate because i had a cut[/QUOTE]
Point still stands. Pretty much anyone who fixes or builds things for a living is effectively banned from giving blood under such asinine bullshit on account of their day job guaranteeing they'll have a scrape or nick somewhere on their body at any given time.
Man reading this kind of stuff makes me fear the retardation will be exported abroad
It had some delay, but a couple of months ago a congresswoman here wanted to pass a bill banning obligatory vaccination with the justification being "IT CAN GIVE YOUR KID AUTISM!". It finally arrived to Argentina.
Now I have to wait until this kind of stupid idea arrives here. Hope no ones gives it ground.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52757259]Point still stands. Pretty much anyone who fixes or builds things for a living is effectively banned from giving blood under such asinine bullshit on account of their day job guaranteeing they'll have a scrape or nick somewhere on their body at any given time.[/QUOTE]
the idea is that they want blood which isn't potentially contaminated.
perhaps i should have made it more clear that they don't want somebody who has their skin punctured in some way (therefore potentially letting shit in). for similar reasons people with tattoos aren't allowed to donate either
Yeah I don't see this staying a thing- Someone is going to reverse this pretty fucking quickly. The fact it even got this far is mindbogglingly stupid.
[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;52756392]and I doubt HIV-positive folks are stigmatized and discriminated against just for being ill.[/QUOTE]
Actually, they are. By basically mentioning it around people, you're basically going to be barred from most service positions and a lot of people are going to be uncomfortable to be around you, overall.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52756313]Because california has the most "feel good" legislation of any state in the union.
Full blown this is being made so that people with HIV don't get their feelings hurt.[/QUOTE]
Yeah uhh, no. This is most certainly not "feel good" legislation, lol.
It being stupid doesn't make it "feel good" legislation by default, these are not interchangeable terms. Feel good legislation is something that seems like it'd be helpful to the average person but isn't.
This is fucking terrible. How is it even defensible? Feeling real ashamed of and pissed off at my state right now.
Guess I'm never going to back California. Any place that doesn't throw the book at people knowingly giving others HIV is clearly not worth going to. I feel bad for anyone that lives in that miserable state.
The Californians on Reddit are really working hard at spinning this story.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52756313]Because california has the most "feel good" legislation of any state in the union.
Full blown this is being made so that people with HIV don't get their feelings hurt.[/QUOTE]
I'm almost positive that Texas probably takes the cake on wholesome feel good legislation, you know, like kickin them tranny boys out of the girl's showers, like keep'en women from killin babies, or respectin man's right to carry an arsenal on them at all times no questions asked, or simultaniously denouncing sharia law while affirming christianity's place in our legal system.
Feel good doesn't need to be liberal or leftist.
Liberalism is a mental disorder, folks.
Seriously, I agree, from a former EMS student's pov it's an incredibly dumb fucking move for knowingly exposing people to HIV.
It's EXTREMELY fucked up when it comes to donating blood.
But it's ok, folks, at least we got scary warning signs linking coffee to cancer!
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting - Terrible ban history" - Mezzokoko))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Toybasher;52758289]Liberalism is a mental disorder, folks.
Seriously, I agree, from a former EMS student's pov it's an incredibly dumb fucking move for knowingly exposing people to HIV.
It's EXTREMELY fucked up when it comes to donating blood.
But it's ok, folks, at least we got scary warning signs linking coffee to cancer![/QUOTE]
Top post, mate.
[editline]8th October 2017[/editline]
Equating everyone left of centre as mentally deficient is a really well adjusted viewpoint.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52756965]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.[/QUOTE]
Yeah duh. I don't see what you're arguing with, did you read the article? They didn't legalize it.
[QUOTE=Toybasher;52758289]Liberalism is a mental disorder, folks.[/QUOTE]
"The fundamental elements of contemporary society have liberal roots. The early waves of liberalism popularised economic individualism while expanding constitutional government and parliamentary authority.[16] One of the greatest liberal triumphs involved replacing the capricious nature of absolute royal rule with a decision-making process encoded in written law.[16] Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and of association; an independent judiciary and public trial by jury; and the abolition of aristocratic privileges.[16] These sweeping changes in political authority marked the modern transition from absolutism to constitutional rule.[16]"
[B][URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism[/URL]
[/B]Most all of the freedoms of the western world historically derive entirely from liberal ideologies. Seriously, who came up with this stupid zinger?
/derail
What are doctors saying about this?
Can HIV blood be put into circulation? (for lack of a better word)
Are there any protective measures in place by hospitals to make sure it can't be accepted?
What is the risk of contracting HIV this way? (I'd imagine it's 100% yeah you're fucked)
Can [U]potentially[/U] HIV blood be circulated across the USA or does it not leave Cali?
[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;52757115]I have a feeling this was actually a bill drafted by pharmaceutical companies for the sole purpose of increasing dependence for more $$$
[/QUOTE]
This is the only thing that makes sense to me. It makes far more sense than this bullshit "feels" narrative in this thread. This feels good to no one. It reeks of pharmaceutical lobbying and dark money.
[QUOTE=Gbps;52758375]Seriously, who came up with this stupid zinger?[/QUOTE]
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_Is_a_Mental_Disorder]Conservative author[/url] and radio personality [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage]Michael Savage.[/url]
So it turns out the man spearheading this bill is using PrEPs, which the usual person can't really afford.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Wiener#PrEP_use_and_HIV_issues[/url]
:huh:
Can we just quarantine the entire state?
The most terrifying part is that it applies to blood banks, too. What's stopping a wave of infected blood entering circulation? A slap on the wrist?
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;52758324]Yeah duh. I don't see what you're arguing with, did you read the article? They didn't legalize it.[/QUOTE]
Deliberately infecting someone with a potentially deadly disease should carry more than a misdemeanour. A misdemeanour is nothing, what kind of a message does that send? You're inflicting a life of taking drugs just to stay alive on someone and that's considered a misdemeanour? What a joke.
[QUOTE=Eva-1337;52758784]The most terrifying part is that it applies to blood banks, too. What's stopping a wave of infected blood entering circulation? A slap on the wrist?[/QUOTE]
The standard blood tests that blood banks already do, and basic human decency which will remain unchanged even with the reclassification of this crime.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52758847]basic human decency[/QUOTE]
[B] ahahahahahaha[/B]
oh my sweet summer child
[QUOTE=dustyjo;52759036][B] ahahahahahaha[/B]
oh my sweet summer child[/QUOTE]
Funny because there's also a thread right now of someone giving people HIV without them knowing
Even this reclassification doesn't mean you won't get punished for it, and they give some reasons why they did it in the OP. As well, it's also very inconsistent to keep the old law as other illnesses are not treated the same. For blood banks, it really depends on how good they are at testing. I don't see too much of a reason to be viciously outraged.
Physical assault and/or rape is something you can most likely recover from and is a felony- but a life threatening virus is a misdemeanor.
Get fucked cali
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.