Charlie Sheen is HIV positive

[LaCroix]

Maybe if heterosexuals were a bit more circumspect about raw dicking randos, STDs wouldn't be as prevalent.

that's not the reality on the ground, though. sure, in a perfect world everyone looks at the opposite sex and thinks, "this person very likely could have the herp, so i'll wrap up." but, that doesn't happen. the straight community hasn't been traumatized as much as, apparently, the gay community.

also, the studies/summarized research posted, are those specifically tailored to HIV or do they cover all STD laws? i glossed over them

Incidentally, why limit yourself to STD - you can catch a lot of other diseases from your sexual partners that are not strictly speaking STDs, but that can be just as if not more dangerous - such as mononucleosis.

And while we are at it, why only limit the disclosure to sexual encounters. If I am sharing a room with a colleague at work and he has, say, tuberculosis or mononucleosis or toxoplasmosis - all of which can be airborne - why shouldn't he be required to disclose that to me?

Perhaps we should have everyone carry their medical record on display for everyone to see, much like medieval lepers were required to carry a bell.

because the goal is to prevent STDs from spreading throughout communities, and STDs occur through sex. it's easily prevented with simple legislation. it isn't an airborne disease, which would be harder to legislate because such laws would violate fundamental rights. there's no fundamental right to be protected against informing your partners that you've got the herp.

[Martinus]

[crazy canuck]

Brilliant

[garbon]

that's not the reality on the ground, though. sure, in a perfect world everyone looks at the opposite sex and thinks, "this person very likely could have the herp, so i'll wrap up." but, that doesn't happen. the straight community hasn't been traumatized as much as, apparently, the gay community.

I don't see why that means we should have punishments ready on the books.

also, the studies/summarized research posted, are those specifically tailored to HIV or do they cover all STD laws? i glossed over them

Most of what I have posted has been HIV specific as that was the topic at hand.

because the goal is to prevent STDs from spreading throughout communities, and STDs occur through sex. it's easily prevented with simple legislation. it isn't an airborne disease, which would be harder to legislate because such laws would violate fundamental rights. there's no fundamental right to be protected against informing your partners that you've got the herp.

But what I've noted shows that it is unlikely such laws actually prevent spread. People who are going to disclose and take precautions will already do so. Those who don't are unlikely to do so because of fear of a law (particularly given that many people don't even know).

Also, I can think of many, many, many more important things for the gov't to spend resources on ahead of herpes non-disclosure/transmission prosecutions.

[alfred russel]

But what I've noted shows that it is unlikely such laws actually prevent spread. People who are going to disclose and take precautions will already do so. Those who don't are unlikely to do so because of fear of a law (particularly given that many people don't even know).

Maybe so, but jailing people will prevent spread to the general public.

Way back in the day, the ambulance company I worked for had the contact for an aids clinic--we would routinely get calls to the clinic when patients needed transport to the hospital. When we picked up the patients, the staff would give us their medical charts.

One dude we picked up had a very interesting chart--after his HIV diagnosis, he had picked up a series of STD infections on a rather frequent basis over a number of years. It turned out he needed to be admitted to the hospital--and was being admitted to the floor dedicated to AIDS patients at the major metropolitan Atlanta hospital. The guy freaked out: "people don't know, this will ruin my life"--he was moved to another floor. I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what was probably going on. I strongly considered anonymously contacting his family and workplace to let them know his status--if people knew, maybe at least some people could protect themselves. I didn't do it, but I still have misgivings that not speaking up was the correct moral course of action.

[LaCroix]

I don't see why that means we should have punishments ready on the books.

because it seems effective

Most of what I have posted has been HIV specific as that was the topic at hand.

But what I've noted shows that it is unlikely such laws actually prevent spread.

don't druggies and gays comprise most of the HIV community? if so, then with what you've said about the gay community, seems like those HIV-focused studies are going to be flawed when considering the wider topic of STD laws in general. there's no sense to remove HIV STD laws when much less life threatening STDs retain STD laws.

People who are going to disclose and take precautions will already do so. Those who don't are unlikely to do so because of fear of a law (particularly given that many people don't even know).

most people aren't gonna murder, either, law or no law. but you have people who will find out they have an STD and will continue having sex regardless. in those cases, having an STD law makes sense to try to minimize such conduct. it's not gonna 100% prevent STDs from spreading, but any bit helps.

Also, I can think of many, many, many more important things for the gov't to spend resources on ahead of herpes non-disclosure/transmission prosecutions.

i don't think the government spends much resource on this

[Jacob]

because it seems effective

By what metric?

most people aren't gonna murder, either, law or no law. but you have people who will find out they have an STD and will continue having sex regardless. in those cases, having an STD law makes sense to try to minimize such conduct. it's not gonna 100% prevent STDs from spreading, but any bit helps.

Why are we limiting this just to STDs? Why don't we punish all people who knowingly expose others to a disease they have? Why limit it to sexually transmitted ones?

I mean, maybe the threat of a week in gaol and a criminal record will stop jerks from coming into the office and giving everyone else the flu so they can look like they're hard workers. That'd be great.

[LaCroix]

By what metric?

the metric of criminal code. these laws are triggered by people with STDs not revealing their condition. unless you're a whore, you're going to have to reveal it anyway before you can establish some relationship. so, why not prosecute bad people who do bad things? that's what society does.

Why are we limiting this just to STDs? Why don't we punish all people who knowingly expose others to a disease they have? Why limit it to sexually transmitted ones?

I mean, maybe the threat of a week in gaol and a criminal record will stop jerks from coming into the office and giving everyone else the flu so they can look like they're hard workers. That'd be great.

because that would probably violate some fundamental rights. also, in the most extreme situations, i believe it's lawful to detain people and force them into quarantine.

flu isn't a permanent disease. it might be more deadly, but it's not contagious for very long, is it? i think a better argument is something like leprosy, but it seems these days even leprosy can be treated so it's not contagious (at all).

[garbon]

don't druggies and gays comprise most of the HIV community? if so, then with what you've said about the gay community, seems like those HIV-focused studies are going to be flawed when considering the wider topic of STD laws in general. there's no sense to remove HIV STD laws when much less life threatening STDs retain STD laws.

most people aren't gonna murder, either, law or no law. but you have people who will find out they have an STD and will continue having sex regardless. in those cases, having an STD law makes sense to try to minimize such conduct. it's not gonna 100% prevent STDs from spreading, but any bit helps.

Probably even worse at prevention in general. After all, who knows their state's laws regarding STD disclosure? And as I have already covered at length, no the little bit on HIV does not help. It hurts!

Here's a quick run-down of what I could find (though several articles suggested that most STD stuff - sans HIV - goes down as civil cases) by state:

Has laws against HIV & other STDs (29)
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah (though looks to really be any communicable disease with strict laws against HIV)
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Laws on HIV only (13)
Arkansas
California (though also if you expose anyone to any infectious, communicable or contagious disease)
Colorado
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri (though actually looks like hepatitis might also be included)


None (9)
Alaska
Arizona (though public exposure of any infectious disease)
Connecticut
Delaware (none apart from donation of blood/organs)
DC
Hawaii
Kentucky (none though they have applied wanton endangerment statues to prosecute HIV+)
Maine
Massachusetts

[crazy canuck]

By what metric?

the metric of criminal code. these laws are triggered by people with STDs not revealing their condition. unless you're a whore, you're going to have to reveal it anyway before you can establish some relationship. so, why not prosecute bad people who do bad things? that's what society does.

The fact that a law exists is sufficient justification for the existence for the law?   I am sure you didn't actually mean that.

[LaCroix]

Probably even worse at prevention in general. After all, who knows their state's laws regarding STD disclosure? And as I have already covered at length, no the little bit on HIV does not help. It hurts!

no no, the STD laws in general. i believe what you're saying about the HIV studies. what i'm saying is that those studies might not carry over to other STDs for reasons stated earlier. in other words, STDs (except HIV) laws might have a net societal gain.

Here's a quick run-down of what I could find (though several articles suggested that most STD stuff - sans HIV - goes down as civil cases) by state:

Has laws against HIV & other STDs (29)
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah (though looks to really be any communicable disease with strict laws against HIV)
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Laws on HIV only (13)
Arkansas
California (though also if you expose anyone to any infectious, communicable or contagious disease)
Colorado
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri (though actually looks like hepatitis might also be included)


None (9)
Alaska
Arizona (though public exposure of any infectious disease)
Connecticut
Delaware (none apart from donation of blood/organs)
DC
Hawaii
Kentucky (none though they have applied wanton endangerment statues to prosecute HIV+)
Maine
Massachusetts

an eight-state minority is pretty small. thanks for checking, though! interesting to see

The fact that a law exists is sufficient justification for the existence for the law?   I am sure you didn't actually mean that.

no. criminal code = the whole code, not a single law.

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps I am missing your point.  You said the law was effective.  Jacob asked you how it was effective and your response was because it was in the code.  That seems awfully circular.

[LaCroix]

Perhaps I am missing your point.  You said the law was effective.  Jacob asked you how it was effective and your response was because it was in the code.  That seems awfully circular.

not that it's in the code, but the rationale and reasoning behind the criminal code as a whole. society seeks to stop bad people from doing bad acts. the same rationale for legislating against any other crime exists for STD laws: it presumably works (except HIV laws, apparently)

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps I am missing your point.  You said the law was effective.  Jacob asked you how it was effective and your response was because it was in the code.  That seems awfully circular.

not that it's in the code, but the rationale and reasoning behind the criminal code as a whole. society seeks to stop bad people from doing bad acts. the same rationale for legislating against any other crime exists for STD laws: it presumably works (except HIV laws, apparently)

Ok, but just because there are laws in a code doesn't mean they are effective.

[LaCroix]

Ok, but just because there are laws in a code doesn't mean they are effective.

agreed