Here are some sources more to your liking:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/09/knowingly-infecting-others-with-hiv-is-no-longer-a-felony-in-california-advocates-say-it-targeted-sex-workers/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-in-the-news%3Apage%2Fin-the-news

http://www.edition.cnn.com/2017/10/07/health/california-hiv-bill-signed/index.html

Much better! Now I will read it. :)

Be sure to take in all the biased opinions.

WP: First sentence "California lawmakers have passed legislation to reduce the penalty for those who knowingly or intentionally expose others to HIV without their knowledge, rolling back a law that mostly affected sex workers."

So if I understand this correctly. A male or female whore in California is not any longer obliged to inform their customers that they are infected by HIV? Was it a felony before even if condoms was a requirement stated by the "sex worker" he his/her customer?

... TO his/her customer?

This is an interesting topic - I feel like I'm caught in the middle because I can see both sides. I'll save my conversation though for someone who doesn't lead the argument by saying that "California makes murder a misdemeanor" You will have a good career in media if you keep it up!

It absolutely is murder. To knowingly spread HIV is like putting poison in someone's food.

Well, the argument is that currently the law is being almost exclusively to charge sex workers with felonies if they test positive regardless of whether or not the committed a sexual act and spread HIV.

Do I think this is a solution, no - not really.

And not to get too far down the semantics of your clickbait title (since I think this is a genuinelly interesting topic), it almost certainly is not murder. HIV is not always fatal. Also, if I spread HIV to someone else and they get killed in a car accident the next day, I didn't murder them did I? Did I inflict damage greater than a misdemeanor crime - probably.

If someone chooses to use the services of a "sex worker", this person should obviously always insist on using condoms. Otherwise we could of course just nominate this guy as a strong candidate for the Darwin Awards trophy!!

"Knowingly"

I'm gonna guess the same people who argue that campus sexual assault is not prevalent do to the ambiguity of "consent" are the same ones who want to see "knowingly" prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

This is a tough one though, but I don't think that it's all about sex workers. It's also about homosexuals. Many populations at high risk of contracting HIV *refuse* to get regular testing done. Ignorance is bliss and plausible deniability is a good alibi.

Lowering the criminal penalty encourages high risk populations to get tested and will hopefully make this public health crisis more manageable.

the thing is... only like 24 states have laws pertaining to HIV. I think California is taking a step backwards here but other states aren't even addressing it.

i think the reason is since now AIDS are more treatable, so it's like if you infect someone with a common cold: no jail there.

once we have a definitive cure for AIDS, we need more change to the law.

That's not true. Most people with HIV do get tested because they can't get treatment without being tested.

Tom, if you poison someone and he dies in a car accident later, you still poisoned that person. You can't just get away with that with a slap on the wrist. HIV completely changes someone's lifestyle even if they don't die directly from it, and the best treatment can cost a fortune. It should certainly be a felony.

@Jeff - It is interesting to wonder if this causes people to not get tested for HIV. I think that may be a stretch but have no idea

@leon - "Most people with HIV do get tested because they can't get treatment without being tested."

I think the idea is to get tested earlier so that you don't worry about transmitting the disease. Like what Jeff is saying is that if I had unprotected sex with a few different people, I would avoid taking an HIV test so that I could continue to have unprotected sex without getting tested so that I didn't have to worry about a felony.

Also, I don't disagree that it should be a felony. I'm not sure what to think - I just am pointing out that equating it to murder is incorrect.

I still fail to see what you said that doesn't make it murder.

What good is it to get people to test for HIV if there is little incentive against them spreading it anyways.

Murder requires the person to die. If I were to contract HIV today, I would expect to live 40 more years. So not quite murder.

Do you think more people knowingly spread HIV or unintentionally spread HIV?

That's with treatment. You can live if someone poisons you and you take an antidote as well, but that doesn't make the person who poisoned you innocent of attempted murder. Likewise, if you don't receive treatment for HIV (possibly because you don't know you have it, possibly because you can't afford it, possibly because you just don't want treatment), you'll die within a few years. Even 40 years after contraction would be a significantly reduced lifespan. If you transmit HIV to a 25 year old and he/she dies at 65, that is no different than murdering that person at 65 (except it makes the victim endure a life of living with HIV).

I think more people unintentionally spread HIV, and that should be a misdemeanor to encourage people to get tested. Instead, California made intentional murder a misdemeanor.

A lot of the information that would calm down your hysteria is right there in the Washington Post article.

“These laws are so draconian that you can be convicted of a felony and sent to state prison even if you engage in behavior [sic] that creates zero risk of HIV infection.”

"Statistics showed that the charge was disproportionately levied against women and minorities: 67 percent of the people who came into contact with law enforcement because of HIV-related laws were black or Latino, the Williams Institute studies showed. Women made up 43 percent, though they represent only 13 percent of the HIV-positive population in the state."

"HIV exposure laws do little to influence behavior [sic], and said that many “run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and effective measures of HIV prevention.”"

So, the previous laws were overly broad in addressing the impugned behaviour, they were disproportionately used against women and minorities, and they fail to take into account the most recent science on HIV transmission and prevention.

Also, I'll add that just having sex with someone with HIV is not a guarantee that you will get HIV, and HIV is not a guarantee that you will die of complications related to AIDS. This isn't the same thing as putting poison into someone's food.

Knowingly putting someone at risk of contracting a disease that destroys their immune system without both parties consenting to that risk should absolutely be a crime. The laws may be over broad, sure, but they’re not things that should simply be scaled back in repercussion. They should be modernized by updating language. Also affecting sex workers disproportionately because they’re forced to undergo checkups doesn’t mean that that law is the problem. It being a black market and thus unregulated in its entirety is a lot of the problem.

Those are all the author's own shitty opinions. It's why I don't use biased liberal media sources. I only provided them to convince peterlund that the.law was actually passed.

The law would not have imprisoned people with zero risk of spreading HIV because it only applies to people who actually successfully spread HIV. If you have 0 risk of spreading HIV and end up spreading it, then all the talk of zero risk is bullshit.

The discrimination is also bullshit. If anything, California discriminates toward women and minorities. The proportions you gave are the result of more women being prostitutes (thus spreading HIV) and more minorities having HIV and/or being more promiscuous.

If you don't transmit HIV, you won't be prosecuted. Getting HIV means you have to spend a shit ton of money on treatment, and it still shortens your lifespan significantly. See my response to Tom above.

^That was to pangloss.

Err HIV is no longer a death sentence it is actuualy curable and treatable. Fairly recent medical advances this year or late last year I belive.

So repealing a law for a non- crime is a good thing I think.

So its a crime to transmit Hepatitis all forms , show about herpies , even influenza, going to work with a cold knowing there are asthma suffers in the work place.

The laws were a knee jerk legal reation to a pandemic that nearly ended mankind.

Ohhh thats right it didnt..

Knowingly infecting someone with an incurable disease needs to be criminalized. Even if it is not a death sentence, it permanently, negatively and non-consensually affects someone's quality of life until they die.

That's some misinformation you're listening to. Liberals really will be the end of humanity. There is no cure for HIV, only treatment, and the treatment is expensive and harmful to the body.

smokey, you got a link for HIV being curable now? In a paper written out of UCLA in June 2017, they report "still no known cure".

Where did you find that info at?