Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!ucla-cs!The.Bird@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org From: The.Bird@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org (The "Bird") Newsgroups: sci.med.aids Subject: Intentional transmission of AIDS Message-ID: <40378@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Date: 18 Oct 90 06:03:43 GMT Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU Organization: FidoNet node 1:135/38 - C-Board, Miami FL Lines: 24 Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: squid.cs.ucla.edu Note: Copyright 1990 by Daniel R. Greening. Permission granted for Note: non-commercial reproduction. Archive-number: 2659 The laws specifically produced for this disease have been promulgated due to a real problem with effectively removing prostitutes from the streets whether they are infected with HIV or not. However, the most effective police actions are arresting the "Johns" in undercover operations. Other than this scenario which is a REAL problem with high incidences of recurrance, it just doesn't seem to me to be much of a problem worth spending all this time and effort on. If you are a "John" picking up prostitutes off the street and you are not afraid of the threat of AIDS, YOU need to be locked up FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION and WILLFUL IGNORANCE should be criminalized. Now I don't seriously believe _that_ idea will play well in Peoria but it is just as logical as locking up someone else for your protection from participating in known risky behavior requiring the consent of BOTH parties. So, the next time someone wants to bring up the subject could they please cite all, or even 5 or 6, of the cases of intentional transmission that make them think all this rhetoric and/or legal protection is such a serious and widespread problem. Gaeton Dugas and Rock Hudson don't count. Intellectual "headtrips" are sometimes nice and I even get caught up in them on occasion but this one has really been beat to death for the 18 months I have been connected to this echo. -- Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!135!38!The."Bird" Internet: The."Bird"@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org