I'm not missing the point at all. Who is forcing these people to act in porn films? They have a choice. It's THEIR job to force the producer's hand. The state should not have anything to do with regulating the porn industry and as a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for their crappy job choice.
You are paying for it anyway when they get treatment. It's cheaper to prevent then pay for it on the backend. And if all the cost falls on the producer how are you paying for it?
It's really simple....if one chooses to be a porn actor/actress, and one knows that a fatal virus can be obtained through unprotected sex, and one willingly accepts income in exchange for having unprotected sex on camera, then IDGAF. It isn't the state's job to help citizens out who are making stupid decisions in the first place. "With news cameras flashing, adult film performer Cameron Bay told reporters that in her last porn shoot before testing positive for HIV, her partner’s penis was bleeding — and he wasn’t wearing a condom. After stopping momentarily, the cameras continued rolling, she said." Sorry, but phuck that idiot. There aren't massive numbers in terms of infected porn stars and they are already receiving whatever government aid they are going to get for treatment. The cost to the taxpayer would come in the form of regulation.....fees, monitoring, blah, blah, blah. This isn't an industry that needs government regulation. The workers need to force the producer's hand and keep it among their own industry. Yes, producers are gluttonous, greedy scum. But people make the choice to work for them and I don't want to pay for that choice when it results in long term health issues.
"As Los Angeles voters prepare to cast ballots in a November election that could shape the future of the nation for years to come, one nonprofit has unexpectedly emerged as the city’s top political donor. As the LA Weekly reports, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has contributed more than $23 million to support and oppose state and local ballot measures. Of that impressive sum (more than twice the amount given by LA’s next-biggest donors), the vast majority is funding campaigns for Propositions 60 and 61. Both were authored by the foundation and both directly relate to its mission of providing healthcare to AIDS and HIV patients. However, the foundation has also contributed to local ballot campaigns that, on the surface, don’t seem very relevant to its philanthropic focus. Namely, AHF is the primary backer of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. That ballot measure, which will appear before Los Angeles voters in March, would put a two-year moratorium on most major development projects and force officials to adhere to current zoning rules until the city updates its outdated planning guidelines. So far, the foundation has contributed more than $1 million to the coalition. As the Weekly notes, it’s highly unusual for a nonprofit to make contributions of this size. Even more odd is that at the local level, the foundation is funding campaigns that aren’t obviously connected with its mission. An October finance report showed the AHF-backed Coalition to Preserve LA made a $10,000 donation to the campaign opposing Measure M, Metro’s proposed half-cent sales tax hike to fund new transit projects." So when AHF donates in those ridiculous amounts in favor of Prop 60 and then gets involved in development projects? Time to vote No. Bottom line, gays love Citizens United here but they rail against it when conservatives support it.
Isn't everyone who has a political opinion sort of a hypocrite at some point though? Let's be honest I know I am at times. That's interesting stuff though for sure.
Hard to tell what country you voted in with this sticker....turns out it's Los Angeles county. I just got the plain ole, I Voted.
I did too aside from the big one I voted for 4 Republicans, 2 libertarians and 1 democrat Oh and just for you @LaSalleAve I voted for a bill to make certain drug possession charges a misdemeanor instead of the current felony they now stand as. Man I hope they don't pass that law out in whackyfornia. I hate rubbers in porn
My read on this was that the 'public health' nannies want mandatory condoms. The performers and producers don't. Am I wrong? The supporters/opponents of 60 seem to support what I've been thinking. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016)
