Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, the original text of the proposed legislation borrowed from previous laws, and excluded HIV infections, but the proposed bill has been REVISED to assure that it can be applied to HIV. The Kansas Health Department spokesperson defends the revision, because HIV "might mutate", and make quarantine necessary. Which means that it's a little more than "legislation aimed at TB, but people are "worried" that it could be applied to HIV".
And that's from the Kansas legislature website.
Excellent post with real non-distorted facts! Who knew this was possible around here? For that I give you the non-political spun answer....
I personally would think that quarantine would RARELY apply and in cases of HIV would be virtually non-existant. You'd really need to have someone with a blatant disregard for public health.
The only example I can think of would be an HIV+ prostitute that police catch working the streets. Can't arrest them unless they are in the act so to speak but quarantine would be appropriate. If you caught them in the act they'd go to jail in any state in the country.
Just like if you have some drug resistant TB guy that won't stay away from people and keeps applying for food service jobs etc. Do you wait for them to infect a dozen people?
Well, I guess it's nice to see the Kansas authorities finally acknowledging the reality of evolution.
Evolution is actually taught in KS schools. 3 kooks a number of years back got on a school board and tried to change it...they were stripped of power and were voted out in the next election.
Do you think that every guy in San Fran is gay and has anonymous sex in public parks too?
I mean, I'm concerned about the uninformed stereotypes you may be buying into, let us help you be more progressive in your thinking.
I mean, I'm concerned about the uninformed stereotypes you may be buying into, let us help you be more progressive in your thinking.
With all due respect, someone who equates the transmissibility of HIV to that of tuberculosis is in no position to lecture anyone about being ill-informed.
I personally would think that quarantine would RARELY apply and in cases of HIV would be virtually non-existant. You'd really need to have someone with a blatant disregard for public health.
The only example I can think of would be an HIV+ prostitute that police catch working the streets. Can't arrest them unless they are in the act so to speak but quarantine would be appropriate. If you caught them in the act they'd go to jail in any state in the country.
Just like if you have some drug resistant TB guy that won't stay away from people and keeps applying for food service jobs etc. Do you wait for them to infect a dozen people?
That may well be true, but we also know that authorities have abused their power in the past, and that opening the door without any oversight invites abuse of power in the future. THAT's what has people concerned.
That may well be true, but we also know that authorities have abused their power in the past, and that opening the door without any oversight invites abuse of power in the future. THAT's what has people concerned.
Yes, and that is PRECISELY the argument that Second Amendment defenders use against even the tiniest attempt to regulate firearm ownership.
Gee, imagine you have someone with drug resistant TB refusing to stay away from people, maybe taking jobs in restaurants without telling them? How about HIV+ prostitutes?
You do realize the transmission of TB and HIV are quite different?
Yes, and that is PRECISELY the argument that Second Amendment defenders use against even the tiniest attempt to regulate firearm ownership.
Oh, it's not PRECISELY the argument. There are lots of arguments that Second Amendment defenders use, and the argument about abuse of authority isn't even a prominent argument. Frankly, the attempts to regulate firearm ownership should be crafted to be specific and with clear limitations. Vague laws are bad laws.
With all due respect, someone who equates the transmissibility of HIV to that of tuberculosis is in no position to lecture anyone about being ill-informed.
I didn't equate the transmissibility of the two, I gave an example of the US govt imposing a quarantine on an individual.
In fact, in another post in the thread I pointed out how there would be vastly fewer ways that HIV would suggest quarantining and gave an example of a prostitute still out soliciting after having tested HIV+.
However, I appreciate that you've decided to play politics like my other victims in this thread so let's continue.....it's so much easier to play politics that having an honest conversation so let's keep rolling this thread along in the spirit which it was created.
Given that you are more concerned over HIV than TB tranmission some people might wonder if you have some sort of pro-gay, anti-black agenda but while some may say that I totally do not believe that to be the case. I support your right to express your views 100% no matter how offensive some may find them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
