An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

State of California Lowers Penalty for Knowingly Exposing Someone to HIV

When Mr. Marcus knowingly exposed performers to syphilis he not only got sued but also was arrested and had to spend something like 30 days in jail. I personally thought that wasn’t long enough. I hoped that they would have given him one year in jail for each person he had sex with during the time he knew he had an STD and lied about it.

Mister Syphilis - Mr. Marcus

At the very least he would have had to spend at least ten years in jail and possibly even more.

It was during that time that I learned that if a person has HIV and does the same thing Mr. Marcus did, he would have faced up to 8 years in prison per person he did it too.

However, that isn’t going to be the case anymore, at least not in California. As of January 1, 2018, it will no longer be a major crime in California to knowingly expose your partner to HIV.

New legislation lowers jail time to a maximum of 6 months per offense and the new law also reduces the penalty for knowingly donating HIV-infected blood from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Apparently, California lawmakers felt the bill would encourage people to get tested, which will, in turn, lower HIV transmission in the state.

I couldn’t disagree more.

If you know you have HIV and don’t disclose your status to your partner, potentially exposing them to the disease, you should be burned in hell or at the very least have a felony on your record and spend some time in jail.

I think about TJ Cummings who is HIV positive. After he was exposed to HIV he was found online hitting on girls, not mentioning to them that he was, in fact, HIV positive and those who found out he actually would tell them he was cured.

He’s not the only one who has done this and it’s something that should be punished. By reducing this crime to nothing more than a slap on the wrist isn’t going to stop people from doing it, it’s going to encourage more to do so because now they don’t really face any punishment if they are caught.

What do you think?


7 Replies to “State of California Lowers Penalty for Knowingly Exposing Someone to HIV”

  1. spawn777

    I think California doesn’t do stuff like this as pie in the sky, so there must be data to back this up. I wlll surely go and check. But my guess is that there is compelling data detailing why this is safer than the alternative. If I had to guess, it would be that the old law wasn’t effective as a deterrent anyway, except to deter people getting tested.

  2. mharris127

    I get that as long as a person can afford the $20K plus in medication yearly to treat it HIV is no longer a killer. However, many people can’t afford that medication so hundreds (or more) still die each year because of HIV. With that in mind I think it is crazy that someone infected with HIV fucking someone not infected with HIV and not telling that person about it first will only face a misdemeanor in California. A person doing that should face the death penalty or at least mandatory life without parole in prison. It needs to be drummed into peoples heads that if you have HIV you are only allowed to fuck people that also have the disease — period! Sorry, that is just the way it has to be in order to slow the spread of the virus.

    As for Mr. “Syphilis” Marcus, I don’t wish him harm at this point but hope the rumors of him easing his way back into a performer role in the industry are false. I will keep my word to him and not go on a tirade of profanities and insults about him here but he would certainly not be allowed to perform on any set I was directing and also not in any movie that a company I managed or owned was producing.

  3. mharris127

    It seems like I read that somewhere, Karma. However, it wasn’t from a source I trust enough to quote as fact reading/hearing of it just once (or I would remember where I read it).

    If Mr. Marcus is really doing scenes for Evil Angel did he get desperate enough to suck on fully erect tranny dick (and swallow every last drop) and take tranny dick up his ass? I have been reading that Evil Angel is starting to do a fair amount of tranny movies lately. The gay end of adult doesn’t even test so he wouldn’t have to worry about faking a VD test as one isn’t required in the first place. I don’t have any idea what kinds of movies he is accused of doing for EA or even if it is true but that would be some sort of perverse justice, a once main player in heterosexual adult film taking tranny dick down his throat and up his ass.

  4. LurkingReader

    There is a world of difference between effectively treated HIV and untreated or ineffectively treated HIV; the law ought to reflect that.

    The studies are now complete with plenty of data showing people with undetectable HIV viral loads are not at risk of transmitting HIV. A few years ago when I first came around here I did massive amounts of research on this very subject. In 2012 when PREP was approved there was no data yet nor in 2013 or 2014 when the big wigs at annual HIV conferences in Africa and Boston were trying to nail down a number. Some said under 1000 others 400 and 200 was tossed out as a ‘good number’ while the goal of effective treatment was and still is under 100.

    The lack of a solid number caused me initial skepticism about the industry using APTIMA HIV 1. Since then I’ve shared links to data showing the APTIMA is reliable at finding less than 100 viral copies and can find as few as 30.

    Vilifying people like John Stagliano for telling the truth that he can pass industry HIV tests just continues the hysterical ignorance behind HIV stigmas.

    Look at facts. Here is someone who tells you they know their status, including ongoing and current viral loads proving first to his physicians the meds are working and that he has less than 100 copies of a virus no one wants. Pretend he hasn’t told the world; it’s still less than 100 copies with nil risk per the CDC.

    Now take the assholes who know they’re positive, taking their meds sporadically isn’t working and skipping doc appts because they don’t want to get the ‘talk’ yet again….those are the people the world needs to worry about.

    IMO if we want to end the fear and stigma of HIV we need to go beyond lauding knowing +/- to recognizing the value of knowing viral loads the way diabetics must know their glucose levels.

    In Florida and other states sex workers with HIV are automatically charged with a felony if their antibody test is positive w/o regard for their current viral load. If they can pass an APTIMA HIV-1 the CDC says there is no risk of transmission. Perhaps it’s time to change the laws to reward those who seek and maintain effective treatment and let those who wont know it won’t be tolerated.

    As far as porn goes keep this in mind, my research also covered the 2014 transmissions and other situations where performers were reassured by ‘negative’ tests as safe. In reality a known viral load under 100 copies is safer than a window positive that can rise to over 10,000 copies.

  5. Kelli

    While I agree totally that “There is a world of difference between effectively treated HIV and untreated or ineffectively treated HIV; the law ought to reflect that.” — the problem is, you never know if the person who has HIV is taking their treatment as they should or if they miss a dose or two.

    It’s easy to say sure I have HIV but I’m on my meds so I shouldn’t have to tell someone because I’m fine. But the problem is, you aren’t fine. You are at a higher risk of transmitting HIV to someone because you already for a fact have it and that automatically puts you in a higher risk category.

    Sure you may be taking your meds now but what if something happens and you forgot a dose or I don’t know, got a bad batch of pills or something else like that happens?

    While no longer a death sentence, it’s still a very serious and potentially life-threatening illness that requires VERY EXPENSIVE treatment for the rest of your life. It’s not something to be taken lightly.

    No matter what anyone says you can’t argue the fact that if you have HIV, on your meds or not, you are far more likely to give HIV to your partner than someone who doesn’t have HIV.

    That is why I think you should be required by law to disclose your HIV status and it should have serious legal ramifications if you don’t.

    You call it “nil risk” but I disagree. That risk will always be there, 100% of the time. That risk never goes away. You have HIV. You can’t be cured of it. While you can temporarly surpress it with your medication, that isn’t a cure. It’s still just a temporary supression. There is always that chance (even if just a small chance) that something could go wrong.

    ” If they can pass an APTIMA HIV-1 the CDC says there is no risk of transmission.”

    That statement is misleading. What you it should say is there is no risk of transmission at the time they took the test and passed it but the person still has HIV and there is that chance that something withint their body could change. Their immune system could be compromised due to something else and that oculd cause a change. You just never know and I don’t know about you but when it comes to my health and well being, I believe it’s better to be safe than sorry.

    No matter what you say , nothing will change the fact that they are HIV positive. That desiese lives within their body, even if the meds are currently holding it back, that COULD change at any time and what if that time happens to be when they are having sex with you? I think that anyone who has HIV should be required by law to disclose their status and and if they don’t, they should be punished for it.

  6. LurkingReader

    Kelli my take comes from a place of innocent until proven guilty. If you hunt back a few years my comments reflect the evolvement my perception has taken with more knowledge. It’s gone from pretty much HIV hysteria screaming the industry ought to test for antibodies to a much greater understanding for why they can’t from a labor standpoint.

    I love your comments because they reflect what so many people in both mainstream and the industry are thinking.

    “You are at a higher risk of transmitting HIV to someone because you already for a fact have it and that automatically puts you in a higher risk category.”

    Five years ago I would have agreed with this sentiment wholeheartedly…today I can’t. It is not accurate despite the common sense factor. My research includes reviewing studies that measured variances between blood, semen, vaginal secretions etc. plus a search for a concrete viral load number to define a transmission risk parameter; at the time the best info out there was dueling experts fighting to decide if the number was 1000, 400, or 200. The CDC has concluded based on years of study data that effectively treated HIV does not pose a risk of transmission to an HIV negative sexual partner. These studies started before PREP came about and are still ongoing.

    “Sure you may be taking your meds now but what if something happens and you forgot a dose or I don’t know, got a bad batch of pills or something else like that happens?”

    If someone passes the APTIMA and skips meds it is still statistically improbable that their viral load would rise to a skyrocketed transmission risk before their next test even if they’re only testing every 30 days.

    For medical purposes patients viral loads are tested every 3-4 months to ensure their treatment regimen is still effective aka under 100 copies. If a patient is getting their drugs from a legitimate source and gets a bad batch it would be a class action lawyers dream.

    Let’s talk about the contrast between the CDC stating there is ‘nil’ risk to the reality of false assurances and window positives.

    IF someone with HIV passes the industry HIV tests they have less than 100 viral copies; let’s suppose they ran out of meds and didn’t want to risk a bad batch of bobo drugs so didn’t take any, over the next 14 days their viral load comes out of suppression and starts rising or as you supposed something else compromised their immune system etc…unless they have full blown AIDS the number will still be under 1000 two weeks later.

    Now lets look at the ‘pristine HIV negative’ performer who not only uses the APTIMA but does a rapid oraquick ELISA (antibody) test to be sure cuz HIV and cooties are bad ya know. As a window positive their viral load can be 10,000 or higher in two weeks.

    While I still agree common sense says someone without HIV poses less risk than someone virally suppressed I disagree that the CDC is misleading the public or porn industries. Fact is a newly infected person has the highest viral load and is the highest risk category, untreated AIDS is second, untreated HIV is third.

    It’s misleading to assume because someone’s current test is HIV negative they don’t have HIV ….that COULD change at any time and what if that time happens to be when they’re having sex with you or someone you’re having sex with? I’ll skip the names and dates and go to the punch line. The CDC has proven a performer with a current industry test had a window positive and caused on-set HIV transmission to occur in 2014. The CDC has also concluded that effectively treated HIV does not pose a risk of transmission to uninfected sex partners.

    I think the law ought to prove someone is intentionally trying to harm others with HIV, has rejected or intentionally neglected available treatments etc before they are charged as a felon; I also think it’s time we stopped treating people with effectively treated HIV as lepers.

Leave a Reply