Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 11 Oct 92 12:34:07 EST
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
> 
> My analogy isn't so silly.  The government has dozens of policies 
> where the money spent on regulating health costs taxpayers in the 
> range of millions of dollars per life.  And we're repeating it with 
> our AIDS policy by not distinguishing risky activities from not-so-
> risky activities, and advertising that all sex is unsafe, when it 
> is quite the case that some sex is much much safer than other types 
> of sex.  But if people only hear "sex is bad", people will ignore 
> the propaganda, and won't know to substitute away from less-than-
> safe sex.  But what we're seeing is the government (and media and 
> public interest advertising) spending tons of money trying to drum 
> in a puritan attitude towards AIDS that has little to do with 
> reality.

sounds entirely reasonable to me. my apologies for not getting the
point of your original post. to clarify, i don't believe that
all sex==irresponsible activity either. the point is that there
are activities that contribute greatly to the spread of AIDS &
that by eliminating those we can pretty much stop the spread of
the disease.

the issue of who pays how much money to do that is a different
subject, one that i happen to agree with you on. (i was speaking
on an individual level before, not from the standpoint of "how should 
society/government handle this issue".)

> On the other hand, an equal amount of money spent eliminating not 
> wearing seatbelts will save many more lives.  

how true. but there aren't any pressure groups pushing for more spending
on seatbelt safety.

> There are only so many projects the government can undertake before 
> it shuts down the economy to tax to pay for all of them.  It's 
> important to get the most bang for the buck.  Unless you have 
> ulterior motives, it makes no sense to mail a pamphlet to every 
> rural household in South Dakota warning about unsafe sex when a 
> tenth as much money spent on a single needle exchange program in 
> the ghetto could save ten times as many lives.
> 
> >legislation probably wouldn't work too well, but what is wrong 
> >with  advertising the fact that being careless in sex can get you 
> >killed  just as dead as weaving randomly across a highway?
> 
> So can standing in front of a rampaging rhinocerous.  Should we 
> spend government money advertising that, too?

no. but rampaging rhinoceri aren't as politically sensitive as
drug use/homosexuality. not that that should make any difference,
but it does. 

so does anyone have solid numbers on just what the chances are of 
getting AIDS are? failing that, any numbers  on % of people infected 
& what the chances of transmission are with  an infected  partner?

jason

--
"Nine out of ten men, women & children enjoy a cold beverage." - Letterman
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10316 tx.politics:6036 alt.politics.bush:9081