From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Let's get real about AIDS shall we?
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:18:49 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jtn@ADS.COM (John T. Nelson) writes:
%George has expended enourmous political effort and a modest (by federal
%standards) to conduct a (drum roll please) War On Drugs but has done
%virtually nothing for a problem that has the potential to decimate the
%country in broad, swift, fatal strokes. I am of course speaking of the
%totally non-existant War On AIDS.
	People who are addicted to drugs normally begin in by voluntary
experimentation (exception is the drugged-up babies from mothers whose
addiction began this way). People don't get AIDS voluntarily ... so far
as I know. However drug addiction takes a short period of time (versus
AIDS) and can be tested using animal models. Just inject a drug and see
what happens. AIDS is also a disease that is perceived to be the result
of behavior that is unhealthy or immoral. (I said "perceived.")
Furthermore, treatment programs for drug addicts are already established
and set up; treatment for AIDS is not that conclusive with respect to
the results.

%In reality Bush is conducting a War On The Users Of Drugs, as opposed to a
%war on the drugs themselves. Its very simple... instead of funding drug
%treatment centers, you eliminate the problem by making drug use illeagal.
%Instead of finding ways to curb the importation of drugs, hey you just send
%the DEA out to foreign countries and kidnap their leaders or those you
%suspect of being drug trafficers. Simple huh? Typical Republican thinking
%too. Don't try and cure people of the problem, rather, make the problem
%illegal and then hunt down and prosecute those bad people.  Never
%mind that it costs the American taxpayer something like $40,000 per year to
%house an inmate in a federal penitentary.  Would education and treatment
%or maybe funding of some good old fashion community effort cost this much?
	The War on Drugs strategy must be multifaceted. The attack must
occur from supply to customer. There is also an education component of
this strategy as well, as your kids (or just "kids") attest. But this
strategy must be as deep in American society as it is broad.
Individuals, families, communities, states, and the federal government
must all contribute to eliminate this scourge.

>How much money, by comparison, has gone towards treatment? Consider his
>response to the AIDS epidemic. President Bush treats AIDS as a morality
>problem rather than a desease. I guess in his view if you have AIDS you're
>either a drug user (hey this is illegal, great we cover two bases), or
>you're a homosexual in which case you should be exterminated because you
>undermine conservative, "normal", family-oriented values. So Bush basically
>ignores AIDS and AIDS research and let's the desease take care of the
>problem.  Like the homeless, just ignore them and hope the problem goes
>away.
	As a poster had already mentioned, HIV/AIDS research is among
the top three diseases in financial resources allocated.

>What has Bush done to actually HELP people REGARDLESS of their sexual
>orientation or criminal status? Well... his administration does fund warm,
>touchy-feely ads that show us "real life people" that have AIDS, hugging
>each other as they deal with the problem.
	What do you expect him to do? Would you welcome his help?

>This is AIDS education?
>
>Why the hell can't our PUBLIC SERVANTS, serve our interests by at least
>serving the public interest and providing concrete information on combating
>AIDS?
>Like maybe they could mention CONDOMS in their ads?  Say it George:
>"CONDOM"
>
>Come on.. you can do it... CONDOM. "C" "O" "N" "D" "O" "M". But no. Its too
>much to ask. Our children are bludgened to death in publically funded
>schools about the evils of drugs and aids (at an age where they are too
>young to truly grasp the concept of drug abuse or sex) but won't mention
>the word CONDOM on television. Some public service.
	I recall seeing quite a few commercials in which a woman will
not have sex with a man/boyfriend unless he wore a condom. He refused,
so she refused. In any event, what this will wind up doing is advocating
the position that wearing a condom will prevent you from getting HIV.
This is not the message that you want propagated. You will encourage
more teenagers/young adults to have sex, which will put them more at
risk with exposure to HIV.

:To be fair, one reason why the ads are so bland is because the Center For
:Desease Control (those are the fed folks that fund the ads) doesn't want to
:offend middle-class prime-time sensabilities.  That's a lame excuse though
:when you're lying in the welfare ward of some hospital dying of AIDS because
:you didn't know you were supposed to use a condom.  Better to risk offending
:a few middle-age frumps.
	Is that taken from an actual interview or press release from the
head ad guy at the CDC? I'd never heard of that. As for the "bland" ads,
if you want to shock America by showing the degeneration of a person
from infection to ARC [AIDS-related complex], fine with me. Maybe we
should shock America into a "this is what is going to happen" image. Of
course this won't help social understanding of AIDS at all.

%AIDS health groups have ridiculed the CDC's advertisement showing a man
%putting on a sock with the caption "Putting on a condom is just as simple."
%They countered with an ad shoing a sock and the message "Ten years into the
%AIDS epidemic, this is the closest our government has come to showing a
%condom. It's time to get real about AIDS education." Unfortunately that
%won't happen until AIDS affects a much larger percentage of Americans or
%the president's family itself.
	I do remember the other aforesaid commercial.

>By the way, these ads have cost the American taxpayer $1.5 million.
>Washington doesn't serve the interests of the general public. It serves the
>interests of those with either the political clout, or with the money to
>make themselves heard. The defense industry and the companies that serve it
>are still very much alive, even though their usefulness is waining because
>the defense community is entrenched politically and has money. Who is going
>to represent AIDS victems? Who is going to represent the homeless? Without
>money and lobbying power these groups will all suffer, and its a shame too
>because these are the people who represent the PUBLIC interest... not the
>monied interests.
	And what about your local government? Your state government?
What about you or your family? The only problem is making sure that what
you propose as solutions will really solve your problems or perpetuate
your special interest.

>If the people were truly in control then these slick "feel good" ads would
>INFORM, EDUCATE and justify their cost. They don't which tells me that the
>interests of the people, or the seriousness of AIDS, have not truly been
>considered.
	Costs: the $1.5M not only includes production expenses, but also
advertising in nationwide markets in close-to-prime-time schedules (as
opposed to 3AM). Justification of costs isn't as simple as you think.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?