Escorts & Blow Jobs

[down_to_business]

It's now as legal or soon to be as alcohol in CA btw.

 

Maybe don't count on that??

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-an-attorney-general-sessions-would-mean-for-marijuana-2016-11-18

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307217-marijuana-backers-worry-over-ag-sessions

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-marijuana_us_582f58d5e4b030997bbf479c

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/california-today-jeff-sessions-marijuana.html?_r=0

[caliguy]

Maybe don't count on that??

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-an-attorney-general-sessions-would-mean-for-marijuana-2016-11-18

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307217-marijuana-backers-worry-over-ag-sessions

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-marijuana_us_582f58d5e4b030997bbf479c

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/california-today-jeff-sessions-marijuana.html?_r=0

Yeah, forgot about that. It's not the first time the Feds have gone in shutting down and arresting people in pot dispensaries while the locale authorities can do nothing. Under Bush that was a regular reality here. It's been so long since that happened while under Obama people forget.

 

Might be different this time though. CA back then was still devided on the issue. Today not so much.

[+ quoththeraven]

Yeah, forgot about that. It's not the first time the Feds have gone in shutting down and arresting people in pot dispensaries while the locale authorities can do nothing. Under Bush that was a regular reality here. It's been so long since that happened while under Obama people forget.

 

Might be different this time though. CA back then was still devided on the issue. Today not so much.

 

Which suggests Obama understood federalism in a way Trump may not.

[TruthBTold]

A lot has to do with economics. The federal government simply does not have the money to enforce all its laws all the time without the help of the state units. Much of the time the person will be picked up by a state entity (like the county police) and then changed with the feds. It would be too expensive for the feds to go out and try to arrest all those who break federal laws where the same activity is legal in the state.

[+ glennnn]

So, will the Feds (Sessions) use the threat of no federal funding for highways and other infrastructure projects to hammer CA, WA, OR, etc into submission to the national position on this and other issues?

[TruthBTold]

Fortunately those are not federal criminal law under Sessions' dominion. Rather, those are congressional outlays that have to be voted on in the budgetary process (as I understand it).

[LivingnLA]

Please let's not bring politics into threads outside the political part of the forum. Yes, politics is part of life and the incredibly divisive election has only intensified emotions, thoughts, and activity around politics, but I'd like some places where I may talk about topics other than the possible disaster America is facing in the coming years because of our general inability to face reality and tackle our challenges with compassion, humility, generosity, and humanity.

[TruthBTold]

I certainly agree that not everything is about politics however my last two posts were not specifically about politics. I was trying to state how I believed that federal law works. I can see from the posts that I acknowledge that I definitely could be wrong about that.

[LivingnLA]

I certainly agree that not everything is about politics however my last two posts were not specifically about politics. I was trying to state how I believed that federal law works. I can see from the posts that I acknowledge that I definitely could be wrong about that.

 

Agreed. I wasn't specifically addressing your posts, just the potential general topical shift in the last few posts. I'm sensitive.

[TruthBTold]

I guess me too (maybe too).

[+ glennnn]

I confess that when I remembered the name of the thread "Escorts and Blowjobs" I was chagrined that I had gone off topic!! So sorry!! I have been trying to make a clean break with politics until January, 2017. I will try harder. I'll play the piano more and think about "What ifs" less. Promise!

[TruthBTold]

No problem. Sometimes it just can't be avoided. You can see that I barely avoided it.

[ChrisWydeman]

this is the truth. prep ain't gonna protect against anything but hiv. folks think it's some all purpose get out of jail card

Who thinks this? Do you have a large case study by a reputable organization you can cite?

[LivingnLA]

Who thinks this? Do you have a large case study by a reputable organization you can cite?

 

The rise in other STDs and STIs among men who have sex with men is suggestive of a "false sense of safety" but that could be coincidental.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/11/17/stis_among_gay_and_bisexual_men_is_truvada_to_blame.html

 

I've talked to a number of gay or bi men over the last couple of years, and anecdotally, the rise in bareback seems closely aligned with PrEP and an erroneous assumption that it's safe sex.

 

This article talks about the highest STD/STI rates in 25-yrs and how the dropping frequency of condom use plays a role.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-std-rates-20161025-snap-story.html

 

Useful stats:

http://www.livescience.com/48100-sexually-transmitted-infections-50-states-map.html

[+ Lance_Navarro]

I've talked to a number of gay or bi men over the last couple of years, and anecdotally, the rise in bareback seems closely aligned with PrEP and an erroneous assumption that it's safe sex.

 

I believe that the term "safer sex" is better than "safe sex" because everything has the potential for failure. With that in mind, PrEP IS a form of "safer sex". Yes, it doesn't protect against STI's but the prevention of HIV is far more critical and important.

[LivingnLA]

I believe that the term "safer sex" is better than "safe sex" because everything has the potential for failure. With that in mind, PrEP IS a form of "safer sex". Yes, it doesn't protect against STI's but the prevention of HIV is far more critical and important.

 

PrEP only provides protection against HIV, there are plenty of other STDs and STIs out there and rates of infections in all of them are up across the USA. "Safer sex" is a good term because condoms are safer sex than without. Just as PrEP is safer than without, but it's important to remember PrEP only protects against one STD. Condoms provide protection against nearly all of them. Add current vaccinations to PrEP and condoms all together and you have first-rate safer sex.

[ChrisWydeman]

The rise in other STDs and STIs among men who have sex with men is suggestive of a "false sense of safety" but that could be coincidental.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/11/17/stis_among_gay_and_bisexual_men_is_truvada_to_blame.html

 

I've talked to a number of gay or bi men over the last couple of years, and anecdotally, the rise in bareback seems closely aligned with PrEP and an erroneous assumption that it's safe sex.

 

This article talks about the highest STD/STI rates in 25-yrs and how the dropping frequency of condom use plays a role.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-std-rates-20161025-snap-story.html

 

Useful stats:

http://www.livescience.com/48100-sexually-transmitted-infections-50-states-map.html

So that would be a no you don't have a large case study to cite. Bill Mahr does a fun bit called "I don't know it for a fact but I know it's true"

 

As for your sentiment about prep not being part of safer sex your perfectly entitled to have that opinion but I work in social services and I can tell you that the people in the trenches doing hard social work don't share your views. Who do you think is more informed?

[LivingnLA]

So that would be a no you don't have a large case study to cite. Bill Mahr does a fun bit called "I don't know it for a fact but I know it's true"

 

As for your sentiment about prep not being part of safer sex your perfectly entitled to have that opinion but I work in social services and I can tell you that the people in the trenches doing hard social work don't share your views. Who do you think is more informed?

 

Of course there isn't a large case study about this yet. PrEP is fairly new, expensive, and not well known. Plus, there are all the "fun" ethical issues about such case studies. We'll just have to keep looking at trends and try to figure out what's going on.

 

Excuse me?! I said in multiple posts that PrEP is safer sex than without PrEP. Questioning my expertise is immaterial. The facts are quite clear in all my posts. I suggest you read my post again.