💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000229.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:15:08.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Misinformation and Manipulation
An Anarchist Critique Of the Politics of AIDS
by Joe Peacott
A B.A.D. Press Publication
BAD Press Pamphlet No. 1
All of the statistics cited in this pamphlet can be found in the
articles, journals, and pamphlets listed in the annotated bibliography
found at the back of this pamphlet.
Joe Peacott
Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade
PO Box 1323
Cambridge, MA 02238
Internet: bbrigade@world.std.com
NO COPYRIGHT
Please send two copies of any review or reprint of all or part of
this pamphlet to BAD Press. Please note that it was the electronic
version.
The Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade is a small band of
anarchists who meet weekly in a local bar to socialize.
First Printing 121 copies. June 1989
Second Printing 200 copies. September 1989
Additional Printings 1990, 1991, 1992
Electronic Printing "infinite" copies. October 1992
Published by B.A.D. Press, Boston.
Layout by Runaway Productions
Electronic version by Blaine
Introduction
AIDS, like all diseases, is having an effect not only on
those who have AIDS, but on society as a whole. There is a
continuous flow of articles in the press, TV specials, brochures
from AIDS organizations, and even ads on the subway, all of which
make AIDS an issue in most people's minds. Unfortunately, much,
if not most, of the information people are receiving is inaccurate,
incomplete, and/or manipulative, including that put out by AIDS
"service" organizations and the AIDS activist groups. The two major
pieces of misinformation that almost everyone seems to accept are
that AIDS is the most important and dangerous health care problem
facing Americans at present, and that action by the government is
the way to solve the problems caused by AIDS. This pamphlet will
argue that: while a serious problem, AIDS is not the plague that
the mainstream press, government and AIDS organizations say it is;
most people are at little risk of HIV infection and AIDS; and not
only is government activity not the solution, but eliminating
government intervention from our lives is the best way to fight
AIDS.
Scope of the Problem
Both the mainstream news media and most of the radical press,
gay and straight alike, continually describe AIDS as an epidemic,
or simple as 'the' epidemic. While AIDS, like many other diseases,
certainly fits the medical definition of an epidemic, the emphasis
on this term serves only to frighten people, not to increase their
understanding of the disease and its transmission. When people are
afraid it is more difficult for them to look at and talk about a
problem objectively. And an objective perspective on AIDS is sorely
lacking in this country at present. The way statistics about AIDS
are presented in most of the news media and medical literature also
contributes to the panic atmosphere associated with this disease by
greatly exaggerating the impact of AIDS compared to that of other
diseases and causes of death in the U.S.
Statistics for AIDS are generally presented in terms of the
number of people who have gotten the disease and/or died from it
since the outbreak began in this country. This makes it difficult
to compare AIDS statistics to those for other diseases/causes of
death, which are generally reported as cases per year. But even using
the government figures in this form, and comparing them to figures
for other diseases, one can illustrate the slanted way in which the
scope of the AIDS "epidemic" is being depicted. In the U.S., breast
cancer kills 42,000 a year; 94,000 die in accidents, 46,000 in car
accidents; 466,000 die of cancer; and almost 1,000,000 die of heart
disease. AIDS has killed 49,976 (as of 2/28/89) since the outbreak
began; 11,000 people died of AIDS in 1987. The point is not that
AIDS is not a problem, but simply that it is one of the many diseases
and dangers people are at risk of, and significantly less dangerous
for most people than many other things. Many more gay men will die of
heart disease this year than will die of AIDS, but I have yet to see
an article in the gay press advising homosexual men to avoid
high-risk eating activities, such as eating meat and dairy products,
while we are constantly told to avoid any remotely risky sex.
The "experts" also frequently make predictions about how many
will get AIDS, are infected with HIV (the virus, human
immunodeficiency virus, that many believe to be the cause of AIDS),
or will go on to get AIDS after being infected with HIV. The games
played with statistics are even more sophisticated and subtle in this
area. Last year, the press reported on a study that supposedly showed
that 99% of people infected with HIV would go on to get AIDS.
However, if one reads this study one finds that although the
researchers favor the 99% figure, they concede that the true number
who will get AIDS could fall anywhere between 38% and 100%, according
to their statistical manipulations, and that they are only 90%
confident that even this interval is accurate. Most scientists and
statisticians demand a 95%-99% confidence level before accepting and
reporting results as significant. The authors also clearly state that
their estimate of the number of gay men who will develop AIDS after
HIV infection "should still be treated cautiously". Additionally, as
of January 1, 1987, of six men in this study who seroconverted
(developed antibodies to HIV; this usually occurs within a few months
of infection) in 1978, only three had developed AIDS, only one out of
eight infected in 1979 had AIDS, and three out of twelve infected in
1980 had come down with AIDS, all of which argues against the
researchers' contention that most persons infected with HIV will
develop AIDS, since they also maintain that the average time elapsed
from infection with HIV to diagnosis with AIDS is less than eight
years. In other words, the news media took a study containing
questionable methodology and conclusions, reported the authors'
speculation as fact, and did not mention either the doubts voiced by
the authors themselves about their work, or the criticism of this
report by others. This is an example of how AIDS hysteria is
manufactured.
Studies that indicate that many or most people infected with
HIV will not develop AIDS are given much less exposure in the media
than those that paint a more grim picture. There have been no page
one stories, about the group of men studied at the New York Blood
Center, 20-25% of whom have no measurable immune dysfunction after
ten years of infection with HIV. And who has heard about the study
showing that only 36% of a group of HIV positive men studied for over
seven years have gone on to develop AIDS? And what newspaper reports
pointed out the inconsistencies in the study I discussed above, where
the numbers in the study group developing AIDS after HIV infection
were not consistent with the researchers' own conclusions and
indicated that many, if not most, HIV-infected people may remain AIDS
free. While these studies do not prove that most people with HIV
infection will not develop AIDS, there is no evidence from other
studies to prove that they will. In other words, no one knows how many
HIV-infected people will get AIDS, but that does not stop the press
and AIDS organizations from presenting the worst possible scenarios
when they talk about this disease.
A final example of the statistical manipulations to which AIDS is
subjected is the revised estimates of the HIV infection rate in New
York. Last year the New York Dept. of Health cut its estimate of the
number of New Yorkers infected with HIV by one half. They justified
this by using a new model for estimating HIV infection rates based on
epidemiologic studies of homosexual men in San Francisco. Both this
model and their previous model could be defended scientifically, but
produced numbers that were not even close, showing that they really
don't know what they are talking about and their various estimates are
simply guesses. Despite this, much of the press, of course, simply
accepted these new figures as true and reported them as such. Many in
the AIDS "service" and activist "communities" attacked the revision as
politically motivated, to be used as a justification for cutbacks in
AIDS funding. Almost no one pointed out that these numbers were really
no more valid or invalid than previous ones. The press believes and
reports as fact whatever the government says, and the AIDS
organizations accept whatever will lead to more funding and reject
what may lead to cutbacks. Neither group however, seems interested in
facts, especially if they indicate that "the epidemic" is not as
fearsome as they contend it is.
Many people are infected with HIV, many have AIDS and many will
develop AIDS. But many more people will die of other causes, and
there is no convincing evidence that AIDS will ever surpass heart
disease or cancer as killers of Americans. Despite this, people are
daily subjected to AIDS horror stories, much more dramatic and
terrifying than reports of death and disability caused by other, more
common, diseases. This is done for two major reasons: some wish to
use AIDS to further their anti-sex and anti-homosexual agenda; others
wish to use an exaggerated fear of AIDS to increase government
funding of activities concerning AIDS, and thereby further their
careers. Neither group is necessarily interested in the truth about
the disease, its incidence, or its transmission. People need to be
more careful about believing what they read and hear about AIDS and
not just accept what they are told by the "experts".
Who's at risk?
We are constantly warned these days that everyone needs to be
more careful in every sexual encounter we have: we need to practice
"safer" sex; we need to use rubbers or dental dams at all times; we
need to have sex with fewer partners; some even say we need to marry
and be "faithful" to one partner for our entire lives. We are told
that there are no high-risk groups of people, only high-risk
activities. But is everyone really at equal risk of HIV infection?
In 1986 the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] changed its
method of presenting statistics and began to present the figures for
people who have AIDS who were "born in countries in which
heterosexual transmission is believed to play a major role"
(primarily people from Haiti, with some from Central Africa) as part
of the "heterosexual cases" category. This category had previously
included only non-Haitian/non-Central African people who "have had
heterosexual contact with high risk individuals" (IV drug users and
men who have sex with other men). When these two categories were
combined, the number of "heterosexual cases" more than doubled and
the press duly reported the "explosion" in AIDS among heterosexuals,
and has continued to devote a lot of coverage to heterosexual AIDS
ever since. But has anything really changed? Has there been and will
there be a major outbreak of AIDS among non-IV drug using heterosexual
people?
The number of heterosexual cases reported by the CDC as of 2/28/89
is only 4%, the same percentage as when the definition of heterosexual
cases was changed in 1986. Not much of an explosion. The "doubling"
of heterosexual cases in 1986 was not a real change, it was merely a
statistical "blip" caused by combining two previously separate
categories. There are few heterosexual cases now, and although there
may be an increase in the future due to the increasing numbers of
people who have acquired HIV infection through IV drug use, most of
whom are heterosexual and can infect their sex partners, there is no
reason to predict a major increase in AIDS among heterosexuals who do
not use IV drugs or have regular sex partners who do. Even Surgeon
General Koop, who is pushing the lifelong monogamy line, says that he
is "quite sure that we won't have an explosion in the heterosexual
population.".
There have been several studies in the last two years that have
emphasized the low risk of contracting AIDS for most heterosexuals. A
study in Denver of approximately 1,000 persons seen in a VD clinic,
showed 'zero' cases of HIV infection in low-risk individuals, i.e.,
non-IV drug using heterosexuals who did not have sex with IV drug
users. A similar study in Seattle of 343 people showed no infections
in persons who were not homosexual men, and a Queens, N.Y. study
showed one infection among 200 low-risk persons. These data indicate
that there are indeed low-risk people, and that most people in the
U.S. fit the low-risk description. An article in JAMA ['Journal of
the American Medical Association'] last year estimated the risk of
acquiring HIV infection during rubber-free penis-vagina sex with a
low risk person is approximately 1 in 5 million for one encounter,
and 1 in 16,000 for 500 encounters. The researchers stated that "the
risk of AIDS from a low-risk encounter is about the same as the risk
of being killed in a traffic accident while driving ten miles on the
way to that encounter." These articles, whose information is certainly
important to the discussions of transmission of AIDS through sex,
although covered briefly in the press, are seldom mentioned in
discussions of what safe sex is and who needs to practice it.
Prostitutes are considered by some to be a high risk group for
HIV infection and the Public Health "Service" lists sex with a
prostitute as a high-risk activity. As with so much we read about
AIDS, this is simply not true. CDC studies show that only prostitutes
who use IV drugs or have ongoing sexual relationships with IV drug
users have become infected. Another study showed that prostitute
women in San Francisco had the same rate of infection as other women
who had multiple partners or partners at risk of HIV infection. There
is no evidence that prostitutes who do not use IV drugs and are not
sex partners of IV drug users are any more at risk than other women
with multiple partners.
Additionally, there is no evidence to back up assumptions that
prostitutes are "spreading" HIV infection and AIDS to their
customers; 80% of prostitutes use rubbers some or all of the time,
and most of the time they engage in low risk sex activities such as
hand jobs and blow jobs anyway. Despite the fact that street
prostitutes see approximately 1,500 customers a year, 20% of men hire
prostitutes regularly, and 70% hire them occasionally, as of September
1987, only 33 men (out of more than 40,000 persons who had AIDS at the
time) whose primary "risk" factor was sex with prostitutes had been
diagnosed with AIDS. COYOTE, an organization of prostitutes, estimates
that if prostitutes were truly spreading AIDS, by 1988, "at least
100,000 straight, white, middle-class businessmen would have been
diagnosed" with AIDS. Clearly, this hasn't happened.
Despite the availability of the above information, the U.S. Public
Health "Service", most of the press, both gay/lesbian and straight,
virtually all the AIDS organizations, and even ads in the subway
(virtually all of which appear to be directed at non-drug using
heterosexuals), take the position that straight people are at high
risk for AIDS and need to take the same precautions when having sex
that gay men and IV drug users need to take. They spread the myth
that there are no high-risk groups of people, but only high risk
activities. However, one of the studies cited above convincingly
argues that, because the rate of infection is so low among low-risk
groups, unprotected sex with a low-risk person is safer than sex
with a condom with someone in a high-risk group. But most AIDS
"experts" and activists seem unwilling to discuss this view, and
prefer to spread the myth that "we're all at risk."
There appear to be two main motives for putting forth this view.
Some wish to scare heterosexuals into either celibacy or monogamy
and marriage. Others, especially AIDS organizations seem to be
encouraging this view in order to increase the amount of government
money they can obtain, reasoning that the government won't fund
their activities unless they think heterosexual non-drug users might
get sick as well, since they really don't care about queers and drug
users. Although this may be true, and the strategy effective (there
certainly is a lot more AIDS money coming from governments these
days), it does not justify the misinformation and fear being spread.
Unfortunately, the AIDS bureaucracy, both governmental and non-
governmental seems more interested in making rules for others to
live by than in providing people with the truthful information they
need to make informed choices about what activities they want to
engage in and what risks they wish to take.
Safe sex and queers
Advice about "safer" sex for men who have sex with men, although
directed at a group of people who are truly at high risk for HIV
infection, is no less full of misinformation and half-truths than
guidelines for heterosexuals. In some ways the "safer sex"
literature for men who have sex with men is even worse than that
directed at heterosexuals. At least the "experts" generally aren't
telling heterosexual men and women not to fuck when they have sex
(although, of course they should only have monogamous, preferably
marital, sex), but are simply telling them to use rubbers when they
do. Much "safer" sex advice to men, however, suggests not only using
latex in all sexual contacts, but even encourages men to give up
homosexual sex entirely, and instead learn to "eroticize" non-sexual
activities. A recent edition of 'Next', a magazine distributed free
in homosexual bars in Boston, in a particularly offensive and anti-sex
series of articles lists the following as "life affirming erotic
options" in their "sensual buffet": flirting, kissing, phone sex,
sensuous feeding, and consensual exhibitionism and voyeurism. The
writer also recommends dirty talk, leather, lubricants (he doesn't
specify what is being lubricated), and bubble baths. We are encouraged
not to "screw up something perfect" like playing with whipped cream by
introducing those much talked about "bodily fluids". These articles,
and workshops sponsored by AIDS organizations encourage men to learn
to consider non-sexual activities satisfying substitutes for fucking
and sucking. Michael Callen of the People With AIDS Coalition in New
York is one of the few AIDS activists who oppose this attempt to
eroticize non-sex activities. He has said "what I find so pathetic is
the cheery sloganeering of the 'Great Sex is Healthy Sex' campaigns.
For those of us who proudly referred to ourselves as 'hot sex pigs',
'healthy' sex is definitely 'not' great sex. It is a depressing
consolation prize and I sometimes want to smack those who pretend
otherwise. Yes, if we want to stay alive, we 'have' to practice safe
sex. But let's not pretend it's the real thing."
In addition to encouraging men to avoid real sex altogether,
the AIDS educators encourage men to view all sex between men not
involving a rubber as equally risky, and people who do not share this
view are portrayed as stupid and irresponsible. But, there is
evidence that not all sexual activities and not all "exchanges of
bodily fluids" are equally risky. Getting fucked in the ass, and, to
a lesser extent, getting fucked in the cunt, appear to be the only
two high risk sexual activities. A number of studies published in the
medical literature, for instance, have found a minimal risk of
becoming infected with HIV from giving blow jobs, or being the fucker
in rectal sex. A study from 1987 showed essentially no difference in
rate of HIV infection between men who had given up both fucking and
sucking and those who had continued to have oral sex (some of whom
had also continued fucking, but not getting fucked) in the two years
prior to the start of the study, while those who continued getting
fucked had a significantly higher rate of HIV infection. Another
study the same year showed that of 147 HIV-free gay men who gave blow
jobs, some of whom also swallowed cum, but none of whom fucked, not
one became infected in six months of follow-up, while 95 out of 1,998
men who engaged in fucking became infected during the same period. A
report at a national AIDS conference in 1987 reported that 50 of 522
men who fucked became infected, but none of the 50 who engaged only
in blow jobs acquired HIV infection during an 18 month period.
Despite these encouraging reports, there is evidence that
cocksucking is not totally risk-free. There have been some reports of
infection with HIV in men who engage only in oral sex, but the numbers
are very small, the risk of infection from cocksucking appears to be
minimal, and getting fucked without a rubber seems to be the most
risky sexual activity and the primary mode of transmission of HIV
between men. AIDS activists and educators in several other countries,
such as Canada, Australia, and some in Britain, as well as the Gay
Men's Health Crisis [GMHC] group in New York, based on this kind of
information, consider cocksucking to be a low risk activity. Few AIDS
educators or activist types in the U.S. are willing to give people
this kind of information or emphasize the vast difference between
sucking and fucking. Instead, most AIDS and gay/lesbian groups and
newspapers, with the exception of GMHC continue to put out the most
conservative possible safe sex guidelines, listing blow jobs as
equally risky as fucking, which is simply not true.
Cocksucking is not the only low risk activity inappropriately
considered highly risky by the AIDS establishment. Tongue-kissing,
watersports (pissing), and rimming (licking assholes), activities
even less risky than cocksucking are considered moderate-to-high risk
activities by most AIDS organizations. This, combined with the advice
to shower and have your partner shower, which is often seen in safe
sex literature [showering does 'nothing' to prevent HIV or other
sexually transmitted infections) makes me think that there is as much
concern here with encouraging people to engage in "nicer", "cleaner"
sexual activities, as there is in preventing HIV infection. It all
seems awfully anti-sex.
The anti-sex hysteria has even taken root among homosexual women.
They are advised by women's and gay/lesbian newspapers, the AIDS
bureaucrats, and "sexperts" Susie Bright and JoAnn Loulan, that they
are as much at risk of acquiring HIV infection as everyone else.
This myth is being spread despite the fact that there have been few
reports of possible transmission of HIV infection between two women
in the medical literature, and one report of possible transmission of
HIV to a man from eating out a woman. The CDC reports only seven
"probable cases of woman-to-woman transmission" of HIV (but no cases
of AIDS acquired by woman-to-woman sex), and purveyors of the myth of
lesbian AIDS like 'The Village Voice' and ACT UP cite only three or
five cases. Even if the number the CDC cites is accurate, this bears
out my contention that woman-to-woman sex is nearly risk-free, since
millions practice woman-to-woman sex, while it appears that no more
than seven have acquired HIV infection sexually. Yet, homosexual
women are urged to use rubber dams and gloves and take various other
precautions at all time.
Most AIDS "experts" and activists are not interested in increasing
people's awareness of relative risks and coming to their own
conclusions. They instead wish people to unquestioningly follow the
anti-sex guidelines which these experts have come up with. Certainly
there are risks involved in cocksucking and eating out women, as well
as other, even lower-risk activities, which the "safer" sexers advise
against, but these are much lower than the risks of rectal, and to a
lesser extent, vaginal, fucking. Despite this, virtually all safe sex
guidelines describe activities with greatly different levels of risk
as being equally dangerous. A brochure by the AIDS Action Committee
in Boston, for example, lists rimming, cocksucking, eating out women,
and fucking without a rubber in the same category, as high risk
activities. Instead, people should be informed of the relative risks
of different kinds of sex, and encouraged to make their own choices
about the risks they are willing to take.
The majority of AIDS educators want no part of such an approach.
At a lesbian/gay health conference in Boston last year, some AIDS
activists confronted AIDS educators at a workshop on safe sex about
the supposed high level of risk associated with cocksucking. The
educators defended their commitment to discouraging men from sucking
cock, and felt that "changing the rules" would lead men to question
their credibility (a positive development, in my opinion), and would
confuse people. They said they preferred the "on me, not in me" rule
because it was simple and easy. Additionally, when an article
entitled "I Hate Safe Sex" which questioned the whole anti-sex
approach of the AIDS establishment appeared in a Boston gay/lesbian
paper, it was criticized by the AIDS Action Committee, who claimed
the article would "undermine the efforts of AIDS organizations
throughout the country". These kinds of responses by AIDS educators
to criticism of safe sex dogma clearly show their contempt for people
and their sexual desires, and show that their commitment to their
"safer" sex ideology outweighs their interest in supplying people
with honest information.
The safer-sexers and their allies in government have not confined
their activities to propagandizing against sex. In a number of cities
places where men congregate to engage in consensual sex have been
shut down or driven out of business by the government. In all of
these cases there has been widespread support for these shutdowns
among some sectors of the "gay community". In Boston, Jeff Epperly,
the editor of the local mainstream gay/lesbian paper, 'Bay Windows',
not only editorialized in favor of the shutdown of the only homosexual
bathhouse in Boston, he actively collaborated with the city in its
"investigation" and later closing of the baths. (He has also
editorialized in favor of cutting down the reeds in a part of a park
in Boston in order to prevent men from having sex there.) He and one
of his writers went to the baths, spied on the sexual activities of
the customers, and informed the city health department of their
"findings". Epperly later attended meetings with the health department
officials who subsequently took action against the baths. The idea
that people were engaging in sex of which he disapproved seems to so
enrage Epperly and people like him that no restriction of personal
freedom seems too high a cost (for other people) to pay to prevent
"unsafe" sex between men.
The "safer" sexers tell people that they should engage only in
totally risk-free sex. And some people feel that attempting to
totally eliminate risk from their sex lives, even at the expense of
eliminating sex altogether in some cases, is in fact the appropriate
strategy. This strikes me as odd, since many of these people are
willing to take risks in other areas of their lives every day, like
smoking tobacco, eating meat, driving a car, or even crossing the
street against the light. Many of us wish to lower our risk of
acquiring HIV, but are willing to take some risks in order to continue
having a pleasurable and satisfying sex life. While driving without a
seatbelt is arguably more risky than wearing one, I find driving more
comfortable without one. The risk of injury while driving, whether
strapped in or not, is small, and I'm willing to accept the possibly
increased, but still small, risk of driving without a seatbelt in
order to make driving more enjoyable. Similarly, I would be at lower
risk of acquiring HIV infection if I stopped giving and getting
rubber-free blow jobs, but I prefer to take that small risk in order
to continue having an enjoyable sex life. As in all areas of my life,
I, like many, if not most, people weigh the possible risks of my
actions, decide if the benefits outweigh the risks, and act
accordingly. Providing people with honest information about relative
risks associated with different sexual activities, instead of
unsubstantiated anti-sex warnings, would enable individuals to make
informed decisions about their behavior and what level of risk is
acceptable for them. A risk-free life would also be a pleasure-free
life, and the total elimination of risk from my life is not a goal of
mine. Encouraging people to eliminate risk from their sex lives, even
at the the cost of eliminating sexual pleasure, as the AIDS educators
recommend, is an attempt to narrow people's options and manipulate
their behavior under the pretext of concern for their health.
IV drug use and AIDS
Another area where the AIDS "crisis" is being used as a pretext
to restrict the scope of people's personal activities is that of
recreational IV drug use. IV drug users and their sex partners make
up a large and growing proportion of HIV-infected people and people
who have AIDS. These people, while being urged to use safer injection
techniques, are also being urged to give up IV drug use totally as
the most efficient way to stop transmission of HIV among drug users
and their partners. Although similar to the safe sex/no sex campaign
directed at homosexual men, the anti-drug campaign, disguised as an
anti-AIDS campaign, is based on even more faulty premises, most
importantly, the myth that IV drug use is inherently a high risk
activity which should be outlawed.
Drug use would be totally free of risk from infectious disease
transmission if the government simply decriminalized needle and drug
use. Needle exchange programs are not what is needed, in part because
they force drug users to submit to the surveillance of the public
health authorities, but most importantly because they do not address
the main cause of needle sharing and subsequent transmission of HIV:
an inadequate supply of sterile needles produced by government
restrictions on the sales of needles. In the 38 U.S. states that do
not criminalize possession of needles without a physician's
prescription, IV drug users are not at high risk of AIDS because
needle sharing is minimized. The states with the highest number of IV
drug users are also the states that restrict access to needles,
contributing directly to the extremely high rate of HIV infection in
drug users in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and other states. The
government and the media constantly regale us with stories about the
high rate of HIV infection among children born in New York, most of
them children of IV drug users, but fail to point out that most of
these infections would never have occurred were it not for laws
against needles in New York. And even the totally inadequate needle
exchange program being conducted in New York has been opposed by many
politicians. These politicians and their laws are contributing to the
death of IV drug users, their sex partners, and their children.
Decriminalizing and deregulating drug and needle use, would not
only dramatically cut the rate of HIV infection among drug users, it
would also reduce the other health risks of recreational drug use,
such as endocarditis, poisoning by additives, and unintentional
overdose, by bringing drug sales and manufacture aboveground and open
to examination by users. Decriminalization and deregulation would
also produce a precipitous fall in drug prices, improving the
economic situation of drug users (and, incidentally, eliminating
most street crime, most of which is a result of users seeking cash to
pay high drug prices or dealers fighting to monopolize a lucrative
market). These changes would likely result in an improvement in the
general health of drug users which would help those already infected
with HIV to better deal with the infection.
Goverment is part of the problem, not the solution to the
AIDS "crisis."
Most people in this country, including most leftists and many
anarchists, look to government as a source of help in dealing with
AIDS. As in the case of IV drug use, government intervention in any
area of our lives, including AIDS and its associated problems, causes
more problems than it "solves". Eliminating government intervention
in health care; "therapeutic" drug research, manufacture and sales;
recreational drug and needle use and sales; and sexual activity,
including sex-for-a-fee, would greatly increase people's options in
both AIDS prevention and AIDS treatment.
As stated above, decriminalizing and deregulating recreational
drugs and needles would decrease transmission of HIV and lead to
better general health among IV drug users. Abolishing the FDA and
deregulating the research, manufacture and sales of "therapeutic"
(or non-recreational) drugs would also be of benefit in dealing with
AIDS and HIV. The FDA holds up the release of drugs with proven
benefits for people who have AIDS, like ganciclovir [DHPG], a drug
used successfully for several years to treat retinitis caused by
cytomegalovirus [CMV], a common infection in people who have AIDS.
They recently tried to force people into sight-threatening studies
where the drug would be withheld from some people until their
disease worsened, potentially leading to blindness. In order to
impose this on people the government had forbidden the manufacturer
to provide the drug to people who needed it on a "compassionate use"
basis, as it had in the past. Political pressure by AIDS activists
resulted in a reversal of this policy, and the FDA is expected to
approve the drug soon. The FDA also held up approval of aerosolized
pentamidine, a treatment proven to prevent 'Pneumocystis carinii'
pneumonia, the most frequent cause of death in people who have AIDS,
discouraging physicians from providing this treatment, and insurance
companies from providing coverage for it. This policy resulted in many
deaths that were preventable, and approval was granted only after
widespread protests by AIDS activists. Eliminating regulation of drugs
would enable people to use these drugs, as well as other drugs that
may be effective in treating AIDS, but whose use is criminalized by
government regulations.
Deregulation of drug research and manufacture would also result
in the production of many new drugs to fight AIDS. Expensive
government-mandated drug trials prevent many drug manufacturers from
developing some drugs, and prevent new drug makers from entering the
market, by making the business too costly. Abolishing the system of
drug patents would bring down drug prices dramatically and allow new
manufacturers to more easily enter the market. These two developments
would result in more varied and cheaper drugs to use against AIDS
(and other diseases as well). Doing away with the prescription system,
which prohibits people from making their own choices about what drugs
they wish to take, and forces them to go along with the dictates of
government-certified physicians if they wish to get any drugs at all,
would enable people, at long last, to really make their own decisions
about their health care. A marketplace made up of totally unregulated
drug makers competing for the business of consumers unencumbered by
the dictates of government and its approved physicians would result in
cheaper, more varied, and, hopefully, safer and more effective drug
treatments for AIDS.
Deregulating the rest of health care would similarly increase
people's freedom to choose how they wish to maintain their health
and treat their illnesses. By imposing restrictions on who can provide
health care advice and treatments through licensing laws and boards of
registration, the government prevents people from choosing which
health care practitioners they wish to hire. The system of prescribing
(and proscribing) drugs and other treatments and procedures pushes
people into the hands of government-approved MDs, as there is no other
way, under the current system to obtain many drugs and other medical
treatments. Abolishing professional licensure and prescription laws
would enable people to choose the people, drugs and treatments they
wish to employ, without requiring them to seek the permission of
"experts" licensed by the state.
Laws regulating individuals' sexual activities have also hindered
the fight against AIDS, Criminalization of homosexual sex and laws
preventing homosexuals from working in certain jobs and from
participating in some activities, such as adopting or providing foster
care for children, contribute to a pervasive anti-homosexual
atmosphere in this country which discourages many men who engage in
homosexual sex from acknowledging and accepting their sexual tastes.
These men may, out of fear, not be willing to frequent places or read
literature where information about truly risky sexual activity is
available and remain ignorant of the hazards to which their sexual
activity may expose them. Additionally, many men who engage in s