![]() |
But let's talk about what's really important...
... which is that in the California porn industry, condoms are now state-mandated safety equipment. ;)
(I just like using "condom" and "state-mandated safety equipment" in the same sentence. Heh.) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'd like that job but only if i inspected the female violaters..:D |
Quote:
i prefer my porn latex free, though i have no idea why. |
Quote:
|
They say the law will require the Los Angeles Department of Public Health to visit the film sets to monitor whether condoms are being used. Leave it to the brilliant citizens here in Los Angeles to pass this law and waste resources. It would be one thing if the city was doing well financially. But that is not the case. The city is very short on money and every government agency is spread really thin. These city and state agencies barely have the resources to do their jobs right now. Where are they going to get the resources to satisfy this new law?
|
Quote:
|
The state of California and its cities need to take a few lessons from single mom's who have to live within a budget. The whole condom thing came about because the porn capitol of the world Simi-Valley had some actors and actress's come back testing positive for HIV.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-leave-la.html |
Quote:
|
Rupert, I like the name of your new film ... :eek:
Seriously, though - this was needed, because they just went through some massive infectious disease transmissions like last year or something (AIDS, etc) in the porn industry where people got sick and several died. Hey - it's OSHA type stuff :D |
I hope they resolve this problem to everyone's mutual "satisfaction."
|
Quote:
Another reason you should not, it's best to leave the nincompoopense to Genuine Crazy Lady and Yakity Danny. |
Too bad Prop. 37 failed...
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The campaign against 37 was a based on a bunch of lies. They outspent the Yes on 37 people by about 10x. In the end, all the lies fooled people into voting "no". I don't know how anyone in their right mind could vote "no". How could it be a bad thing to have products labeled? One of the phony arguments against 37 was that it would only apply to certain products. In reality, it was going to apply to any products that were relevant and that the state had jurisdiction over. It couldn't be applied to meat because the USDA is the governing body that oversees meat. It couldn't be applied to alcohol because the FAA oversees the labeling on alcohol. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.