Venereal diseases soar in 5 counties (CA)

modbee ^ | 10-10-04

[LouAvul]

They might be teaching sex education in the schools, but it's obvious folks are flunking the practical application. Sexually transmitted diseases — and particularly chlamydia and gonorrhea — have spiked dramatically in five area counties, including Stanislaus.

It's gotten so bad that health officials from the counties will ask state officials and possibly the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to send investigators who can get to the core of the problem.

The numbers don't lie, even if they might represent only a fraction of the truth.

In Stanislaus County alone, the number of reported cases of gonorrhea in 2004 will likely double to more than 400 compared to a year ago, and more than four times the 25-year low of 135 in 1999.

The numbers, health officials say, are also rising in Merced, Madera, San Benito and Santa Clara counties. The epidemic caught the eye of state officials, who recently brought health officials from those counties together to determine possible links.

This much they know, and it's consistent with data from elsewhere in the state: the majority of the cases reported involve 15- to 29-year-olds, and most are white or Latino, although African-Americans have the highest rate among any single race.

[kbeam]

Did you ever see that movie, "The Majestic", with Jim Carrey, where he was accused of association w/ communists? And his response, he just came to a meeting or two cause he just wanted to get laid?

Well, if you're looking for cheap sex, you'll get it for sure from the commie sluts in Northern CA, where you won't find it in self-respecting conservative women who are saving themselves for a decent man.

Those losers up in Northern CA equate sex with going to the bathroom, or drinking a soda. Their consciences have been destroyed, bad parenting, mostly.

[upcountryhorseman]

It's up to the parents to teach their children these matters. I suspect the schools' involvement has desensitized
children to the point of encouraging sexual activity.

[Screaming Eagle Red Leg]

Volunteer Park in Seattle used to be open 24/7. Due to sodomites meeting in the park for hit-and-run sex, however, the park now closes at 11:00 p.m.

[blanknoone]

135 x 4 = 540 "will likely double to more than 400"

You obviously didn't take math in the journalism department.

[brotherStefan]

>> The sexually active teens here --- and there are many become lifelong taxpayer burdents. There is an epidemic here of chlamydia in the high schools --- the same one that have day-cares on their campuses. That's a very good thing for taxpayers. <<

A "very good thing for taxpayers" would be to relieve taxpayers from subsidizing this kind of behavior. Once the message sinks in that taxpayers won't pay the medical bills associated with unacceptable behavior, the problem will abate. It certainly may have to get worse before it gets better, but continued subsidizing of the problem will only perpetuate it.

[JSteff]

I thought Bill Clinton lived in NY...?

[fr_freak]

You're an authority on Norhtern California, are you? Because that's not the Northern California I know. At least, it's no worse than any other place in the counry and probably better than many, as long as you are not considering the San Francisco Bay Area to represent all of Northern California.

[tertiary01]

Lots of Meth users in at least 3 of these counties.

[cynicom]

Must be something in the water. The young are to well educated in sexual practices and to well equipped to be at fault themselves.

[Revolting cat!]

Do I sense a certain schadefreude here? This is nothing to clap about, folks!

[Revolting cat!]

Clapper.

[Siamese Princess]

A "very good thing for taxpayers" would be to relieve taxpayers from subsidizing this kind of behavior. Once the message sinks in that taxpayers won't pay the medical bills associated with unacceptable behavior, the problem will abate. It certainly may have to get worse before it gets better, but continued subsidizing of the problem will only perpetuate it.

Absolutely. Why should taxpayers (that includes you and me) be forced to subsidize the consequences of their voluntary behavior. We're not to blame. Let their parents take care of them. If parents were responsible for their children's misbehavior, they would keep their kids under tighter control.

[brotherStefan]

<< Do I sense a certain schadefreude [sic] here? >>

That would certainly be the liberal interpretation. Is it schadenfreude when a parent stands by and watches an independent youngster fall off their first bicycle, or skateboard?

Behavior is not easily legislated. The attempt typically results in an unintended subsidizing of some undesirable aspect of it. When it comes to behavior that falls into the "moral" category, everybody seems to know better (and certainly doesn't want to be told). Political correctness seems to have left us without the ability (or willingness) to discern -- we've mischaracterized it as being "judgmental", even though it's an entirely different thing.

[Lester Moore]

Once the message sinks in that taxpayers won't pay the medical bills associated with unacceptable behavior, the problem will abate. It certainly may have to get worse before it gets better, but continued subsidizing of the problem will only perpetuate it.

Bodda-Boom! Bodda-Bing! You are correct, and that goes for ALL immoral, unacceptable, self destructive behaviors. If people got used to the idea that the bad consequences of their unwise behavior was theirs alone to reap, and that the good consequences of their wise behavior was their reward alone, to be shared with no other, most people would be more careful. It's so easy to spend other peoples money.

[Finalapproach29er]

Scary.

[mewzilla]

Sterile and possibly worse. Last time I knew most cases of cervical cancer were linked to Human Papiloma Virus. I bet they don't mention that little stat in sex-ed.

[kbeam]

I see your point. I know folks who live in the Sierra Nevada foothills (near Auburn), and my apology to them (except for the rabid enviros in those neighborhoods trying to run a guilt trip on the others for daring to live there).

Being that said, though, let's face facts. If a 7.5 earthquake went off in SF, the ripple would spread about as far as the commie/socialist-infected areas I'm referring to.