No on Government Waste Committee / No on Measure B Update

[Redrob]

Dear FSC Supporter:

As part of the No on Government Waste Committee, I wanted to send a message to supporters and partners of FSC and give you an update on the campaign and the work that still needs to be done. I?m sure you all read that I have been brought on as the communications director for the campaign. Me?a conservative Republican and former spokesman to people like President George H.W. Bush and Gov. Pete Wilson. Why would I take this cause up?

Because like any conservative, I oppose lame efforts to regulate businesses that already do a better job of regulating themselves. I oppose creating new government bureaucracies that will surely waste taxpayer dollars. And I oppose powerful groups such as AIDS Healthcare Foundation taking on the role of a shadow government, imposing regulatory fiat at will, with no accountability from voters.

In fact, you can listen in to Larry Mantle?s show on KPCC-FM 89.3 at 11:30 AM to noon today where I will be debating Michael Weinstein on Measure B! http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/ Be sure to check out the show?s social media links (they?re listed on the page) and post your comments and reactions to what Michael says!

Measure B is only the very first step in what is sure to be a nationwide campaign to push your industry further and further into a corner where basic decisions such as where you can film, how you can produce a film and even what you can do in a film will become more and more regulated.

The odds are daunting. There are over 4 million voters in the County of Los Angeles. In the last statewide election in 2010, over 3 million went to the polls and voted, of those 3 million people, almost a third of them, 700,000 voters, voted by absentee ballot well before Election Day. What does that mean to you?

It means that voting has already begun as absentee ballots get mailed to voters this week.

This fight is not going to be waged in the San Fernando Valley or even in the City of Los Angeles. It?s going to be waged for voters in Long Beach, Pasadena, Whittier, Norwalk, Monterey Park and countless other cities far removed from your industry?s base, who have very little exposure and understanding of what you do, but in order to defeat this measure, each and every one of you needs to stand up and get involved.

There are countless ways you can help in this campaign:

? Make a donation today: Even if it?s $50, if everyone on this email list pitched in with a minimal contribution, the campaign would be able to match the AIDS Healthcare Foundation ad for ad!
? Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper: In 250 words explain to them and their readers why this measure is so unnecessary, how it will waste taxpayer dollars and force jobs out of the a county with 12% unemployment. And not all letters need to go to the LA Times. They can do to the Santa Monica Mirror, Pasadena Star News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Downtown News, there are tons of newspapers voters read every day! Also, post comments on these news websites every time a story appears on Measure B
? Post links on your social media network: Engage on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Tumblr, Pinterest and all the other social networks you belong to. Retweet the campaign?s tweets, share our Facebook postings, post responses and replies to those supporting Measure B
? Talk to a friend or neighbor: Get them involved, spread the word, get them to contribute $10 or $25, get them to promise to talk to five other friends
? Register to vote: The deadline for online voter registration is Oct. 22. If you are not registered to vote, do so today!
? Send an email blast to your contact list: Tell people to take a stand against Measure B and remember to vote against it
? Shoot a webcam video and post it on YouTube and your Facebook page explaining why you are opposed to Measure B
? Stand on a corner on a busy intersection and hold up a sign that says ?Vote NO on Measure B, Stop Government Waste!?

Defeating Measure B comes down to you. It?s not glamorous work. It?s hard, time consuming and often tedious, but at the end of the day we need to reach 1.5 million people in this county and convince them that Measure B is complete waste of money, does nothing to safeguard public health and in fact will drive jobs out of the county and put performers health at increased risk.

If you need information or want to contribute, please find us at:

www.noongovernmentwaste.com
www.facebook.com/NoOnGovernmentWasteNoOnMeasureB
www.twitter.com/NotoMeasureB
Voter registration: https://rtv.sos.ca.gov/elections/register-to-vote/

For the Yes on Measure B side:

http://www.yesonb.info/
www.twitter.com/yesonb
www.facebook.com/condoms4porn

If you wish to contact me, feel free to email me at [email protected] or call the campaign media line at 424-229-2773.

James Lee

[baddog]

You have a link to the text of the law? I would love to see where it states that performers would have to wear "rubber gloves, goggles and lab coats."

[Redrob]

Controlling exposures

The bloodborne pathogens standard requires employers to use feasible engineering and work practice controls to protect workers from coming into contact with blood or other disease-carrying body fluids (referred to in the standard as "other potentially infectious material", or "OPIM"). Semen and vaginal fluid are always considered OPIM. Any other body fluid is considered OPIM if it?s visibly contaminated with blood. Saliva is considered OPIM in connection with dental procedures because these procedures routinely cause saliva to be contaminated with blood.

The kind of contact prohibited by the standard is contact between skin or mucous membranes and blood or OPIM.

The methods an employer will use to protect employees from contact with blood or OPIM must be spelled out in detail in a written exposure control plan, which is described in the bloodborne pathogens standard.

The bloodborne pathogens standard is built on the rule of universal precautions. This means blood or OPIM is always treated as hazardous, no matter who the source is. This is important because the available testing methods do not always guarantee that disease will be detected. This is particularly true right after a person has become infected. Depending on the test and the disease, it may take anywhere from two weeks to six months to be able to detect an infection. There is also a risk of "false negative" results, particularly if tests have not been properly administered, or if specimens have not been properly stored. Also, many bloodborne diseases are not routinely tested for.

Examples of engineering and work practice controls used in the adult film industry include:

Simulation of sex acts using acting, production and post-production techniques
Ejaculation outside the partner's body
Use of barriers, which protect the partner from contact with semen, vaginal fluids, mucous membranes, etc. Examples of barriers include condoms and dental dams (Condoms and dental dams can also be considered personal protective equipment for the partner who uses them)
Plastic and other disposable materials to clean up sets
Sharps containers for disposal of any blades, wires or broken glass.

Personal protective equipment

If, after using all practical engineering and work practice controls, workers are still exposed to hazards, employers must provide, and ensure employees use, appropriate personal protective equipment. Personal protective equipment can include:

Condoms
Dental dams
Gloves
Eye protection.

Link to California Regulations from DOSH.

No Fear, Just Knowledge.

[kristin]

Originally Posted by baddog

You have a link to the text of the law? I would love to see where it states that performers would have to wear "rubber gloves, goggles and lab coats."

It's true, we had a big discussion in our ET meeting about it once. Crazy shit ...

[baddog]

Can include and must include are not the same thing. I guess you can't find the text of the proposed law either?

If the cost of this is borne by the film producer, how is it government waste?

[epitome]

Text of proposed measure:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...les-county.pdf

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by baddog

Can include and must include are not the same thing. I guess you can't find the text of the proposed law either?

If the cost of this is borne by the film producer, how is it government waste?

Since you appear to be Google-challenged today, here's the full text of Measure B.

Please note sub-paragraph (g) under "Findings and Declarations," which states:

Producers of adult films are required by California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193 to use barrier protection, including condoms, to protect employees during the production of adult films.

Since condoms are specified by way of saying "barrier protection, including condoms" do you think it's reasonable to read that as meaning that other forms of barrier protection are also required?

I think that's a reasonable interpretation (particularly once you read the full text of the relevant portion of Title 8 §5193), and more importantly, so do our attorneys.

As for the "government waste" question, I'm not sure how the No On Measure B folks would respond to that, but IMO, no matter who pays for it, I consider the inspections, regulation and enforcement that would flow from this measure to be a waste of time... and time is a resource the government already wastes too much of, as well.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Make a donation today: Even if it?s $50, if everyone on this email list pitched in with a minimal contribution, the campaign would be able to match the AIDS Healthcare Foundation ad for ad!

Where did all that Manwin money go?

[DWB]

Originally Posted by kristin

It's true, we had a big discussion in our ET meeting about it once. Crazy shit ...

Kristin,
Saw your Pink Visual game ad running today on the pirate pic site PixHost.org. You may want to have a look.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Since you appear to be Google-challenged today, here's the full text of Measure B.

Please note sub-paragraph (g) under "Findings and Declarations," which states:



Since condoms are specified by way of saying "barrier protection, including condoms" do you think it's reasonable to read that as meaning that other forms of barrier protection are also required?

I think that's a reasonable interpretation (particularly once you read the full text of the relevant portion of Title 8 §5193), and more importantly, so do our attorneys.

As for the "government waste" question, I'm not sure how the No On Measure B folks would respond to that, but IMO, no matter who pays for it, I consider the inspections, regulation and enforcement that would flow from this measure to be a waste of time... and time is a resource the government already wastes too much of, as well.

Thanks for the link, none of my searches came up with that. Can't find any mention of rubber gloves or goggles. Did not bother looking up lab coats.

[epitome]

You've got to admit, they were crafty about it. The notice that will have to be posted only mentions anal and vaginal sex...but then they slip in mention of other statutes you have to follow.

I am all for condoms for anal and vaginal sex along with testing. Gloves and condoms for oral though?

Can't say I continue to support this measure. They need to simplify it to get my support. It needs to reflect reasonable precautions but not go overboard.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by baddog

Thanks for the link, none of my searches came up with that. Can't find any mention of rubber gloves or goggles. Did not bother looking up lab coats.

Seriously?

OK then.... try this: go to this page, and search for the relevant terms therein.

I suggest using Ctrl+f and searching using your browser's find function, rather than reading the entire page, or merely skimming it with your own eyes.

When you do that, you will find a section marked "(4) Personal Protective Equipment." Directly beneath that title you will find a sub-paragraph that reads as follows:

(A) Provision. Where occupational exposure remains after institution of engineering and work practice controls, the employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, appropriate personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to, gloves, gowns, laboratory coats, face shields or masks and eye protection, and mouthpieces, resuscitation bags, pocket masks, or other ventilation devices. Personal protective equipment will be considered "appropriate" only if it does not permit blood or OPIM to pass through to or reach the employee's work clothes, street clothes, undergarments, skin, eyes, mouth, or other mucous membranes under normal conditions of use and for the duration of time which the protective equipment will be used. Note : For fire fighters, these requirements are in addition to those specified in Sections 3401-3411, and are intended to be consistent with those requirements.

I might be reading all of this and the other relevant regulations incorrectly (and if so, I hope pornlaw or another of the attorneys who frequent this board will correct me), but as I read the above, the real question might be whether condom use alone as an "institution of engineering and work practice control" leaves any remaining "occupational exposure" that would trigger the requirement of using the other barrier protection listed in that sub-paragraph. For that matter, the answer could vary depending on the manner of production at hand; I could see some BDSM shoots involving more and different exposure to blood than would a scene that involves only vaginal/oral/anal sex, for example.

It's quite possible, of course, for the legislature to write in specific exceptions to §5193 that limit the scope of barrier protection that must be used (they have already done so with respect to the construction industry, after all), but to my knowledge, no such exceptions exist with respect to the adult industry.

If you're still not satisfied that it's a reasonable interpretation to say that barrier protection beyond condoms is required under the letter of §5193, and that since Measure B invokes §5193 specifically, receiving a permit under the law might be contingent upon such barrier use if Measure B passes.... well, ask your own damn lawyer. ;-)

Maybe he/she will have a different take that you can share with everybody here.

[pornlaw]

Those are indeed the current regulations under 5193 but Cal-OSHA has proposed to slightly relax them. The current regs as you can tell by the term lab coats are really meant for a healthcare setting. Cal-OSHA has reword the regs for what they think is better for the industry.

Condoms will still be necessary for vag and anal and they are proposing that condoms/dental dams will not be necessary for oral IF the following occurs;

1. Provision of HBV and HPV vaccine, unless the employee is already fully vaccinated, or another dose is not indicated at that time.
2. Testing of the blood by DNA PCR for HIV virus
3. Testing of urine and by swab of the pharynx, anus and vagina for Chlamydia and gonorrhea
4. Physical examination for signs of STIs

See the proposed reg --> http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/DoshReg/A...%20meeting.doc

This is proposed reg 5193.1 (no lab coats but gloves and eye protection remain) -> http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/DoshReg/S...0--%20circ.doc

And in no way can any semen or ejaculate make any contact with an open orifice. That is considered an "exposure incident." So cum will only be allowed on the tits, stomach, back, legs far away from a "hole."

At this point, either these regs have been sent to Fed OSHA for approval or Cal-OSHA has basically abandoned this whole idea. I really dont know. I havent heard anything about the Cal-OSHA issue since June 2011.

Its been all AHF since then....

If you want to know more about Ballot Measure B - I have written quite extensively about it -- www.AdultBizLaw.com

[Quentin]

Thanks Michael -- the clarification/correction is much appreciated.

In retrospect, I could have saved myself a lot of time by just providing Lloyd a link to your blog.

[Paul Markham]

Rob, with respect. You're wasting your time. No one passing laws is going to listen to pornographers.

[Redrob]

I agree that this campaign is an uphill battle. But, if we are going to win it, we all need to help.

I'm not asking a donation, just some of your time doing what you do best: getting the word out to the public.

If you want to donate, it will be much appreciated. Even better, join the FSC and support our efforts. Hundreds and hundreds of industry companies and leaders already do support the FSC.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Redrob

I agree that this campaign is an uphill battle. But, if we are going to win it, we all need to help.

I'm not asking a donation, just some of your time doing what you do best: getting the word out to the public.

If you want to donate, it will be much appreciated. Even better, join the FSC and support our efforts. Hundreds and hundreds of industry companies and leaders already do support the FSC.

Im going to give you some honest advice here...take it or leave it.

If you want to win this you are going to have to assume some financial transparency. The FSC's biggest problem in the last ten years or more has been exactly that, nobody knows where the money goes.

You need to rein in the morons that think its a good idea to attack the talent, attacking Darren James and Dereck Burts plays right into AHFs hands, that is patently stupid.

You need to focus on facts, telling people its a waste of taxpayer dollars when its clearly in the law that the industry will pick up the tab for it is a losing strategy

You recently tried to convince performers that it would make them criminals...thats another horrible defense, there is nothing in that law anywhere that provides for criminal or even civil penalties for performers who dont comply.

The whole goggles and dental dams argument is also very weak, it is clearly stated that that would be a more extreme measure in the event that we still cant get our shit together.

Your best strategy is to frame it as a civil rights issue but that is weak as well because the law really has nothing to do with performer rights, pass or fail it circumvents performer rights. you night consider looking at an alternative bit of legislation that would approach it from this angle, make it a strong civil penalty if any company tries in any way to circumvent or punish a performers choice and make it a truly optional thing with civil penalties for violating that right. The numbers seem to say that 1/3 to 1/4 of performers want to use condoms wouldn't it be worth 1 scene in 3 or 4 in exchange for being left alone about it?

Stop lying to people, if you don't you wont have a prayer.

And start reaching out to the voters....tweeting back and forth to porners is preaching to the choir, most of them wont even register to vote.

you want constructive criticism, there it is.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

You need to focus on facts, telling people its a waste of taxpayer dollars when its clearly in the law that the industry will pick up the tab for it is a losing strategy

Stop lying to people, if you don't you wont have a prayer.

Uh... yeah, in the world of politics, everybody knows the truth wins, every time!

Just ask Karl Rove.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Uh... yeah, in the world of politics, everybody knows the truth wins, every time!

Just ask Karl Rove.

I get what you are saying but the truth is the best starting point particularly in local politics where the voters tend to be better informed about issues like this one. Lying just gives the AHF the ammunition they need to shoot you down and they have a lot more money to throw at it than the FSC does.

A smart strategy might work, the one they are using will not.

[Paul Markham]

The reason they're fighting is they don't want to lose their jobs to content production in other countries. There's no freedom of speech or government waste issue here.

Mike did ask for the truth.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Uh... yeah, in the world of politics, everybody knows the truth wins, every time!

Just ask Karl Rove.

Whew. For a minute there I thought you were gonna say it's ok to lie to everyone because they do it in politics.