Only in LA: Voters may get to decide in June on adult film condom use

Posted by: ST on December 28, 2011 at 4:09 pm

NBC LA reports on an, er,  interesting ballot measure Los Angeles voters may have to decide on in June when they go to the polls:

A proposal that would require adult film actors to use condoms has qualified for the June ballot after proponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue before Los Angeles voters.

Proponents gathered more than 70,000 signatures, exceeding the 41,000 required to place the issue on the ballot, according to AIDS Heathcare Foundation spokesman Ged Kenslea. The signatures were certified last week by the LA City Clerk.

The Adult Film Workplace Condom Initiative would condition adult film permits on the production company’s agreement to use condoms on the film set. Under the proposal, fees may be charged to “provide for inspectors to ensure compliance with conditions on film permits.”

“We have other conditions on film permits,” said Michael Weinstein, of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a backer of the proposal. “If you’re going to blow things up, you have to have the fire department involved.”

The ballot measure is the subject of a legal challenge by City Attorney Carmen Trutanich. His office filed a lawsuit earlier this month, calling the measure a “needless and wasteful expenditure of public resources made in connection with a measure which the voters have no power to adopt.”

State laws already mandate use of condoms when workers are exposed to blood-borne pathogens, the lawsuit states.

I’m telling ya  – one of these days I’m going to hold a fundraiser on this blog and we’re going to raise enough cash to rescue my dear co-blogger from the radical liberal cesspool that is Los Angeles.  I think the city, along with about half of California, is pretty much beyond hope at this point.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 Responses to “Only in LA: Voters may get to decide in June on adult film condom use”


  1. Jon C. Ham says:

    Or, as my L.A.-based son just said when I read him this, “Also known as the Move the Porn Industry to Arizona Act.”

  2. Phineas says:

    It’s interesting that Trutanich thinks the voters have no ability to enact this measure. I’m not sure* what the laws are in this case, maybe a supremacy clause for acts of the legislature.

    Regardless, the city attorney has a point: CA law already requires condom use, though I have to wonder how often that’s enforced. Also, I question the utility of the condom rule in the first place. When the porn industry has had an AIDs incident, the source has almost always contracted it from outside their video career: unprotected casual sex, drug use, prostitution. Requiring condom use in adult films is pretending the problem only exists there. What’s next? A measure mandating condoms during social dating, “just in case?” The better solution is frequent testing of performers, something that already goes on.

    As for a fund drive, how about one to get me a new car, instead? :d

    *(Yeah, I could read the PDF, but I’ve been in front of the computer too much already today. My eyes glaze over…)

  3. SteveP says:

    I hope that part of the rationale for this isn’t that not using a rascal wrapper makes the man a poor role model.
    On the other hand, this IS California, the land of fruits, nuts, flakes, and fascism.

  4. Tom TB says:

    Which is it California? Do you do “your own thing” or regulate all human activity to the nth degree?

  5. missred says:

    i left sodom and gomorrah LA 24 years ago and unlike Lot’s wife, i have never looked back