> The measure probably passed in order to discourage porn from being shot there. That's a reasonable guess, but once you look at the pattern in Michael Weinst

> The measure probably passed in order to discourage porn from being shot there. That's a reasonable guess, but once you look at the pattern in Michael Weinstein's behavior, it's clear what his real motives are. Weinstein is the president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which championed the initiative. The AHF has done good things in the past, but as of 2016, it's doing far more harm than good. Weinstein has a really puritanical view towards sex, and has a history of actively opposing harm-reduction approaches to HIV treatment and prevention. Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of pre-exposure prophylaxis in preventing HIV transmission, he has actively campaigned against it, intentionally spreading inordinate amounts of misinformation to discourage its use. His logic is basically, "we need to encourage condom use, and we should indoctrinate people into using condoms by ensuring that the porn they watch uses condoms". There are a lot of things wrong with this logic, not the least of which is that it's had no effect on the number of condoms used in porn shoots, as everyone now just shoots in Las Vegas or other nearby cities instead.