A measure that would mandate all pornographic film performers in California wear condoms during shoots will be on the 2016 ballot next November. The Secretary of State yesterday announced that the measure had received over the required number of signatures needed to qualify. The measure has sparked controversy, with at least one prominent figure calling it necessary to combat the spread of HIV while others see it as potentially driving the regulated pornography industry into the shadows.

The measure was crafted and pushed by AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein, who told the Associated Press how he believes this measure, if passed, will have a broad impact on sexual health.

"The No. 1 way that young people learn about sex in this day and age is pornography on the Internet," said Weinstein. "In porn, real people are having real sex. They're transmitting actual diseases, and the audience knows it. It's not like a fictional Hollywood film."

The (questionable) logic being that if prophylactic use is modeled in porn, then young people are more likely to use condoms themselves.

This argument shifts the focus of a potential condom mandate away from the people that would be legally required to wear them (the pornographic performers), and onto the effect that porn has on society — even though Weinstein has gone via several routes to police condom use in the industry, also arguing for workplace safety (something the industry rejects because of strict testing requirements), and having failed to get a workplace safety measure passed in the state legislature in 2014.

Weinstein has also lately been pushing for porn performers to have wear goggles or other eye protection in porn shoots for the same reason, something the industry, obviously, thinks is insane, and compares to "asking ballerinas to wear boots."

Weinstein is a somewhat controversial figure in the gay community as well, having previous called the life-saving PrEP drug Truvada "a party drug."

This comment outraged many, and even led to a petition to have Weinstein removed as the president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (the petition ultimately failed).

Proponents of daily PrEP use include Supervisor Scott Wiener, who has publicly detailed his own use of the drug. The drug, as shown again in a recent study conducted at Kaiser San Francisco, has proven to be highly effective in HIV-negative men in preventing the transmission of HIV.

Opponents of the upcoming ballot initiative include an adult-film industry trade group, the Free Speech Coalition. The organization warns that the ballot measure is fundamentally flawed on numerous levels, one of which being that it allows for any Californian to sue performers who do not wear condoms in films.

Diane Duke, CEO of Free Speech Coalition, further explained the industry's opposition in a press release.

"Unfortunately, the proponent of the bill, Michael Weinstein, is more concerned with his personal moral crusade than the real-life concerns of adult performers," wrote Duke. "It does not seem to matter to him that this initiative endangers performers' lives, nor does it matter that his previous attempts to force condoms on porn stars have been opposed by legislators, HIV activists, editorial boards and the performers themselves."

Duke further argues that producers of pornography will simply leave the state should this measure pass — something that the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst estimates could cost California "tens of millions of dollars annually in lost state and local tax revenue" as CBS 5 reports. However, Weinstein doesn't see that as likely, telling to the AP that the state's nice weather — allowing for year-round outdoor porn shoots — will inevitably keep them here.

Apparently he hasn't visited Arizona. Or Nevada.

Previously: Condom Bill Targeting California Porn Industry Dies In Committee