The federal government already has issued guidelines allowing blood banks and sperm banks to ban gay men from donating blood and sperm. But could the next move be to ban the sale of erectile dysfunction (e.d.) drugs to gay men?

You may recall a few weeks ago that Gov. Arnold ordered California health officials to stop providing drugs like Viagra to convicted sex offenders. Arnold’s order was in response to the Bush administration’s threat to impose sanctions on states that provide such drugs through Medicaid, which funds California’s Medi-Cal program for low-income and uninsured patients. Keep in mind that many men and women living with HIV are in these programs.

The Clinton administration ordered such drugs to be provided for “medical necessities” for men recovering from prostate surgery. California allows Medi-Cal recipients to obtain Viagra with a doctor’s order.

But the findings of an audit that showed 200 sex offenders in New York had received Viagra through such health programs. This prompted liberal U.S. Senators Hilary Clinton and Charles Schumer (both from New York) to condemn giving sex offenders the drugs which could cause them to engage in sex offenses.

Of course, sex therapists reported that giving the men the drugs might help them to sustain a normal sex life and drive with a partner. Besides, these drugs are not controlled substances and are easily obtainable. They will likely be sold over the counter soon.

Nevertheless, there was an outcry, and it’s unlikely any of the nation’s sex offenders will be getting Viagra anytime soon through government-supported programs. But some of the same forces behind the move to ban Viagra to sex offenders are now turning to gay men.

Local journalist Randy Dotinga reports in Health Law Reporter that researchers are telling the federal government to restrict Viagra to gay men “because studies suggest it makes gay men more likely to use illegal drugs, have unprotected sex and become infected with sexually transmitted diseases.”

Dotinga notes that researchers at the San Francisco Department of Health examined 14 studies that looked at Viagra use among gay men. In general, the studies showed that 10 percent of gay men use Viagra, and that of those, gay men using Viagra were two to six times more likely to put themselves (or their partners) at risk by having unprotected sex.

And studies in San Francisco suggest that Viagra users are two and a half times more likely to test positive for HIV than other gay men, two times more likely to get diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease other than HIV, and three and a half times more likely to have used methamphetamines within the past four weeks.

Experts opine that Viagra increases the risk of STDs by prolonging sexual contact during intercourse. Others suggest that Viagra users are just “high-risk-takers” and use the drug as a “sexual enhancer.” And others (like most of us) see a higher correlation between alcohol use and unsafe sex (and just about everything else). So who’s in favor of prohibition again?

Regardless of the reasons why Viagra is associated with unsafe sex and HIV, Dotinga reports that the study authors are calling on the government to mandate more extensive warning labels to alert consumers that their risk of STD infection may go up if they use Viagra. The authors also want the government to consider making Viagra a controlled substance.

Because Viagra is a drug, it is exclusively controlled by the federal government. It is hard to imagine that Congress would do anything to curb the use of Viagra, Cialis and Levitra. They generate billions of dollars in sales, and the drug makers spend a fortune on advertising. And, of course, gay men are consumers of the drug, so the drug industry is unlikely to want to cut that market.

Given that, though, there are other forces at work. To the extent the studies show a connection between e.d. drugs and unsafe sex, drug-makers know it’s only a matter of time until there is successful litigation against the drugs. Don’t be surprised to see someone infected with HIV blame Viagra for the condition. This fear may account for the lack of advertising of e.d. drugs in gay magazines.

Of course, there are those in the right wing who would like to do anything to oppress gay men, so it’s possible that the typical anti-gay groups would favor restricting sales of e.d. drugs to gay men.

But there are those in the right wing who secretly relish the spread of HIV and meth in the gay community. Instead of calls for aggressive efforts to rid HIV in the gay community, they oppose the efforts (like needle exchange, safe sex education and condom distribution). Publicly they will never admit it; privately, they pray for our destruction.

In the end, if it’s beneficial to the drug makers and the religious right, don’t be surprised to see the sale of e.d. drugs to gay men banned, or at least to persons living with HIV.