California Bans Tanning for Minors

Parent Cafe
1

<p>

</p>

<p>[California</a> bans use of tanning beds by minors | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/us-california-tanning-idUSTRE7982DJ20111009]California”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/us-california-tanning-idUSTRE7982DJ20111009)</p>

<p>A minor girl can have an abortion without parental consent. A 12 year old can consent to STD treatment. A 16 year old can get a driver’s license, but anyone under 18 better not get a tan because getting a tan is too significant of a decision for someone under 18 to make. So much for California Girls.</p>

2

<p>The prior law–banning use of tanning beds for those under 14, and requiring parental consent for those under 18–was signed by Schwarzenegger. The new bill was supported by the dermatologists and the American Cancer Society, and opposed by the Indoor Tanning Association.</p>

3

<p>^When I pick sides, I like to see who supports and opposes a bill, law, proposition, etc. This about sums it up for me.</p>

4

<p>razor is correct. It is a little inconsistent.</p>

5

<p>It’s consistent with bans on underage smoking and drinking.</p>

<p>Actually, I guess it’s most consistent with a smoking ban, because it’s an activity that is dangerous and doesn’t really have benefits for anybody, but we let adults do it if they want to. Drinking has some benefits.</p>

6

<p>"“I praise Gov. Brown for his courage in taking this much-needed step to protect some of California’s most vulnerable residents – our kids – from what the ‘House of Medicine’ has conclusively shown is lethally dangerous: ultraviolet-emitting radiation from tanning beds,” the bill’s sponsor, state Senator Ted Lieu, said in a statement.</p>

<p>“If everyone knew the true dangers of tanning beds, they’d be shocked. Skin cancer is a rising epidemic and the leading cause of cancer death for women between 25 and 29.”</p>

7

<p>I am ecstatic to see this bill passed. Most people don’t realize that melanoma is THE MOST COMMON cancer in young adults (ages 25-29). Use of a tanning bed makes you 75% more likely to get melanoma. </p>

<p>I don’t think the teenagers who use tanning beds are aware of all the dangers, so I am all for the ban.</p>

8

<p>I lost my sun-worshiping brother to melanoma in 1998. I’m glad to see this law passed. If the ban for minors raises awareness of the dangers to overexposure, this is a very good thing. It certainly doesn’t hurt anyone.
Studies have shown that sun damage is cumulative, and burns received when you are young can start the process of abnormal cell division, leading to the cancer. And as cancers go, melanoma is one of the worst and most deadly.</p>

9

<p>Will he ban the sun from Malibu next?? Idiotic nanny-state stuff.</p>

10

<p>barrons, at what age do you think toddlers should be allowed to buy cigarettes?</p>

11

<p>Fits right in with EU nannystate</p>

<p>[Children</a> to be banned from blowing up balloons, under EU safety rules - Telegraph](<a href=“Children to be banned from blowing up balloons, under EU safety rules”>Children to be banned from blowing up balloons, under EU safety rules)</p>

12

<p>The same age they can buy pot. Stupid analogy. Most people get that skin cancer never go to a tanning booth–we have the world’s biggest tanning bed right outside. Going to ban kids from the beach or skiing???</p>

13

<p>What’s stupid about the analogy? Either using artificial tanning beds is dangerous, or it isn’t. If it’s dangerous, why would we we allow children to use them?</p>

<p>And for your other link–you oppose all toy safety and warning regulations, or only some of them? Lead paint on toys is OK with you? It’s my observation that people who are against the supposed “Nanny state” don’t like it when you get too specific about just what the requirements ought to be.</p>

14

<p>It will be more cancer cases as it is proven by statistics that life guards have less cases because of higher level of vitamin D in their body. Well, people are moving out from Cal., I guess they have more reasons, gov. is getting more and more intrusive.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>Source, please? (I googled lifeguard and skin cancer and found several articles from Los Angeles and San Diego and Daytona Beach addressing the high incidence of skin cancer among their lifeguard employees, and the preventive steps that they have taken…)</p>

16

<p>lifeguards probably use sunscreen.</p>

17

<p>There isn’t enough sunscreen in the world to completely protect a lifeguard. An acquaintance of mine’s daughter is 16 and has melanoma (two places) on her back. She was as careful as she could be as a lifeguard - used sunscreen all the time, sat in the shade whenever she could and wore as much protective clothing as practical.</p>

<p>I think this is a great law. If only teens could see beyond tomorrow, it would be enough to look at the skin of women who tan regularly. They don’t care now what they’ll look like when they’re 50 but they will really wish that time in the sun away when they get there.</p>

18

<p>I am all for stricter rules with regards to tanning beds. I wasn’t disappointed when taxes were increased on the use of the tanning beds. Yes, that meant my employer had to raise the price for using the tanning beds we have in one of our offices. </p>

<p>I wish we’d get rid of them completely…</p>

19

<p>I am glad that the state of California no longer allows those under 18 to use a tanning bed; Texas enacted similar legislation last year. However, I agree with razor that when you see the host of other things minors can do without parental consent, it does seem inconsistent and incomprehendable.</p>

20

<p>That famous “nanny state”: Texas… :rolleyes:</p>

<p>And I have to ask: why would you forbid a 12 year old from getting medical attention? Exactly what is the parallel between preventing avoidable cancer and treating a child for disease? Sometimes the connections some people make simply defy comprehension.</p>