<p>Re: lifeguards</p>
<p>At beaches, lifeguards sit in lifeguard towers which have roofs to keep them in the shade until they need to go save someone.</p>
<p>Nanny state? Hardly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of Brown’s snarky signing messages made it to Passive Agressive Notes. Extra points there.</p>
<p>[Brown</a> gets in the last word on bills - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/07/local/la-me-jerry-brown-20111008]Brown”>Brown gets in the last word on bills)</p>
<p>Tanning beds are like cigarettes - even when used properly in their intended way they do nothing but harm. A better name would skin cancer beds.</p>
<p>Protecting minors from dangers, especially ones that they may not recognize, has always been a proper role for the law. I applaud this law.</p>
<p>Right on, coureur.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Texas? That hotbed of liberal ideology and nanny-state socialism? What a surprise…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Here in Texas this hasn’t really hurt many businesses. Pull out the beds, install spray booths and you can go on “tanning” folks without killing them. Just spray dye onto cells that aren’t going to re-generate any more and you look tan…
My fair-skinned D’s, however, came up with the term “tanorexic” to describe some of their more over-tanned classmates. I think the fake tan will become the laughable Sr picture mistake of this generation like big shoulder pads were for their Mother’s.</p>
<p>Thank goodness the uber tan is the new tacky. We need to get back to the time when porcelain skin suggested upper class and tans were looked down upon.</p>
<p>Tanorexic! I love it. I think my D will, too.</p>
<p>umbalum - In Virginia Beach there is no roof on the lifeguard chairs.</p>
<p>It’s a great law. The damage that teens can do to themselves is severe. And for god’s sake, if they’re that desperate to get tan, isn’t there a large orb that appears in the sky each day under which they could stand for a few hours?</p>
<p>I banned tanning beds for my kids years ago and have encouraged other parents to do the same. Many people just don’t realize the risks their kids are taking but the research is clear and readily available. Teenagers always think they’re invincible and if parents don’t/can’t/won’t ban something that is unsafe, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for the government to step in to protect them. I don’t think any of us who have experienced melanoma or watched friends die of the disease, as I have, would question whether this is a wise decision.</p>
<p>My sister was a lifeguard for years and she has had a melanoma taken off her foot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said.</p>
<p>The leading causes of death for young women–BY FAR (5 times all cancers)–is accidents, followed by MURDER, and suicides.
Maybe we should ban driving, bike riding, skiing, mountain climbing, swimming first as these are FAR more likely to kill you then tanning of any kind. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/06_all_females.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/06_all_females.pdf</a></p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that murder has been banned. But a ban on tanning beds might be more effictive.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Tanning when you are young doesn’t cause much of a skin cancer increase in the young. Cancer takes years to kick in. The price people pay for tanning when they are young, both in terms of ravaged skin and cancer, becomes apparent when they are middle-aged. And by time the tanning teens get old enough to smarten up on their own, it’s too late.</p>
<p>
This is an epically silly “argument.” Driving and bike riding actually have real benefits - people need to get places somehow. Banning those activities would cause actual harm to people. It’s a pretty simple cost/benefit analysis. We make cars as safe as possible. We require driver training for minors. We encourage use of bike helmets, design bike routes and bike lanes to make bike riding as safe as possible. But recognizing that transportation from place to place is a necessity in the modern world, to “ban” those activities would be dumb. (I know, it’s obvious, but sometimes things aren’t obvious enough for some people.)</p>
<p>The only loss from banning tanning beds is preventing people from obtaining a temporary cosmetic alteration of their skin color - at significantly increased risk of getting cancer years later. People complain about politicians, but compared to the level of analysis demonstrated on internet forums they’re starting to look like a bunch of bona fide geniuses.</p>
<p>barrons-driving requires a license and priven proficiency and dirvers are insured in order to lessen the public cost of accidents. Bike riding among youth require helmets. The poor decision that a 15-year old makes will be paid for later by all of us with higher healthcare costs. So, forgive me for applauding the tanning ban. After all, I am tired of paying for all these freedoms offered to everyone else (and that includes smoking). I will take a nanny state for kids. It does take a village after all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ain’t that the god’s honest truth!</p>
<p>When I see complaints about the “nanny state,” I’m not sure what to think. Is this a libertarian complaint–and those making it don’t think the state should be mandating seatbelts, or motorcycle helmets, or drinking ages, or smoking ages, or child car seats, or any of that kind of stuff?</p>
<p>Or is this rather a complaint that liberal politicians are regulating the wrong things–i.e., prohibiting tanning beds while allowing abortions?</p>
<p>Either position makes some sense, but I’d like to see some consistency.</p>