<p>
</p>
<p>So very true. My husband’s cousin spent a great deal of time in tanning beds in the the 80’s. She died from melanoma in 1991 at age 24.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that’s the thing. Many new cases of melanoma are showing up in people in their 20’s and 30’s, and can be directly traced back to addictive tanning bed behavior by people who started in early adolescence. Children that age are much too young to comprehend the implications of such decisions, and by the time they do, it’s increasingly being shown as having come too late. Other than a knee-jerk reaction borne of the conviction that it automatically “offends” one’s brand of political ideology, what’s the beef about this legislation, again?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So as long as they might die of something else first, it’s unnecessary to monitor other risks? Tanning beds have been determined to be carcinogenic, so I don’t understand why the fact that it may take 5 or more years to develop melanoma makes it okay to expose minors to the risk of a deadly cancer. Following your line of reasoning, it should be acceptable for toddlers to smoke…after all, it often takes decades for lung cancer to develop! The idea of young people being exposed to a disfiguring, if not deadly, disease in the name of vanity is ridiculous, particularly when there are readily available alternatives such as make up and spray tans.</p>
<p>The risk of deadly skin cancer in normal use is relatively tiny. Most (99% or so) are treatable and nothing more than an annoyance. Also most skin cancers still come from that big orb in the sky. So the sun is as more of a carcinogenic than a tanning bed if overused. There are 1000’s of things that if overused that could kill you eventually–even water. We do not ban 99.9% of them. Tanning just makes an easy choice and will do next to nothing for actual public health. It’s a stupid feel good approach.</p>
<p>And if childern are overusing tanning beds without parental control what else are they abusing? Tanning is a gateway to sex and drugs you know.</p>
<p>And if driver’s licenses are so good why do so many more teens die in car crashes than any other way? Maybe we need to ban driving until 21. Or 30. They can take the bus or bike or have old mom and dad take them. It’s hardly a necessity.</p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>No kidding! I was the pasty dork in the hat and cover-up when I was a teenager. When reunions started rolling around, the tables turned. I’ve aged so much less than the sun-worshipers. I thought there was a bit of cosmic justice in the cool kids having crow’s feet at 28. Forget cancer – vanity alone ought to be reason enough to ditch the tanning beds and cigarettes.</p>
<p>Barrons, A and B are both dangerous. We can’t get rid of A, but we can get rid of B without any negative consequences. Why is this an argument for allowing people to sell B to children?</p>
<p>I’m for nanny-state. And if it could convince my fellow citizens to build out the public transportation infrastructure, I’d ban driving among those under 21 too.</p>
<p>Finally, and this I feel very sure about: I’d make a law against white males between the ages of 45-65 holding public office. They tend to be very dangerous, and act impulsively, and can’t be trusted.</p>
<p>
Perhaps because there’s a C in there somewhere–something that Barrons would like to ban, but that others don’t want to.</p>
<p>
…not to mention minors can obtain contraception without parental consent but yet they can’t use a tanning bed, drink alcohol, purchase cigarettes, or lotto tickets (not that I’m in favor of ANY of these things being available to minors). My point, though, is that it’s very absurd what we allow minors to do and not to do.</p>
<p>In a way, I agree with Barrons. Is there a serious reason why tanning beds shouldn’t be banned - for everyone? </p>
<p>The fact that we can invent all kinds of things that are poisonous to our health doesn’t mean that we have to allow them free rein.</p>
<p>I would love to see them banned, along with cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and cigars.</p>
<p>Isn’t the entire country automatically a nanny state with respect to minors, by definition?</p>
<p>I would ban be driving slower than me from the left lane on freeways. That’s about it. I recently drove about 3000 miles through about 11 states back east and hardly ever encountered somebody that would not quickly move over so I could pass–often before I signaled my intentions euro style. Back in good old Washington and it appears few people learned this basic driving principle. Also when it’s rainy turn on your lights.
Now I am going to the tan spa just because I can. Dark/rain is already getting me down.</p>
<p>Razarsharp:</p>
<p>Good post</p>
<p>I understand that California will next be banning teenagers from the beach to make sure they are not getting too much sun. Or setting up mandatory suntain lotion stations throughout the state. And requiring one piece bathing suits for girls. Thank god for the nanny state.</p>
<p>I still find these kinds of discussions peculiar. Without getting too political, folks who complain about the “nanny state” are often the same people who want to ban all kinds of stuff, or are at least political bedfellows with those who do.</p>
<p>Where are the people who want to legalize marijuana AND tanning beds?</p>
<p>Anyone who has watched a loved one succumb to this devastating disease would support keeping our kids from overexposure to the sun in their early years. There is evidence that burning when you are younger and your body is still developing puts one at a greater risk of developing skin cancer. A direct ban for children emphasizes the dangers and serves to educate as well as regulate.
[The</a> Skin Cancer Foundation - Strong Scientific Research for Banning Indoor Tanning | Tanning](<a href=“http://www.skincancer.org/strong-scientific-research-for-banning-indoor-tanning.html]The”>http://www.skincancer.org/strong-scientific-research-for-banning-indoor-tanning.html)</p>
<p>If my brother had known 40 years ago what they know now about sun burns, tanning and melanoma, he would probably be alive today.</p>
<p>mini said:
</p>
<p>Only white males? Really? </p>
<p>How about males, in general?</p>