Calif. to Ban Teens From Tanning Booths (nanny state alert)

Yahoo! News ^ | May 21, 2004 | JIM WASSERMAN

[El Conservador]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A state famous for tanned bodies and year-round sunshine would be the nation's first to ban teenagers from artificial tanning booths if a bill passed Thursday by the state Assembly becomes law.

Lawmakers, citing a rise in skin cancer cases in California and across the nation, voted 42-26 to add artificial tanning to teenage no no's that already include smoking, drinking and buying lottery tickets.

Teens often visit tanning salons before proms, vacations and weddings, say owners of an industry that claims 160,000 employees nationally and $5 billion in annual revenue. California is estimated to have 1,500 tanning salons.

Backers of the bill, including the California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, blame tanning salons for part of 1 million new cases of skin cancer diagnosed every year in the United States. The group cited 7,400 deaths annually from melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

"There is a big difference between going to the beach and a tanning salon," said the bill's author, Assemblyman Joe Nation, a Democrat. "When kids go to the beach they put on sun screen."

The bill passed despite opposition from tanning salons and Republican lawmakers opposed to "meddling" in personal choices.

"If this bill passes it proves there's no part of somebody's life this Legislature won't stick its nose into," said GOP Assemblyman Ray Haynes.

Heidi Blank, manager of San Diego's Hollywood Tans, said she thought the bill could "hurt my business somewhat. But what are you going to do? There's people bigger than me making those decisions."

She said teenagers account for about 5 percent of her store's clients.

The bill, which now goes to the Senate for consideration, requires teenagers to have a doctor or surgeon's prescription before being allowed to tan indoors.

Along with 26 other states, California already requires permission from parents or a legal guardian for teens 15-18 to use artificial tanning salons. Children 14 and under must be accompanied by a parent or guardian.

___

On the Net:

Read AB2193 at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov

[TheBigB]

This might put all California HOOTERS franchises out of bizness...

PING to the newly-created REPUBLICAN PARTY REPTILE ping list, named after our spiritual founder, P.J. O'Rourke. What is the Republican Party Reptile? It is a creature of the eighties. It’s neoconservatism with its pants down around its ankles, the Rehnquist Supreme Court on drugs, a disco Hobbes living without shame or federally mandated safety regulations. The Republican Party Reptile supports a strong defense policy, but sees no reason to conduct it while sober. The RPR believes in minimum government interference in private affairs—unless the government brings over extra girls and some ice. In short, the RPR is the new label that our political spectrum has been crying out for—the conservative with a sense of humor and a healthy dose of depravity.

To be added or subtracted, just ask. :o)

[luckystarmom]

I don't have a problem with this. It's one thing to ban it from stupid adults, but that is not what their doing.

I wouldn't want my teenager to go to go to one of these salons.

My brother has terminal cancer from skin cancer. It's normal squamos cell carcinoma, and not melanoma.

My family is very susceptible to skin cancer, and I would have a real problem with a salon letting my kids tan without my knowledge or consent.

[LibKill]

Just how the heck did I get to be so old without Nanny?

[luckystarmom]

Your argument does not make sense.

I'd be madder if someone performed an abortion on my daughter without my knowledge or consent.

They should not be allowed to do either without parental consent as a minimum.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

You mean, George Hamilton isn't the spitting image of Zeus himself?

How does that guy walk around without blinding innocent pedestrians?

That's what I'd like to know.

[Mr. Lucky]

That was my point.

[fso301]

Ask a dermatologist what he or she thinks of artificial tanning or sitting in the sun for extended periods of time with or without sun screen.

Yeah, I know. You're arguably better off without sunscreen as wearing it may do little more that provide a false sense of security. You can't cover all of your body with sunscreen so, some parts of the body will be exposed for considerably longer periods than if no sunscreen was worn Even if you could get good coverage, the stuff wears off.