Tanning Ban Is More Than Skin Deep in Restricting Rights
Nov 12th, 2009 | By Adam Hopkins | Category: Featured, Morning Whiskey
The other night, as I sat in my living room watching the local news I saw a story that really made me shake my head. The news reported that officials in Howard County, Maryland, had banned people under the age of 18 from using tanning beds.
Huh.
Why? It’s because health officials in Howard County convinced the local government that teenagers are at too high a risk for melanoma and other types of skin cancer, and therefore shouldn’t expose themselves to indoor tanning. While one can argue that yes, tanning beds do increase the likelihood of getting cancer, banning our youngsters from going to tanning salons is not the right thing to do.
The ban, which takes effect today, means that teenagers who want to look like they went to Florida in the middle of January will have to either settle for pale skin this winter, or seek un-conventional methods of getting an artificial tan. All because it wouldn’t be nice to expose them to harmful rays. (Maybe Howard County would like to legislate which hours teenagers can be outside in summer, too.)
Now, this is exactly one more example of government intervention where it shouldn’t be intervening at all. The government — local, state and national — should promote healthy living and let us know what’s out there, in terms of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. But banning us from doing something like going to a tanning salon is nonsense. If 16-year-old Jane Q. Public wants to strap on her bikini and go to a tanning salon, that’s her business. (Heck, if 60-year-old Jane wants to do the same thing, that’s her business, too. Who am I to judge?) Aside from parents, who’s to say she has no right to do that?
I myself don’t frequent tanning salons, and thus have never been in a bed. (Whether by natural or artificial UV light, the results aren’t pretty.) But from what I understand from friends who do go to them, the salons give potential tanners a heads up that, yes, the lights are potentially harmful. And then it is up to the customers to decide whether or not they want to go forward and get a tan.
The bottom line is, people are smart enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want a tan. And they’re smart enough to do some research about salons, artificial tanning in general, the health risks, and decide if the pros outweigh the cons. Putting a ban on people under 18 from tanning won’t resolve anything. It’s just like underage smoking…teenagers who want to smoke are still going to get cigarettes. Most teens are taught — at an early age — the dangers of smoking and the consequences on the human body. But they choose to light up anyway.
Who’s to say that teenagers (and indeed, anyone really) wouldn’t go try and find some sort of underground method of getting their tan? They might know someone who knows someone who has a cheap, black-market kind of tanning bed, and get some artificial rays that way. Now, assuming this underground salon doesn’t know what they’re doing and has sub-standard beds, etc., isn’t that more dangerous for our kinds than for them to go to a “professional” salon?
Besides, in addition to all of these questions, I have yet another, this one directed at an institution we call government: Don’t you have more important things to worry about? Whether you’re in a local town, a state capital or Washington, methinks the answer to that question is “yes.” There are staggering debts everywhere, which we’re expecting our grandchildren’s grandchildren to pay off. There’s talk about nationalizing healthcare, which the House of Representatives gleefully voted “yes” to last weekend like the cat that just ate the canary. There are our brave men and women in uniform, fighting overseas for reasons we’re not really sure about, and some people are trying to figure whether or not we should bring them home.
These issues aren’t just for the seemingly far-off folks on Capitol Hill; they touch us closer to home also…including those in Howard County. I would guess these topics would carry more urgency than putting a simple ban on underage tanning.
If anything, the teenagers of Howard County, Maryland ought to use this issue as a civics lesson. It’s classic example of how government works…err, doesn’t work. And they ought to follow the example from their older fellow Americans across the country, who’ve hosted many a town hall debate about healthcare over the last few months. Why not host a town hall with their local officials and get this law overturned? This is America, the last time I checked. We CAN repeal laws…look at how we used the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th.
Also, this should serve as a warning to those same teenagers that government likes to slowly slither its way into our private lives and try to control them, one little bit at a time. Next thing you know, it’ll write laws forbidding grocery stores to sell candy and other types of junk food. Or requiring people to only drive their cars are certain hours of the day. Need I go further with my examples?
It’s just a bad idea to ban those under 18 from using tanning beds…in Howard County or any other locale. It’s just another example of government extending itself, and it doesn’t promote personal responsibility on the part of the private citizen.
Sincerely,
Adam Hopkins
November 12, 2009
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Agora Financial, Whiskey Gunpowder. Whiskey Gunpowder said: Tanning Ban Is More That Skin Deep in Restricting Rights: The other night, as I sat in my living room watching the lo… http://bit.ly/ahpFK [...]
Nice article, Adam, and an excellent example of government out of control. This is an issue of freedom, not health.
It isn’t really a health issue, either! The hysteria over skin cancer is another bit of misinformation and media hysteria. Sunshine is actually good for you and the rise of skin cancer coincides with the rise in use of sunscreens. No, you should not get a sunburn deliberately, and you should take sensible precautions the first few spring days, but there is no need to slather yourself with SPF 30 constantly.
They do keep trying to reach the point where everything not forbidden is mandatory.
Linda
[...] Read the original post: Tanning Ban Is More That Skin Deep in Restricting Rights [...]
Wow, I actually disagree with someone on W&G!
Personally, I’m a big fan of community standards. So if a county wants to ban booze, so be it. If a county wants to allow gay marriage (although I think any state sanction marriage is a violation of church and state, so let’s call it a ‘civil union’), so be it. If a county wants to give their youth a lesson on overactive oppressive government, so be it.
Why don’t I care? Because you can move from county to county pretty easily. Mormons too uptight for you? Try the Lower East Side!
Now, if this was a FEDERAL law, banning all under 18 from using tanning beds… RRRrrr!
The thing we want to strip the power from is the FEDERAL government. Let the states and counties be as freaky or conservative or crazy libertarian or middle of the road as they want. Vive la différence!
I agree with you a little on this. As someone who has had skin cancer (multiple times and locations) from growing up in Florida as fair skinned boy (and no sunscreen), I can say that skin cancer is an issue. Now, like a lot of things, it’s an issue because we can now detect and treat it skin cancer. I’m sure plenty of folks in the world have gotten it/have it/will get it. In the past, it was probably mostly ignored. I know I ignored one spot for many years- even though it bled at night (long story).
I think folks who use tanning beds should be allowed. HOWEVER, I think that any consequences (long term or short term) should be paid by them- all medical procedures, treatment, etc. Not by their insurance company, not the local, state, or federal governments. But by the individual who took the risk (and gained the “perceived” benefits).
Sitting in a tanning booth is (perhaps there are some exceptions) purely cosmetic. Egged on by Hollywood, fashion magazines, popular culture. Federal gov’t should not regulate this. Neither should state or local. If people want/need a nanny state, they should go live in Great Britain- which is doing an excellent job of becoming the world’s biggest baby-sitter for it’s people.
And sunscreens cause cancer Lynda? Everything in moderation. My doctor and wife remind me (a lot) about always putting on sunscreen. But I think some sun is good for health and life. And I hate putting on sunscreen.
I don’t sit out in the sun but as you know, working on a small farm I’m going to get some sun.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by WhiskeyGunpowde: Tanning Ban Is More That Skin Deep in Restricting Rights: The other night, as I sat in my living room watching the lo… http://bit.ly/ahpFK…
This is quite a provocative essay, Adam. I read it yesterday, but didn’t have 20 minutes for due diligence, so didn’t opine.
You write: “Why? It’s b/c health officials in Howard County convinced the local government…”
This is factually incorrect. These are regulations adopted by the Board of Health. Period. Why, indeed? According to the press release of the Dept.: “…to provide comprehensive protection for children against the dangers of indoor tanning.”
I agree that this should be the parents’ call. Absolutely.
Also agreed: great potential civics lesson.
I wonder…perhaps the parents weren’t doing their jobs. Wouldn’t be the first time. Maybe the kids were competing with their tans. Wouldn’t be the first time. Howard County looks pretty “upscale” at first glance; maybe a deep, dark tan became the “gotta have” teen status (after the cell phone, of course!). Sexy! Must tan!
I wonder…perhaps the teachers started to become concerned when the, say, 7th graders appeared to be tanning 4x/week. Maybe most of the H.S. Junior Class had been tanning for years…”right here in River City.” Maybe some family doctors became concerned.
I wonder…maybe the movie theater owners were upset that the “teenage disposable income” was going elsewhere. Maybe the mall tenants became concerned when groups of 14-year-olds started hanging at the tanning salon.
The civics lesson might be: The kids didn’t know the health dangers and the parents didn’t know or (yes) didn’t care enough to “hassle” them about it. Now, some of these CHILDREN may choose not to go, what? 15 miles? to be competitively c-o-o-l.
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke…when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor………………thats right water……….you ever burned leaves in the fall…know how the heavy smoke bellows off…….thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made……thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006……..after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons…….because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ……..they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position…….as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa’s is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa’s study on shs as junk science……… Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke “health hazard” claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
concludes that “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed.” What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers…..
meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:
Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent ” The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: ‘There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.’ ” And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.
The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). – (Excerpted from “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” with permission of the author.)
The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It’s not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/i.....icle/7451/
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: “Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978
Dear Skot:
NIce response! PLEASE write and tell me about your farm–where, what you grow, and so forth.
You incorporated several beliefs I consider key, including the ability to make our own decisions and the obligation to take responsibility for them. Skin color among Caucasians has been a matter of status for hundreds of years. When most worked in the fields a very pale complexion was a sign (obviously) that one was not a serf or a dairy maid who carried heavy buckets of milk instead of a parasol. Once most began working in offices, tans distinguished the leisured classes from the troglodytes. With the advent of tanning beds I suppose we’re to the star-bellied sneetch point and skin color is determined by personal preferences, with “status” still leaning more for tans–because one means you either don’t labor in artificially lit caves OR you have time and money to go lie in tanning beds? If I had MY druthers my skin would be the color several friends from the Philippines have naturally, a deep, goldeny honey shade. My Celtic ancestry leaves me quite melanin-deprived and I refer to my color derisively as “fish belly white.”
To each his own when it comes to choosing our minor household gods; some of us “believe” in the AMA and others in Adelle Davis or acupuncture. I did not say that SPF “causes” skin cancer; I noted that skin cancer has risen over the decades during which use of sun screens has become prevalent. It may be some ingredient in the screen, it may be pure coincidence, or it could be that our bodies need sensible amounts of genuine sunlight. Our minds certainly do. One very persuasive scientific theory indicates fifteen minutes of full sunlight on our faces a day is very beneficial. I get most of mine sitting out on the terrace with MDC every afternoon possible which isn’t scientific, just our idea of fun. Hope to hear about your farming. Linda
Dave, I’m sort of with you, but not entirely. It is imperative that we rein in the Statists at the highest levels, but I’m not in favor of letting baby Nanny States run amok, either. City Councils tend to attract the most “progressive” elements and there is an organization devoted to manipulating mayors; its agenda urges them to pass a minimum of three pet restrictions a year. City councils oppress in strange ways–such as a ban on keeping chickens and outlawing giving away kittens on a public street. Those are actual examples from Tacoma, Washington, in the Nineties. It is time to start sitting on all of them. Linda
You are an idiot Adam Hopkins. People, especially kids, are not smart enough to do the research. If they want a tan then, let them lay in the sun. Using your reasoning then why don’t we let 10 year olds drive a car? Huh? Or why don’t we let 16 year olds decide if they want to hammer back a few whiskey sours every day? You are an idiot Adam Hopkins.