SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- 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 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 Thursday 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. A doctors prescription to use a tanning salon?? WTF
they do have a point, that tanning causes cancer and all, but: why are teens any different than adults? They can make their OWN decisions. Children are not just extensions of their parents. This is an obvious case of adultism, as the bill only applies to youth. It would be wiser (and less bigoted) just to require a sign on the booths warning of the risks of tanning (if it is not already a rule).
the problem isthat they are regulating what individuals can do...i have np with requiring a teen to need the permission of their guardian..but a doctors prescription is too much...there is no excuse for this
Thats fucked up..Exactly when did the government get this notion that its their job to protect everybody? If someone wants to risk cancer by tanning, so be it(what's the point, anyways, when they can just tan in the sun and take in the same cancer causing rays?)If someone wants to risk cancer by smoking, so be it..if someone wants to risk, oh i dont know, having a drug overdose by using drugs, so be it...Americans aren't stupid, Americans know the consequences of their actions. Next thing you know, they'll be banning fast food on the grounds of rising percentage of obesity.
Personally, I think it is a rather good thing for the government to regulate products that will kill us. But then again are people giving themselves cancer to look healthy, and we should probably not mess with Darwin.
ha, a republican against meddling in personal choices....haha...i guess pro-tolerance will be next on the republican agenda, give me a fuckin break....but yea this is another bullshit law pushed by those who think they know best, i guess this idealology plays on both sides of the political fence, just depends on which party gets the money from who....ain't america fuckin wonderfool
it just shows how full of shit democrats and republicans are...each one preaches on not regulating an individuals body on one subject, and then tries to regulate the body on another subject...
I agree, it's our right to chose whatever dumbass things we want to do. Those who know the effects and fight temptation will learn the most and be better people.
i agree, this is as bad as the click-it-or-ticket campaign....i mean hells bells, if i don't wanna wear my damn seat belt, why should they be able to make me, is it their damn business what i do???....or maybe it's the insurance's companies, yea that makes more sense, if fewer people get hurt in car wrecks then it is cheaper for the insurance companies, so they get the gov to take awya the freedom to not wear my goddam seat belt so they will save money and continue to bolster their profitablility....hehe, damn im getting good at this conspiracy shit....
What's wrong with California??? WHAT'S N O T WRONG w/Califonia? You couldn't pay me to live there. Way too many anti freedom laws and way way too many non English speaking people.
I was born and now live in California, there's a lot wrong with it. The biggest thing is the fact that voters buy in to legislation that limits their life choices because it promises them lower insurance or energy rates for giving up their options and rights. They have been so dumb in the past that they were one of the first to pass helmet and seat belt laws. But their insurance rates are still some of the highest in the nation. We voted for deregulation of our utilities and look at what Enron did to us. We are still trying to dig out. Someday perhaps they will wise up. In the meantime I am looking at moving to New Mexico. Tobacco is a nasty word and habit in California, and smokers have to hide to smoke, but the hospital and social service agencies have gotten rich on the funds provided to them. Do you really get a break for being a non smoker? Tobacco built the US, it's a legal substance, why should smokers have to act as subversive substance abusers. Who benefits? If no one owned up to smoking how many of the diseases now attributed to it's use and funded by anti smoking dollars would be lost. Show me the progress in disease prevention and control that these dollars have made. All they have done is fund advertising promoting anti-smoking so that insurance companies and medical corporations can be subsdized.
