Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2010, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,647 posts, read 26,363,905 times
Reputation: 12648

Advertisements

The knee-jerk reaction by the uninformed in DC to impose a 10% tax on tanning salons reveals their ignorance on the subject of vitamin D and its role in developing young bodies, protecting us from deadly cancers (lymphoma, prostate, colon, lung and skin) and other health problems and preserving our health into our later years. If they really were concerned about artificial UV rays causing skin cancer, recalibrating tanning equipment to produce more UVB and less UVA would accomplish this end while preserving the health benefits for those of us in the northern latitudes.


A resurgence of Rickets Disease is connected to a lack of quality sun exposure since sunscreens block the life giving UV rays that create usable vitamin D as the skin is exposed.

"...changing lifestyles are also contributing to lowering vitamin D levels in the general population. "Some people are taking the safe sun message too far," Professor Pearce said. "It's good to have 20 to 30 minutes of exposure to the sun two to three times a week, after which you can put on a hat or sunscreen"

Doctors warn of increase in rickets cases | Society | guardian.co.uk


"Several studies observing large groups of people found that those with higher vitamin D levels also had lower rates of cancer. For some of these studies, doctors had blood samples to measure vitamin D, making the findings particularly strong."

USATODAY.com - Vitamin D reserach may have doctors prescribing sunshine (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-21-doctors-sunshine-good_x.htm - broken link)


"Dr. Holick and other experts say 1,000 units a day are needed, an amount few people consume through foods or supplements. Sunshine must fill in the gap. ''Between 90 percent and 95 percent of most people's vitamin D comes from casual exposure to sunlight,''

"Dr. Grant calculated that 85,000 fewer cases of cancer and 30,000 fewer cancer deaths would occur each year if everyone got as much sun as people living in the Southwest."

PERSONAL HEALTH - PERSONAL HEALTH - A Second Opinion on Sunshine - It Can Be Good Medicine After All - NYTimes.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2010, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Southeastern North Carolina
2,690 posts, read 4,218,086 times
Reputation: 4790
It already is taxed, if you live in a state with a sales tax. I pay almost 7% tax on mine. But I use less than I used to for the reasons that you mention in your post. And I don't trust the chemicals in sunscreens, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 01:09 PM
GLS
 
1,985 posts, read 5,378,383 times
Reputation: 2472
From a financial perspective, taxing sunscreens will not generate enough revenue to support the new health care plan.

Therefore, I advocate taxing the sun. Anyone caught exposing themselves to sunlight will be taxed within an inch of your life. People will be required to be screened at local airports for any signs/symptoms of sunburn.
Any evidence of sunburn will be a felony.........all future housing must be built underground.........

citizens will be relocated from Arizona/New Mexico to "shade camps" in the Pacific Northwest...........

wait, I'm not done....where did I leave my meds?..who took my ziplock baggie? No, honestly, its Oregano! Yes, oregano has seeds & stems......ok,ok, but its for my glaucoma
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 01:41 PM
 
27,212 posts, read 46,724,071 times
Reputation: 15662
On the radio they mentioned that this is a racist sexist tax!

The mentioned that more then 90% of the people tanning are white females so no black people get taxed and therefor it is racist!

I'm just stating what was said on the radio and IMO it is ridiculous to tax this.

People should be wise enough to know what is good and not the federal government taxing things to prevent things to happen....sooner than later they start to tax anything the government doesn't like and which is only bad if you over due or over use it...IMO they should start taxing it if you use it more then 30 weeks a year, or something not if you want to use it once or a few times a year...This thing is going to put more businesses out of business!

Next will be beer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Hawaii
1,688 posts, read 4,297,963 times
Reputation: 3108
OMG! Not my beer

This whole thing burns me up
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Tha 6th Bourough
3,633 posts, read 5,786,575 times
Reputation: 1765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellise View Post
It already is taxed, if you live in a state with a sales tax. I pay almost 7% tax on mine. But I use less than I used to for the reasons that you mention in your post. And I don't trust the chemicals in sunscreens, either.

Doesn't matter..the whole agenda is to tax us into hell...if they really cared about people getting cancer they would find ways to fix the machines to where they wouldn't give us cancer as well, but they just want to tax things and not get rid of the death trap of suntanning beds ....i say that because if they think it was so unhealthy then why allow those machines to still be used?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 10:01 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,672,493 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee View Post
On the radio they mentioned that this is a racist sexist tax!

The mentioned that more then 90% of the people tanning are white females so no black people get taxed and therefor it is racist!

I'm just stating what was said on the radio and IMO it is ridiculous to tax this.

People should be wise enough to know what is good and not the federal government taxing things to prevent things to happen....sooner than later they start to tax anything the government doesn't like and which is only bad if you over due or over use it...IMO they should start taxing it if you use it more then 30 weeks a year, or something not if you want to use it once or a few times a year...This thing is going to put more businesses out of business!

Next will be beer?
It might be racist - because in reality black people need these tanning beds MORE than whites need them at least in regions that are often overcast and cloudy.

Whites can get by with less sun because they don't have the melanin blocking the UV rays and so get more Vitamin D with less sunlight, but black people haven't adapted to cloudy climates the same way and so end up with greater Vitamin D deficiencies and all the problems that go with that. Including high blood pressure problems and certain cancers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2010, 12:30 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
12,372 posts, read 9,308,171 times
Reputation: 7364
Tanning booths can cause skin cancer and if the tax keeps some people from going, great.

Tanning Booth Tax - American Academy of Dermatology President wants ban because of Melanoma Skin Cancer Risk | Best Syndication
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2010, 12:35 AM
 
132 posts, read 89,025 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman View Post
Tanning booths can cause skin cancer and if the tax keeps some people from going, great.

Tanning Booth Tax - American Academy of Dermatology President wants ban because of Melanoma Skin Cancer Risk | Best Syndication


Thank you for the voice of reason. Why would anyone chance something like that? Vanity is a monster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2010, 12:35 AM
 
Location: Tha 6th Bourough
3,633 posts, read 5,786,575 times
Reputation: 1765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman View Post
Tanning booths can cause skin cancer and if the tax keeps some people from going, great.

Tanning Booth Tax - American Academy of Dermatology President wants ban because of Melanoma Skin Cancer Risk | Best Syndication

so if it causes cancer, and they are so worried about our health then why not ban tanning booths instead...maybe could it be because they want to make a profit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:59 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top