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.
Silly post. How about a law that says kids can't sit in the sunshine ???
Do you really think our skin cancer problem is caused by tanning booths?????? Have you ever been to the beach and seen millions of people playing or relaxing in the sun.... and guess what, the sun causes skin problems.
You may need a nanny state to tell you when you can sit in the sun or sit in a tanning booth, but most of us do not.
What are your credentials for making the above statements?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
You are correct. But I've never met anyone like that or even heard of anyone who thinks melanoma is not a big problem. Who would that be ????????
See below (emphasis in bold mine)
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit
From YOUR article:
So teenagers are a very small minority..... Old white people seem to be the most at risk.
I didn't see anywhere in that article you posted where they said tanning salons are at fault....
To really address your paranoia people should be banned from going outside during the daylight hours.
But you're opposed to nanny state. Why do you, then, support the idea of the government defining who is, or is not, a minor?
Defining who is a minor is a critical decision that needs to be established so that commerce can be undertaken without harming those that are not able to make their own decisions. It's a basic part of a society...to agree on who is of age to be responsible and who is not.
Laws defining who is a minor has no relation to a nanny state. Laws restricting products which can be sold to a minor is not a nanny state. Parents can and should control what their children do at home, but they cannot control what they buy in the store.
A nanny state (such as what the current administration wants) defines what adults can do, and how they must raise their children.
For example, I don't think anybody has an issue with a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors. But as a parent, I should be able to choose to serve alcohol to my minor children. The same applies to tanning beds and many other products.
I want a law that prohibits businesses from exposing children to known, increased health risks.
Well, that's where we disagree. Parents should have that authority.
I guess using your philosophy we would prohibit the sales of soft drinks, french frys, baseball bats, BB guns, bicycles and a lot of other products that are known to increase health risks.
Defining who is a minor is a critical decision that needs to be established so that commerce can be undertaken without harming those that are not able to make their own decisions. It's a basic part of a society...to agree on who is of age to be responsible and who is not.
Laws defining who is a minor has no relation to a nanny state. Laws restricting products which can be sold to a minor is not a nanny state. Parents can and should control what their children do at home, but they cannot control what they buy in the store.
A nanny state (such as what the current administration wants) defines what adults can do, and how they must raise their children.
For example, I don't think anybody has an issue with a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors. But as a parent, I should be able to choose to serve alcohol to my minor children. The same applies to tanning beds and many other products.
Considering that you do not support government writing laws protecting children, but a parental responsibility, why is it critical for the government to define who is a minor versus not? Why can't parents take action as they deem necessary, and in the best interests of their children?
"Like the sun, tanning bed bulbs emit ultraviolet (UV) light to tan the skin. According to the study, UV light from tanning beds may be stronger than natural UV light. "Certain carcinogens are more of a risk to children than adults and UV light is one of those," says one of the study's authors, Dr. Robert Dellavalle, director of the dermatoepidemiology unit at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. "Teens need special guidance in determining risk."
And guess what, even though the federal government doesn't restrict teens from using tanning beds, several states DO.
The study, from the April issue of the Archives of Dermatology, found France was the only country out of six studied that bans children from using indoor tanning devices. Only three American states -- Texas, Illinois and Wisconsin -- have laws to keep children from using tanning beds.
So is Texas a "nanny state" now?
You keep repeating facts that everyone already knows and nobody disagrees with.
But you didn't answer my question, which was "who says skin cancer is not a problem?"
And yes, this Texas law is a nanny state law and it's really useless. Teenagers can tan at home in a bed, or they can fry on the beach for hours on end, but I guess that's OK because a business is not involved.
And yes, Texas has many "nanny state" laws, all of which should be abolished.
Defining who is a minor is a critical decision that needs to be established so that commerce can be undertaken without harming those that are not able to make their own decisions. It's a basic part of a society...to agree on who is of age to be responsible and who is not.
Laws defining who is a minor has no relation to a nanny state. Laws restricting products which can be sold to a minor is not a nanny state. Parents can and should control what their children do at home, but they cannot control what they buy in the store.
For example, I don't think anybody has an issue with a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors. But as a parent, I should be able to choose to serve alcohol to my minor children. The same applies to tanning beds and many other products.
If you want to put them in your home, you mean. You see, tanning beds in business establishments should be under the exact constraints you defined in all the prior included paragraphs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Well, that's where we disagree. Parents should have that authority.
I guess using your philosophy we would prohibit the sales of soft drinks, french frys, baseball bats, BB guns, bicycles and a lot of other products that are known to increase health risks.
Stop with the straw man arguments. Soft drinks, french fries, baseball bats, BB guns and bicycles are not inherently dangerous, particularly if used properly and/or in moderation.
There is no such thing as a "safe" tanning bed, especially for children, even when used "as directed".
"Certain carcinogens are more of a risk to children than adults and UV light is one of those,"
You even quoted it and said you agree with it!
Melanoma is the second most common cancer in teens and young adults ages 15-29
You quoted this and said you knew this fact, too.
And yet you want to equate businesses exposing children to dangerous UV rays that are more risky for them than for adults, and which causes the second leading cause of cancer in teens and young adults, with soda and french fries. How do you not see the absurdity of that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 You are correct. But I've never met anyone like that or even heard of anyone who thinks melanoma is not a big problem. Who would that be ????????
See below (emphasis in bold mine)
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit From YOUR article:
So teenagers are a very small minority..... Old white people seem to be the most at risk.
I didn't see anywhere in that article you posted where they said tanning salons are at fault....
To really address your paranoia people should be banned from going outside during the daylight hours.
You still have not shown anybody who does not think skin cancer is a problem.....
You still have not shown anybody who does not think skin cancer is a problem.....
I did. I said 'Teenagers'.
Teenagers are mostly idiots. They also think they're indestructible. I doubt very seriously that most teenagers have the vaguest clue about skin cancer risks, let alone at how much greater risk they are, precisely because they're teenagers, as borne out by empirical scientific evidence.
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.
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.
