|
Bill bans teens from tanning booths
Bill bans teens from tanning booths
Friday, May 21, 2004 Posted: 11:05 AM EDT (1505 GMT)
Refinance Your Home and Save
Want to refinance your mortgage, but don't want the hassle? Lowermybills makes...
www.lowermybills.com
Netzero Internet At 1/2 the Price Of AOL
Compare our Internet service to AOL, MSN, and Earthlink, save up to $120 per...
www.netzero.net
HEALTH LIBRARY
• Health Library
• Skin cancer
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Cancer
Diseases
California
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?
If this bill passes it proves there's no part of somebody's life this Legislature won't stick its nose into.
-- Ray Haynes, GOP assemblyman
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.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/05/21/tanning.ban.ap/index.html
------------------SNIP---------------------------------------
No smoking in restaurants, no downloading music, now, no tanning booths...Gag me with a spoon :)
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
W-B
|
Date: May 21, 2004 @ 10:29 PM
And that's not all: The New York City Transit Authority has proposed banning any and all photography and videotaping from the subways, claiming concerns of terrorism, with ONLY those in the news media with prior express permission being exempt from this edict - this per http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_141171549.html . Civil liberties groups claim that this proposed ban is too broad -- but we can see from the fights with the RIAA-MPAA-IFPI axis of evil how successful such people are with respect to their cause. So any of you thinking about making a home movie with your digital camcorder and doing so in the subway . . . |
|
NiceGuy2003
|
Date: May 21, 2004 @ 11:10 PM
Wouldn't it just be simpler to require tanning salons to require sunscreen in the booth? My neices frequent the tanning booth and they always put on sunscreen.
Of course this law will largely be unenforced, especially in rural areas and teens will just start going to the spray on tan salons. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: May 21, 2004 @ 11:28 PM
The FBI is warning people to watch for suicide bombers here in the US...says women who look like they are pregnant may be bombers, and watch for men with bulky coats who smell like chemicals on a warm day (I'm not kidding, this is what they are saying).
Check out the article about it at:
http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com |
|
compmore
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 1:11 AM
next we'll keep kids indoors under lock and key and spoonfeed them until they're 18 just to make sure they're safe |
|
Dreddsnik
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 9:15 AM
hmmm,
"And that's not all: The New York City Transit Authority has proposed banning any and all photography and videotaping from the subways, claiming concerns of terrorism, with ONLY those in the news media with prior express permission being exempt from this edict - this per "
A private individual could get a video of a crime committed by the police or person in authority. ( has happened ). If only the "big media" cameras are allowed, it is MUCH easier to shut them up.
I think that is closer to what the purpose is. Won't be long before private cams are not allowed in the street either.
Baby steps, ya know |
|
demonchild
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 10:16 AM
This is pry the road we are going down Dred, there is discussion in congress about phone cams etc invading privacy and so on. The issue that they are using is the morons who take pics up womens skirts and saying that this can't be allowed so I can see that this will eventually be an issue that will be legislated, since this country has no other issues that need to be addressed apparently. |
|
NiceGuy2003
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 12:43 PM
Yeah, I heard about that, Code. Sounds like the government's gone to war with people having babies, which is quite dumb seeing as Dubya is anti-abortion. |
|
W-B
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 12:55 PM
To 'Dreddsnik': Although Mayor Mike Bloomberg -- the same guy who banned smoking -- thinks the T.A.'s proposed subway photo ban is too much. He said it would have more of an adverse effect on tourists than on would-be terrorists.
http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_143064419.html |
|
TheSherminator
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 1:19 PM
I don't care about the banning of tanning booths. It's not like the seat belt law (which is stupid). Tanning booths might as well exist for the sole purpose of causing cancer. They have beaches in California. They can still go there right? So stop complaining.
As far as the photography and videotaping ban - that is a serious problem and is just one more example of the balance of power shifting in the name of safety. I see the media can have cameras, but just no ordinary citizens. We've already seen the government's power grow way too much. They continue to take power from us, and now are giving more power to the media.
Maybe the annoying camera cellphones aren't such a bad idea. Us ordinary citizens can commit villainous acts like taking pictures without being seen and called a terrorist threat. Give me a break.
I don't understand what could have provoked this bill. Has there been an increase in sightings of middle-eastern people walking around with cameras that are followed by devestating attacks or attempted attacks? From what I see, people like the shoe-bomber don't need the help of a camera (or anything else) to slip past security and be 3 seconds from blowing up 300 or more people, and that was supposed to already be preventable. It sounds to me like the problem is our government and "homeland security", not cameras. Hey George, why don't you just put us all in jail so we're not only safe, but eliminated as potential threats?
Everybody is upset about pre-emptively striking Iraq. What about all the pre-emptive actions by the government that will "prevent terrorism" here at home? In my opinion it's worse. They're pre-emptively taking away our rights and our power. |
|
darkened03
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 6:46 PM
actually i think tanning both in general need to be outlawed. They are just too dangerous but of course this opposes america's super vanity complex and it won't happen. Just like ciggarettes and alcohol being among the leading causes of death (not illegal drugs that are supposedly worse) but are still legal.
Our congress is all bought off =/
Sometimes i really wish this was a democracy cause then i know us here at boycott-riaa could actually influence the laws cuz most people wouldn't care enough to vote for everything that would be brought up if this was an actual democracy but we would. |
|
pepe512000
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 7:55 PM
I really hate to take away from all this seriousness, because eroding your rights and freedoms is very serious stuff, but concerning this
"teens will just start going to the spray on tan salons"
These places really exist? like depicted on the Friends show?????
And as I said before, how long before they start shutting down fast food restraunts cause everyone is just too dumb to stay away them and gaining too much weight....health issue you know.
And I really fear for pregnant women down there...how much more hassled could they get? Bad enough you're carrying around an extra 30 pounds and then having some FBI goon coming around to strip search you for weapons! If that was me, I'd lay him out flat!
And I'm the nice Christian gal around here :)
North America is going NUTS!!! ~pepe~ |
|
TheWitchingHour
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 7:57 PM
Let them make their faces leather...who cares.
|
|
Satan1002
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 8:04 PM
this must be the riaas faul;t or it wuldn't be here. |
|
MP3user
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 8:06 PM
""teens will just start going to the spray on tan salons"
These places really exist? like depicted on the Friends show?????""
Oh yes, I was visiting friends in California, and we went to one of those places. It's reaslly cool. |
|
MP3user
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 8:06 PM
""teens will just start going to the spray on tan salons"
These places really exist? like depicted on the Friends show?????""
Oh yes, I was visiting friends in California, and we went to one of those places. It's really cool. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 8:16 PM
You tan leather, and tan your skin..crosslinking of proteins...ages you quicker... |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 8:16 PM
Free radicals will kill us all
:) |
|
pepe512000
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 8:27 PM
You tan leather, and tan your skin..crosslinking of proteins...ages you quicker...
BUT maybe not with a spray on tan machine?
MP3user
I wonder if I could get a franchise on that and bring it up to Canada :) |
|
pepe512000
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 8:31 PM
Just dawned on me, that selling spray on tans in California is sorta like selling icecubes in the Arctic. Wow, Californians are GOOD! (hope thats the proper terminology) |
|
TC4
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 8:35 PM
May I ask a question?
What does California banned anyone under 18 from tanning booths have to do with boycotting the RIAA and music
Anyone........
Anyone.........
Anyone at all............... |
|
EUHost
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 8:41 PM
about tanning dangers:
Is it so expensive or difficult to inform people rather than threatening them? Isn't it better to increase people's awareness of what's good or bad for them?
My point of view is that we deserve the chance to take the right decision by ourselves, or even the wrong. That's what i believe democracy should be. |
|
pepe512000
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 8:52 PM
TC4
Once again, it is a matter of government trying to get laws passed to control the masses. Much like what the riaa is trying to do, getting the government to pass laws to control p2p filesharing as they see fit. More government interference in noose tightening around your neck....just comparing the injustices of everything coming out nowadays that is eroding the peoples right to make decisions for themselves.
What EUHost said above... |
|
boggieman
|
Date: May 22, 2004 @ 9:16 PM
It must really suck to live in California these days. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: May 23, 2004 @ 7:38 AM
"Free radicals will kill us all
:)"
Hey, I AM a free radical, but I don't kill nobody... YOU TAKE THAT BACK! :)
...It's a slow news day TC4, whaddya want?
It should NOT be against the law to damage yourself if you want to... It should ONLY be against the law to damage others. Cell phone users cause accidents that can harm others than themselves. Tanners and those who drive without a seat belt only endanger themselves. These non-riaa articles are about repressive laws and restrictions by our governments. The riaa loves to make such laws. It IS wise to keep such things in mind on slow news days even tho the riaa has little or nothing to do with em.
Shmoo |
|
Exhumator
|
Date: May 23, 2004 @ 1:00 PM
"Idiocy breeds while the moral decays". The whole USA prescription system stinks. Why should I go to some stinking doctor who probably knows much less about myself when I do? Because some idiot can stuff his head with some drug that can hurt him? So what - it is his choice. Just put a label on it. Anyway, I am bringing all the medicine I need from abroad now. Sorry for being emotional. |
|
NiceGuy2003
|
Date: May 23, 2004 @ 2:22 PM
Well, they have spray tan salons here in my state (North Carolina) and from what I've heard they're the next big thing, mostly because some only take 15 minutes and all you have to do is stand there with your eyes shut. It also sounds a little more sanitary since a lot of people like to tan completely nude.
One person said that California has beaches that these kids can go to. Well now that's not an excuse seeing as California is a large state and not everyone lives in Southern California where the only good beaches are (further north the waters are colder and the beaches are smaller).
Yeah, they'll ban fast food restaurants the day they give up and stop selling their new "healthy" selections. They're too regulated now anyway, what with having to put up signs saying the coffee is hot. |
|
|
Navigation
