Tanning Bill
Today the Argus Leader ran an article indicating the South Dakota Legislature is looking at two bills to restrict the use of indoor tanning for underage children.
One proposed law, Senate Bill 154, would outlaw tanning for anyone under 18. A second measure, S.B. 158, would let children use tanning beds but only with written permission from parents if under 18 and from a doctor if under 14.
While I appreciate the idea of protecting young adults from the dangers of skin cancer, I don’t think this is the appropriate route. Most, if not all, salons have regulations that require parental consent and/or provide education on the risks of skin cancer (albeit, not a lot) prior to signing up for a tanning package. I’d prefer to see government regulate skin cancer awarenes by making it a mandatory part of the public school health curiculum, or by creating public advertisements.
On the other hand, I do acknowledge that kids tend to take future health concerns with a grain of salt and feel impervious to risk.
What are your thoughts?
I think that they only way they MIGHT get this bill to pass is with the parental consent addition. Otherwise, I believe there are too many people out there who will hear it from their kids and thus vote no.
Side note: Isn’t it amazing how much our kids affect the way we think? I don’t THINK Kilian telling me how to vote would happen, but I’m sure that very thing does occur!
kari said this on February 16, 2010 at 2:47 am
i agree with kari. it will be hard to pass. do i think it should pass? maybe. i see parental consent to be a good thing at the very least. I’ve seen waaaaay too many teens waaaaaay to dark from tanning. it’s gross, and cancer waiting to happen. it’s become a serious problem for some young girls. though one girl i new got into it because her mom tanned too much. her mom looked like a lizard at age 40. i can’t imagine wanting to look like that, but i guess if that’s what’s taught… but that’s where parental consent won’t matter.
we try to protect teens from the cancerous danger of smoking, so why not try to protect them from the cancerous danger of tanning?
Carrie said this on February 16, 2010 at 8:09 am
All I know is the tanning salons I went to in HS and college did not need parental consent nor did they provide information on the risks, other than you should wear the goggles.
I know lots of HS friends who tanned against the wishes and behind the backs of their parents.
Holli said this on February 16, 2010 at 8:56 am
First off, I think that there are other issues more important than this one. However, if the government feels it’s important to waste time on this first 18 seems like a high cut-off point.
I would argue that no one under the age of 16, with parental consent down to 14 would seem more appropriate. I do remember being that age, and we were all knowledgeable to make our own decisions, at least on this topic, by that point.
Although, in the end, it’s not really being “banned” — it’s only requiring parental consent. In my opinion, if you were being a good parent, you wouldn’t need this Bill to make these decisions with your kids on your own, and follow through with them. And if you’re a bad parent, you probably don’t care, and they will find a way to do what they want anyway, so it’s a moot point.
It would probably be a better use of funding to go the educational route and presenting facts as additional curriculum in a health course. It’s a modern-day issue, so it would be good subject matter.
mike said this on February 16, 2010 at 11:34 am
I think that 16 or 14 is a load of crap mike
I’ve met plenty of people who are “grown adults” who would probably argue with you that McDonald’s offers a well balanced healthy meal as long as you super size it.
seth said this on February 16, 2010 at 10:17 pm
seth<—lol!
kari said this on February 17, 2010 at 12:07 am
If we can give them a license to drive, I’m pretty sure it’s ok to let them decide when to get a little bit of a suntan.
mike said this on February 18, 2010 at 10:14 am
Well, if we give them a license to drive, then should we give them license to drink and smoke at 16 as well? Those are also carcinogens with potentially negative consequences if taken to extreme (well, smoking pretty much always has a negative consequence)
kari said this on February 20, 2010 at 9:46 am
Actually, yes. I don’t see the harm in letting them all drink/smoke @ 16 as well. Most of European countries drinking age is around the 16-17 mark, and they don’t seem to have any problems arise from it.
A side note on the smoking, while I may argue you should have the right to smoke, I do think that in conjunction with that, smoking should be illegal in public places though. Just because you have the right to smoke, doesn’t mean other should not have the right to be in an environment without smoke.
You certainly should have the right to if you wish, but you just can’t have the right to do it in public places where you ruin experience for others. But that’s a different topic…
Mike said this on February 22, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I don’t have a problem with making kids wait until 18 to smoke, but I do wish it were illegal for everyone to smoke in public places.. oh, and cars. I hate sitting at a stop light and having someone smoke filter into my air. Grr.
I’m not sure I agree with 16 as a drinking age. I think American kids would kill themselves either by over drinking or by driving while drunk. Maybe 18, like Canada…
Sonja said this on February 23, 2010 at 11:51 am
you should start a new page/post for the smoking and drinking debates
carrie said this on February 23, 2010 at 12:04 pm