Regulating indoor tanning?

[PeZook]

I've had cancer in my family. Three times, in fact: lung, lymphatic and pancreatic. That's probably why I get so angry when I read about shit like what you mentioned: if I lived in the richest country in the world I'd be living with my parents under a fucking bridge by now. Jesus.

[The Spartan]

It's the same with me Pezook. My mom's side of the family lives in Scotland (with a late aunt and uncle in Canada). That aunt and uncle of hers passed away in spite of end of life care without bankrupting their children. The same is true of my grandparents, who were very poor. The Scottish side of my family isn't wealthy in any way shape or form and they'd be ruined by a health issue in America. Yet my mom's sister is alive today because of Scottish health care. So's one of my cousins who had leukemia when she was younger, but is alive and well and now has a wee boy of her own. I haven't met him yet, but I've seen pictures and he's the cutest little guy.

Of course, there's also my mom's teeth... But it's been nearly forty years since British dentistry had their hands on them and I've heard it's improved since then.

And don't get me started on education. At least one cousin is getting his engineering degree, for free. I wouldn't even be alive if my mom hadn't been able to get her nursing degree and midwifery training in Scotland, for free, and then wouldn't have come to America "for a year" to work and I wouldn't be alive.

[andrewgpaul]

Speaking of sunbeds and Scotland, we went through all this earlier this year. From stories like this about a 14-year-old ending up with 70% burns, to the Sunbeds (regulation) Act 2010 (if you're having trouble with it, click "Original (as enacted" under What Version on the left). Basic\lly, use of sunbeds by under 18s is now illegal (at least in England and Wales; can't remember if there's an equivalent in Scotland).

edit: it comes under part 8 of the Public Health etc. (Scotland) Act 2008.

[Cecelia5578]

I once had a roommate who had a tanning bed at home; she was only about 40 at the time, but her skin looked like that of a 65 year old. I thought she was a...dumb motherfucker, to say the least. Besides, she lived in San Jose, which gets plenty of sunlight.
There are tons of women whose skin looks like shit because of excessive sun exposure, and its frustrating to see younger people latch onto the same dumb trend.

[[R_H]]

I once had a roommate who had a tanning bed at home; she was only about 40 at the time, but her skin looked like that of a 65 year old. I thought she was a...dumb motherfucker, to say the least. Besides, she lived in San Jose, which gets plenty of sunlight.
There are tons of women whose skin looks like shit because of excessive sun exposure, and its frustrating to see younger people latch onto the same dumb trend.

Why did she keep on tanning, wasn't it apparent to her that it made her look alot older?

[Cecelia5578]

I once had a roommate who had a tanning bed at home; she was only about 40 at the time, but her skin looked like that of a 65 year old. I thought she was a...dumb motherfucker, to say the least. Besides, she lived in San Jose, which gets plenty of sunlight.
There are tons of women whose skin looks like shit because of excessive sun exposure, and its frustrating to see younger people latch onto the same dumb trend.

Why did she keep on tanning, wasn't it apparent to her that it made her look alot older?

My only solution is that people are stupid; lots of people continue self destructive behaviours past the point where a small part of them realizes they should stop.

There are tons of women in the late30s/early 40s age range who have poor skin because of excessive sun exposure throughout their lives, and who still continue to tan, either in an indoor tanning booth or outside.

EDIT: I see these kinds of women all the time, at my day job of working as a cashier. Sometimes I'll see early 20 something blondes with ultra tanned skin, and I think to myself "This is such an ugly look, plus in about 20 years you're gonna look like shit."

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I once had a roommate who had a tanning bed at home; she was only about 40 at the time, but her skin looked like that of a 65 year old. I thought she was a...dumb motherfucker, to say the least. Besides, she lived in San Jose, which gets plenty of sunlight.
There are tons of women whose skin looks like shit because of excessive sun exposure, and its frustrating to see younger people latch onto the same dumb trend.

Why did she keep on tanning, wasn't it apparent to her that it made her look alot older?

There is that whole thing about tanning having the potential to be physiologically addictive. (As stated in the OP's article. The potential pathway, apparently, is that the stimulus for melanin production comes with an endorphin release.) The woman might've been doing it because she's addicted to being in the tanning bed. A real good reason to ban the damned things if ever there was one.

[KrauserKrauser]

Shit yeah. We should ban all addictive shit.

Alcohol, cigarettes, MMORPGs, tanning, you name it.

Then we should staple mittens on everyone's hands so they can never hurt themselves.

As a former user of tanning beds to treat my psoraisis, I would be upset if I had to go to the doctor each time I had a flare up because of OMG Must protect evryone from the dangers!!!

Exactly how does banning tanning beds but allowing alcohol, cigarettes and other addictive and potentially hazardous activities make any kind of sense.

Regulate? Sure, all for it. Ban? Fuck you

[Stark]

Is that a slippery slope I smell? Do you have anything mature to add to the discussion?

[Formless]

Alcohol, cigarettes, MMORPGs, tanning, you name it.

Yes, because clearly "psychologically addicting" = "physiologically addicting"

Oh, wait, that's just fucking wrong, and you know it.

Also, YES we should band cigarettes you amoral little fuck. Those damn things hurt EVERYONE who is exposed to them, not just the assholes who smoke them. The only reason they are still around is because society lacks the will and the tobacco lobby has too damn much power.

Idiot.

[darthdavid]

Yes, let's give the mexican drug cartels even more shit to smuggle. And while we're at it let's ban alcohol too, 'cause that worked out so well in the 1930s, amiright ?

Banning tanning beds could actually work, 'cause it's not like you can put one in your pocket to sell in a shady street corner transaction, but banning anything that's reasonably easy to smuggle never works well enough to justify the costs of enforcement, incarceration of offenders and all the other criminal activity that springs up around the illegal trade. If you actually want to reduce that sort of thing the only effective methods are education and taxation (but be careful, too much taxation and you stand to create a black-market).

[Formless]

You know, the funny thing about people who use the 30's prohibition to try and prove a ban can never work? Alcohol consumption actually declined in the 30's, and never really got back to the levels it was at previously. Oops.

There is more than one way to make a cartel disappear in a hurry. Though it would require mexico to stop being an economic hell hole, and yeah that's easier said than done. However, at the end of the day that's irrelevant because guess whose climate tobacco grows really well in? I'll give you a hint, it ain't mexico's.

[KrauserKrauser]

Addiction is addiction. While the treatments may vary, simply banning something because it is addictive is retarded. We have precedent from liqour to caffiene to pot that addictive substances can be used responsibly for their intended purposes with proper regulation for misues.

You don't like the cigarettes example, fine, what about alcohol. How does responsibly drinking alcohol in any way impact your life. Sure abuse has consequences but so does overuse of tanning beds.

My point is that calling for an outright ban on tanning beds does not compute when we have precedent of other physiologically addictive activities/substances that can be dealt with through regulation and are not banned outright.

[Formless]

Addiction is addiction. While the treatments may vary, simply banning something because it is addictive is retarded. We have precedent from liqour to caffiene to pot that addictive substances can be used responsibly for their intended purposes with proper regulation for misues.

Neither pot nor caffeine on their own cause potentially deadly illnesses like melanoma and other skin cancers. UV tanning beds do. This isn't rocket science, you know.

You don't like the cigarettes example, fine, what about alcohol. How does responsibly drinking alcohol in any way impact your life. Sure abuse has consequences but so does overuse of tanning beds.

Key word there: RESPONSIBLE. The very nature of addiction is that it leads to irresponsible behavior, as defined by the fact that it can destroy your health without any other factor having to be involved (like the possibility of driving drunk/stoned). In fact, if you were actually addicted to alcohol chances are you're going to destroy your liver for precisely the same reason.

My point is that calling for an outright ban on tanning beds does not compute when we have precedent of other physiologically addictive activities/substances that can be dealt with through regulation and are not banned outright.

Meh, I just chalk it up to the usual exaggeration people use when talking about these kinds of things. Technically, amphetamines are banned yet there was a time when I was prescribed similar stimulants (in terms of the biological pathways they worked through) to deal with the symptoms of my ADD. If there are legitimate medical uses for tanning beds, they can be dealt with the same way.

[darthdavid]

Nice strawman but I never said that prohibition doesn't lower consumption at all. The main thrust of my argument was that there will always be consumers for just about any substance you care to name and if you ban it an illegal trade will arise, carrying with it profound negative consequences.

Firstly, since there aren't any direct 'victims' in the traditional sense it creates a lot of problems with regards to actually enforcing these laws. This sets up an adversarial relationship between the police and the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving since they can't rely on crimes actually being reported and encourages numerous civil rights violations because that's about the only way you can actually catch a lot of the people who do this. Secondly, it creates numerous 'knock-on' crimes as sellers fight it out over territory, launder money, bribe LEOs to look the other way, seek revenge on snitches etc. Thirdly, bans often cause more harm to the people they're ostensibly 'protecting' than the original substance does. Addicts don't get treatment because they're afraid of getting arrested, users go to prison where they get raped, murdered and turned into hardened criminals and people die from drugs cut with poison and overdose because of inconsistent potency and misidentified substances. Fourthly, it costs more to ban something than it ever could to treat users/illnesses caused by use (all the extra police you need, all the prison guards, paying to keep people in prison, lost taxes because prisoners don't have jobs, lost taxes because the trade is all black-market etc).

Even beyond this though, I think that if a mentally competent adult wants to do something they should be allowed to do so as long as no one else is being hurt. Tax them to pay off social costs, ban them from doing it in a way that hurts others (see public smoking bans, which I whole-heartedly support) and educate them on why it's bad for them, but don't try and ban them from doing it outright, it's more trouble than its worth.

[aerius]

Banning tanning beds could actually work, 'cause it's not like you can put one in your pocket to sell in a shady street corner transaction, but banning anything that's reasonably easy to smuggle never works well enough to justify the costs of enforcement, incarceration of offenders and all the other criminal activity that springs up around the illegal trade.

You do realize how easy it is to build your own tanning bed since all the materials are available at your local Home Depot or theater & lighting supply company. I could go to Home Depot right now and have a tanning bed up & running by tomorrow afternoon. Hell, if you're deperate enough you could just steal a bunch of bug zappers, stack them in a vertical line and stand in front of it for a while.

[Stark]

Yeah, jerrying up a 'tanning bed' with lights is pretty easy; and almost certainly less safe as well.

If only the US had consumer standards it'd be trivial to fix this 'sitaution', but I have to echo the lolling around people so stupid they thought tanning beds were 'safe' anyway.

[Formless]

Nice strawman but I never said that prohibition doesn't lower consumption at all. The main thrust of my argument was that there will always be consumers for just about any substance you care to name and if you ban it an illegal trade will arise.

The same is true of murder. Your point?

This creates numerous problems. Firstly, since there aren't any direct 'victims' in the traditional sense it creates a lot of problems with regards to actually enforcing these laws. This sets up an adversarial relationship between the police and the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving since they can't rely on crimes actually being reported and encourages numerous civil rights violations because that's about the only way you can actually catch a lot of the people who do this. Secondly, it creates numerous 'knock-on' crimes as sellers fight it out over territory, launder money, bribe LEOs to look the other way, seek revenge on snitches etc. Thirdly, bans often cause more harm to the people they're ostensibly 'protecting' than the original substance does. Addicts don't get treatment because they're afraid of getting arrested, users go to prison where they get raped, murdered and turned into hardened criminals, people die from drugs cut with poison and overdose because of inconsistent potency and misidentified substances.

Even beyond this though, I think that if a mentally competent adult wants to do something they should be allowed to do so as long as no one else is being hurt. Tax them to pay off social costs, ban them from doing it in a way that hurts others (see public smoking bans, which I whole-heartedly support) and educate them on why it's bad for them, but don't try and ban them from doing it outright, it's more trouble than its worth.

Alright, let me put it this way. Other than a few legitimate medical uses (which as I already stated, aren't incompatible with strict regulation or public bans) what justifiable use for tanning beds are there? Or what if we were talking about a different kind of skin product that happened to be toxic (I'm reminded of skin lighteners used in certain parts of the world where brown skin is the norm but white folks are considered attractive)? Just because there is a demand for something doesn't mean society should allow it.

Also, I would point out that many of those problems that we see in western culture come from larger social/legal problems like the nature of our prison/legal system. Say for example if we put more effort put into ending prison abuse and changing the emphasis of the legal system towards rehab we should see a lot of those problems you mention go away fairly quickly.

[KrauserKrauser]

I still don't see how saying that as long as pot, alcohol or caffiene is used responsibly its ok but the calls for banning of tanning beds is entirely justifiable.

My main argument was that the multiple calls in the thread for an outright ban as many much more addictive substances are available and not banned. Regulated? Sure, I think some regulations on tanning beds would be a good idea. I just object to the idiotic hurr hurring about banning them.

Saying that tanning beds can cause melonoma while saying that smoking pot is a ok for you healthwise is likewise idiotic. Unless you are going to outlaw the burning of pot to get high and enforce vaporizers or cokking with it, pot is going to have negative health outcomes cause inhaling smoke is bad for you amiright?

[Formless]

I still don't see how saying that as long as pot, alcohol or caffiene is used responsibly its ok but the calls for banning of tanning beds is entirely justifiable.

Did you not notice the part where I said that becoming an alcoholic IS ITSELF an irresponsible act? Don't try and act like you weren't originally arguing that addiction is harmless. And furthermore, why the fuck can't you seem to get it through your head that not all addictive substances are uniformly bad for you? Caffeine clearly isn't a major health risk, and marijuana doesn't have to be either. Christ, I shouldn't have to tell you this, but here we are.

Just because society lacks the will or intelligence to see that something is irresponsible and do something about it doesn't mean bans are inherently bad or should be taken off the table completely as a way of enacting positive social change. All it means is that most people in society are idiots. Like you.

My main argument was that the multiple calls in the thread for an outright ban as many much more addictive substances are available and not banned. Regulated? Sure, I think some regulations on tanning beds would be a good idea. I just object to the idiotic hurr hurring about banning them.

And if the best counter argument is "well, all addictions are equally benign" you've got nothing.

Saying that tanning beds can cause melonoma while saying that smoking pot is a ok for you healthwise is likewise idiotic. Unless you are going to outlaw the burning of pot to get high and enforce vaporizers or cokking with it, pot is going to have negative health outcomes cause inhaling smoke is bad for you amiright?

Yeah, uh, what exactly is your point? Are you trying to one up yourself in the "utter moron" department? The very fact that there are ways of consuming marijuana that don't involve filling your lungs with smoke and shit means that its possible to consume it "responsibly" (i.e. without hurting yourself or others, although that's before considering the issue of DUIs), wheras this is not possible with alcohol, tobacco, or tanning beds. As a matter of fact, I would ban burning pot to get high, at least certainly in public places, for the same reason want to see cigarettes banned from public places (if not gone entirely). What's inconsistent about that?

[Mayabird]

I should've jumped back in way earlier. Maybe should've left out that part about yelling at each other too, though that likely would've happened anyway.

I'm with Krauser here, which is why I was saying to regulate and tax (which would also count as a disincentive, like heavy cigarette taxes - I remember this one guy responding to a rise in the taxes by saying, "Well then, I'll smoke less! That'll show 'em!" Didn't have the heart to tell him that was the point). We're already allowing lots of other addictive and harmful substances but under regulations (not to minors, etc) to contain the harm a bit while mostly preventing the bathtub gin effects.

[Formless]

It would be nice to have some statistics on what the exact harm this does is. I admit, a flat out ban may not be necessary. But at the same time, I don't see why it necessarily follows that just because some addictive substances aren't banned means that the option must be taken off the table entirely. When some of this stuff can and will kill you or ruin your health, what else is society supposed to do?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know, the funny thing about people who use the 30's prohibition to try and prove a ban can never work? Alcohol consumption actually declined in the 30's, and never really got back to the levels it was at previously. Oops.

There is more than one way to make a cartel disappear in a hurry. Though it would require mexico to stop being an economic hell hole, and yeah that's easier said than done. However, at the end of the day that's irrelevant because guess whose climate tobacco grows really well in? I'll give you a hint, it ain't mexico's.

Also, all addictive things are not created equal. Just because we shouldn't ban nictone because it would increase violent crime from cigarette smuggling doesn't mean we shouldn't ban tanning beds. I mean, seriously, what's going to happen? Underground tanning studios? Sure, but those are easily raided, and what's really the market for contraband tanning beds in shipping containers from Mexico? It's just simply much, much easier to ban tanning and with far fewer practical ways to subvert the ban criminally, so the benefit of banning outweighs the negatives, which is not true with nictone. Note, nicotine. I think we should ban cigarettes, but leave tea, gum, e-injector cigarettes and so on legal, so that the addicts can get their hit without threatening others, thereby striking the best possible compromise.

[Mayabird]

But would it be easier from a political standpoint? Maybe I'm missing something but tanning beds don't seem to have much of a social stigma around them, not like how smoking does. It's popular and is propped up by the current fucked up standards of beauty. Trying to outright ban instead of regulating would just lead to a lot of loud people bitching and the proposal being dropped. And while you're regulating, might as well tax it. As I said, disincentive, and it could pay for anti-tanning campaign materials, like with cigarette taxes.

[Zaune]

@General Zod: I can in fact think of one specific instance where allowing a minor to use a tanning bed for reasons that aren't directly medical is justifiable. An ex-girlfriend of mine went on holiday to Tunisia with her family, and since her complexion might best be described as 'unhealthily pale' (she looked, to be brutally honest, rather a lot like Magrat Garlick) she spent about an hour a week in a tanning salon for a month before they left in order to build up a degree of resistance to elevated UV levels under controlled conditions.