More and more we’re seeing legislatures and cities around the nation enacting so called ‘nanny laws’ to protect their citizens from themselves. For example, here’s a story about California (of course) wanting to ban smoking in cars and one about the whole banning trans fat issue.

While some of these types of laws are ones which protect innocent bystanders (like no cell phone use while driving which can cause accidents), too many seem to come from lawmakers who need to justify their salaries somehow like the one below. It may be a real problem, but should government be involved?

States say no to teen tanning

No smoking. No drinking. No talking on cell phones while driving. Now, the latest no-no in state laws aimed at underage teens is indoor tanning.

Spurred by worries about skin cancer, Utah and Virginia this year joined 25 other states in placing limits on teens seeking a bronze glow from the ultraviolet lights of a tanning bed. North Dakota’s Legislature is putting the final touches on a measure to also clamp restrictions on tanning salon patrons under age 18.

Most of the laws require underage teens to get mom’s or dad’s permission to lie under the tanning-bed heat lamps that emit intense UV light. A handful of states completely ban access to artificial UV light in salons for those younger than 13, 14 or 16. Others require teens to bring along a parent or a doctor’s prescription.

Critics say the tan bans are an example of government overreaching, while advocates compare the use of tanning beds to cigarette smoking and the drinking of alcohol – unhealthy practices states already put off limits to minors.



  1. undissembled says:

    This should be banned for all women. I see so many biotches walking around with blond hair and skin so f’n dark. It doesn’t look right.

  2. DontGetIt says:

    Yah…

    I don’t get the whole thing with tanning, either — but I’m not a vain moron that thinks with their eyes and expresses themselves with their pocketbooks.

    You can always recognize the tanners, especially the ones that smoke, years later. They wanted to look older, and they do — WAY older — like wrinkled scrotum-like grandmas in their mid-30s.

  3. Fred Flint says:

    The author Joseph Wambaugh correctly pointed out there is a direct correlation between safety and freedom. The more safety you have, the less freedom you have.

    You can safely walk down the street in a fascist state – but only if the government says it is OK for you to #1 walk and #2 walk down that particular street #3 at that particular time, etcetera.

    The U.S. is supposed to be the symbolic home of freedom in this world. So some stuff isn’t safe? So what?

  4. undissembled says:

    So when these morons get cancer when they are older, do we have to pay for the treatment with tax money?

  5. Timbo says:

    Humanist prudes!

  6. Smith says:

    #5 — That is the lamest argument used by Crusaders to restrict the activities of others. The reality is that we can spend tens of thousands helping that individual fight a losing battle against melanoma at age 50 or we can spend tens of thousands helping that individual fight a losing battle against old age at 70. At least at 50 there is some chance she has private medical insurance to cover the cost.

  7. MikeN says:

    And only 5 posts away from complaining about people going to work at jobs with low pay and no health care, with some commenters wanting the activity banned.

  8. Steve S says:

    What is it about California that brings on this type of fascist behavior from its politicians?

  9. #1 I am with you. I found it ironic when i live in California that I saw more tanned bleach blondes when I traveled to Oregon than I did in Cali.

  10. bac says:

    How much does it cost the insurance industry to pay out for cancer treatment? Could it be that politicians are “being informed” by the insurance industry on just how deadly skin cancer could be. Where do nanny laws come from? Follow the money.

  11. Thomas says:

    RE: Smoking in cars
    Instead of banning smoking in cars, they should simply require people to roll up their windows entirely if they are smoking in their cars. If you want to smoke, then do it so no one else can smell it.

  12. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    I despise PC nanny-statists as much as anyone, if not more.

    HOWEVer… I personally believe if the term is not to become diluted and thereby inevitably lose meaning and impact, it should be applied to only those who would impose unreasonable restrictions upon the freedom of otherwise free adults.

    Children, the mentally disabled, convicted felons – whether people who can not be deemed competent to make certain life-changing decisions, or those who have lost their rights through violation of the social contract, there are subpops for which restrictions on their actions is appropriate and in the greater pop’s self-interest.

    I have no problem with most proposed limitations on the behavior of preadult persons, and that’s what this is, so I’ll reserve my outrage for a more apt target.

  13. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #3 – I think people should be allowed to do almost anything that doesn’t hurt somebody else. Big believer in thinning the herd.

    While I don’t particularly agree with the sentiment… I would point out that in the case of human populations, thinning the herd works better BEFORE the herd reproduces rather than after.

  14. TheGlobalWarmer says:

    Tanning in the sun is a good and relaxing. Tanning booths are silly.

    As far as bans, they should ban tanning in cars and smoking while tanning.

  15. Angel H. Wong says:

    #13

    So… It’s okay for a teenager to have sex with a 40yo but not okay to get tanned?

  16. Angel H. Wong says:

    “Spurred by worries about skin cancer, Utah and Virginia this year joined 25 other states in placing limits on teens seeking a bronze glow from the ultraviolet lights of a tanning bed.”

    That’s because when they go hispanic bashing at night they want to differentiate between a white kid and a non white kid.

  17. Terry says:

    I can’t believe I’m doing this…

    #16, Angel – Lauren has a point. I believe it’s a good point. Your assertion doesn’t follow from anything written at #13.

  18. V says:

    Hey, I appreciate tanning. It tells me who the dumb girls are.

    If they want to go after these places, then start spot-checking them for health violations and false advertising. There’s standards about how these places use their equipment, what they tell their customers about health risks, and they don’t follow them.

  19. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    Terry, Angel’s referring to this thread, from last month.

    Angel, I didn’t specifically endorse this particular measure, I noted that I have no quarrel with many restrictions on preadults which address potentially life-threatening consequences.

    In any case, this is about American states imposing this restriction. It seems like it’s not unreasonable. Exposing yourself to an artificial source of concentrated UV for vanity purposes is an unnatural activity with a long-term & potentially lethal downside for little benefit. Sex is a somewhat different kettle of wax ball of fish.

    Anyway, I strongly suspect, as with unwisely choosing sex partners, Hungarian (and other EU nations’) teens, moreso than our notoriously consequence-oblivious American teens, generally have better sense than to do this.

  20. Terry says:

    #20 – gotcha, missed it the first time around but have since read it.
    That thread was, uh, energetic.

  21. jccalhoun says:

    This seems just as arbitrary as seatbelt laws to me. I have never been in a tanning bed and I always buckle my seatbelt, but why in the world should there be laws against such things?

    So it would be illegal to smoke in your car, but it would be legal for that car to be a Hummer which gets 10 mpg in the city? That’s some good logiceering there…

  22. Angel H. Wong says:

    #20

    No worries, parents who let their kids bake in a tanning booth are irresponsible, teens are after all minors.

    I’m going to spend the WHOLE Easter week working at the beach and I’m going to sunroast under a 100 degrees Farenheit sun…

  23. Odyssey67 says:

    Whether or not you smoke in your car is your business. Government should have no say in the matter whatsoever.

    Banning transfat from publicly served food is different. The damage transfats do to the circulatory system is well documented, and the only reason restaurants and fast food joints & snack manufacturers ever used it is b/c it makes things so cheap (preparation & storage) for them. They knew it’s dangers for years, but said ‘to hell with our health’ anyway b/c they counted on the unlikelihood of an individual customer even thinking about it. That makes it a public health problem, and one that can only be solved with the power of government working on our behalf. If you want to make your own food at home with transfats however – again, that’s your business.

    Not letting minors use public tanning booths is essentially the same problem. Those booths are homes for all sorts of fungus and bacteria in the worst run shops, and the latest research indicates that the rays from those UV lights do a lot more damage to your skin than the Sun does. If you want to go out and buy one of the damn things for your home, knock yourself out. Like someone above said, you’re doing us all a favor & thinning the herd.

  24. BubbaRay says:

    24, This post is so late, it’s probable no one will read it. Unfortunate, for here is picture proof of the dangers of transfat. Warning– do not consume beverages while looking at this page — possible damage to nasal cavities from involuntary liquid exhalation.

    http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/03/post_135

  25. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #25 – I read it 🙂 But you are right… Sadly, even the highly intelligent readers DU have attention spans like typical MTV viewers… Me included…

  26. nonStatist says:

    The Businesses you are talking about are not publicly owned. They are in every sense of the word private. So a transfat ban is a form of nanny statism.

  27. State Farm & Friends... says:

    Post #11 was correct and it should be highlighted again. This has NOTHING to do with values, morals, religion, etc. Wall St. traded (for profit) insurance industry is driving this crap. Notice how you rates went way up after 9/11/2001? How about after Katrina?

    In history, as in politics: always ‘follow the money’.

    “How much does it cost the insurance industry to pay out for cancer treatment? Could it be that politicians are “being informed” by the insurance industry on just how deadly skin cancer could be. Where do nanny laws come from? Follow the money.”

  28. cheese says:

    Sigh. Where’s Snake Plissken when you need him?


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 9357 access attempts in the last 7 days.