POLL: Stop Kids From Tanning Indoors?
State considers banning those under age 18 from 'fake' tanning.
California and Vermont are the nation's only states to outlaw indoor tanning for children.
Should New Jersey be next?
The Associated Press reports as the groups and lawmakers push to publicize the dangers of indoor tanning, the Garden State is taking the issue seriously.
Last week, a measure passed the Assembly banning indoor tanning for those younger than age 18, expanding a law that required parental consent for those between 14 and 17 and outright banning children younger than 14.
The report says supporters of an outright ban for children rally around a pair of talking points—that indoor tanning might increase the risk of melanoma and that about 33 percent of 17-year-olds tan indoors.
Detractors, however, say the government shouldn't control whether kids can use indoor tanning beds and that restricting their use could harm business throughout New Jersey.
In May, Nutley mother Patricia Krentcil sparked national debate when she was charged with child endangerment after taking her 5-year-old daughter to a tanning salon. And New Jersey has a reputation for "fake" tanning, thanks largely to MTV's "Jersey Shore."
But what do you think?
Should the state ban children from using indoor tanning beds?
Take our poll and tell us in the comments.
Observer
11:11 am on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
This is a no brainer. Google skin cancer or ask a dermatologist. If you want to look like someone else, spray it on!
Brady
12:53 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Not sure what you mean by a no brainer? What is a no brainer,
- kids shouldn't be allowed in?
- We need the government to intervene in personal choices?
- people are stupid and need to be controlled by the government (making the assumption those in government are smarter than me)
- cancer kills?
- all personal bad choices should be eliminated by government oversight?
Your comment was a little unclear. Just wondering what you actually meant by "This is a no brainer".
FourScore
9:03 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
I usually agree with posts that are against over-regulations, but where I draw the line is when kids are involved. Letting a 14 year old spend hours in a tanning bed is no different from letting a 14 year old chain smoke a pack of cigarettes, and there are parents out there who irresponsible enough to allow it. Once a kids reaches the age of majority, then they can decide whether to kill themselves, but until then, we owe them some protection from the stupidity of their parents.
Diane
5:47 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
More education, not laws.
jesscott
9:21 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Diane is my new hero. Where is the parental responsibility here? Is government and new laws the solution for everything? sheesh
Dw. Dunphy
8:51 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Look, the tanning beds have to go. Yesterday, as hot as it was, I saw people heading into the tanning salon. It clearly has a negative effect on the adults, so spare the children that glorious joy of Baby's First Biopsy. Chemotherapy is a grown-up thing: can't we keep it that way?
Alice Jameson
9:45 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
What happens if kids circumvent the proposed ban by badgering their parents to purchase an at home tanning bed? One can be purchased from Amazon for as little as $1,400. Is the state going to require registration of personal tanning beds and conduct random inspections of people’s homes to that ensure no one under the age of 18 has access to one?
Where does it end? No new law will alleviate the burden placed on society by parents who abdicate their responsibilities to their children in hopes of befriending them, just as previous laws have failed to prevent stupid people from engaging in irresponsible behavior.
At the end of the day, you can’t save people from themselves.
Jon
11:04 pm on Tuesday, May 29, 2012
I do agree that at the end of the day, you can’t save people from themselves. I also feel, though. that if somebody does something stupid like tanning or smoking, they should be forced to give up any and all government-funded health care that they might have otherwise received for any issues resulting from their ill-advised choices.
If I were their health or life insurer, I would be dropping them too.
FourScore
8:29 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
That's like saying that since I can buy booze and cigarettes and feed them to my kids at home, they may as well just be allowed to buy them on the open market.
Alice Jameson
9:32 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Hookerman:
Most vertebrate parents are quite capable of raising their young without government “help” or interference.
The proposed ban is nothing more than a further proliferation of the busy work government uses to justify its bloated existence.
FourScore
11:52 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
"Most" being the operative word. Most people don't realize that tanning can become an addiction as bad as booze and drugs, and the health consequences of the abuse can be even worse. Look at Ms. Krentcil, who has become so addicted to tanning that she has fried her own skin to tanned leather. Can a parent like that really be expected to know what is right for her kid??? There is a reason that we are one of only three states who has not banned tanning beds for children.
Alice Jameson
6:17 pm on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Hookerman:
First, you might want to read the first sentence of the article again:
“California and Vermont are the nation's only states to outlaw indoor tanning for children.”
Moreover, under current NJ law, children under the age of 14 already ARE banned from tanning salons.
Second, anything can be addictive. There are people who exercise to freakish extremes, sometimes crippling themselves or succumbing to suicide in the process. Shall a ban on children’s gym classes be the next order of business?
Third, and most importantly, there are laws on the books allowing the state to remove children from the homes of unfit parents. Ms. Krentcil’s actions have placed her in a position where her fitness as a parent has been drawn into question. The answer will ultimately be determined by the appropriate authorities.
lynn magnusson
7:31 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Outlaw tanning beds? Why? Because the guvmint feels a need? I sure wish they'd spend their time working on the economic issues of the day. Clearly, our legislators are spending too much time watching reality TV. As long as the sun still shines, tanning will occur. Perhaps the guvmint should collect fees at the Jersey Shore beaches for tanning? Now there's a way to make some real dough without putting small businesses out of business!
Kevin
11:36 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
What would be really nice would be if tanning salons made a rule, all on their own, that they don't let minors use the equipment without parental permission and supervision.
Chris Jansen
11:56 am on Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The last I checked sunshine was free. Now we pay for TV and bottled water. Keep sunshine free.