Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/25/2004 4:39:59 AM EST
Of course, playing outside in the sun all day in a swimsuit is okay... but don't you dare go to the tanning bed.

Next up... fines for parents who fail to apply SPF 30 to their kids.

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040925/hl_nm/health_tanning_dc

California Bans Kids from Tanning Salons

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's perpetually buff Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) signed a bill on Friday barring children under 14 from going to tanning salons in his sunshine-filled state.

California lawmakers backed the legislation in May citing concerns by dermatologists who blame the artificial light in tanning booths for contributing to a rise in skin cancer.

Violators could be liable for a fine of up to $2,500. Teenagers between the age of 14 and 18 need a note from their parents to go to a tanning salon.

Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:42:40 AM EST
You've GOT to be fucking kidding me.

How long is his term of office again?
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:44:27 AM EST
Can't say I've got any problem with this. I think tanning beds are a sign of societal pussification anyway. At least when I buy my cancer (cigarettes) I fulfill a chemical need rather than an emotional one (looking like you spend time outdoors even tho you don't in order to be fashionable).

Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:50:04 AM EST
My sister got skin cancer from a tanning bed. Personally, I think they're incredibly stupid.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:52:58 AM EST
Personal responsibility? Hello? Anyone?

I am not defending tanning beds. You use one, you know the risks.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:55:29 AM EST
Like putting yourself in a microwave oven! Funny that have replace common sense and judgment with laws.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:56:59 AM EST
Like putting yourself in a microwave oven! Funny that have replace common sense and judgment with laws.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:58:03 AM EST
Looks like he'll sign anything. Freakin robot!
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 5:01:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Personal responsibility? Hello? Anyone?

I am not defending tanning beds. You use one, you know the risks.



Yeah, I hear you, but I don't think kids under 14 are capable of judging that risk. Personally, I think it should be 18. After that, I don't care if people want to briefly expose themselves to radioactive waste to give their skin a healthy glow.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 5:05:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Personal responsibility? Hello? Anyone?

I am not defending tanning beds. You use one, you know the risks.



We're talking kids, right? Since when do we let kids have responsibility for taking dangerous risks with themselves? After all, we don't let them drink or drive or have guns unsupervised.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 5:08:21 AM EST
It sounds ike the peoples republic of Kommiefornia have a new daddy in sacramento, AHnold will taek care of you.

He's a doogooder.

Watch out cause he done did you good.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 5:08:39 AM EST
I don't think this is a bad law. Yes you have parental responsibility, but parents can't watch their kids 24-7 (mine couldn't anyway, and they weren't bad parents).

Should the legal drinking age law be repealed? Should we let kids buy cigarettes?
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 7:29:10 AM EST
What kind of fruit puts his kid into a tanning bed anyway?
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 7:30:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/25/2004 7:32:01 AM EST by sgtar15]
No problem here on my end.


Ofcourse I also agree that it is the parents that should be raising the kids. But when mommie and dady both work then the state MUST step in.


Sgtar15
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 7:55:36 AM EST
When CA passes a law that states that a Playboy Playmate MUST unzip all zippers for men before they urinate, I'll consider moving out there.

Until then, have fun in the sun
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 7:59:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By METT-T:
Can't say I've got any problem with this. I think tanning beds are a sign of societal pussification anyway.



Pussification, feminization....same thing
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 8:02:16 AM EST
Someone tell me when I need permission from the .gov to pee.

Don't want to break the law.

Link Posted: 9/25/2004 8:04:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By Strats:
Someone tell me when I need permission from the .gov to pee.

Don't want to break the law.




Are you under 14?
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 8:16:45 AM EST
Shouldn't we ban smoking before we start the nit-picking on these other things.

Sniffing propellants in paints got us a ban on selling them to minors. Same logic. Getting to be a more schizophrenic world we live in. Get used to it...it's coming to your town too.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 8:17:41 AM EST
wasn't there a lady out there charged with child abuse because her kid got a sunburn?
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 8:35:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
Shouldn't we ban smoking before we start the nit-picking on these other things.

Sniffing propellants in paints got us a ban on selling them to minors. Same logic. Getting to be a more schizophrenic world we live in. Get used to it...it's coming to your town too.



Hey now...I don't touch your beer or greasey foods....you leave my cancer sticks alone.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 9:06:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
wasn't there a lady out there charged with child abuse because her kid got a sunburn?



Not that I know of, but there was this


Dad Charged With Child Abuse for Not Putting Enough Sunblock on Child

A New Jersey man was charged with child abuse and neglect last month for failing to apply enough sunblock on his 12-year-old boy prior to a trip to the beach.

The mother of the mentally-disabled boy filed charges against her ex-husband after a trip to the emergency room where the boy was diagnosed with second-degree burns that left bleeding blisters on his shoulders, back and chest. The indictment claims the father failed to protect his son by not putting enough sunblock on his body.

The father could face up to 18 months in prison if convicted. Authorities noted the overwhelming severity of the burns pushed them to prosecute the boy’s father.



from www.mercola.com/2004/jun/12/sunblock_abuse.htm and www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/poole/qtr3/0828.htm talks about a case in OH
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 9:06:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By HeldHostage:
Hey now...I don't touch your beer or greasey foods....you leave my cancer sticks alone.



Yeah. Banning goes to far, I agree with you. You want to kill yourself, your prerogative. None of my business, shouldn't be anyone else's either.

Restricting access to minors, I have no problem with.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 9:18:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Personal responsibility? Hello? Anyone?



Dude... California! Hello???
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 9:28:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mmanwitgun:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
wasn't there a lady out there charged with child abuse because her kid got a sunburn?



Not that I know of, but there was this


Dad Charged With Child Abuse for Not Putting Enough Sunblock on Child

A New Jersey man was charged with child abuse and neglect last month for failing to apply enough sunblock on his 12-year-old boy prior to a trip to the beach.

The mother of the mentally-disabled boy filed charges against her ex-husband after a trip to the emergency room where the boy was diagnosed with second-degree burns that left bleeding blisters on his shoulders, back and chest. The indictment claims the father failed to protect his son by not putting enough sunblock on his body.

The father could face up to 18 months in prison if convicted. Authorities noted the overwhelming severity of the burns pushed them to prosecute the boy’s father.



from www.mercola.com/2004/jun/12/sunblock_abuse.htm and www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/poole/qtr3/0828.htm talks about a case in OH



I had several burns almost like that as a kid (blister were usually limited to ears / shoulders). Sunblock is of little help when you are at a water park or beach for hours. The real issue here is why the father let him stay out in the sun that long.

As for the topic at hand - it bears repeating that we are talking about KIDS UNDER 14! The fact that tanning salons would let 13 year olds in tanning beds to begin with is disgusting, so it makes plenty of sense that the state would have to step in.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 9:41:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By Adam_White:


As for the topic at hand - it bears repeating that we are talking about KIDS UNDER 14! The fact that tanning salons would let 13 year olds in tanning beds to begin with is disgusting, so it makes plenty of sense that the state would have to step in.



+1
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 12:19:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By METT-T:
Can't say I've got any problem with this.



Me either.

Hopefully they will need a parents permission slip for tattoos, piercings, and abortions too.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 12:20:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Personal responsibility? Hello? Anyone?



The law only applies to children. They dont typically understand the cause and effect relationship of personal responsibility.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 12:23:50 PM EST
that bites

h/w a tanning bed is kinda stupid; its wierd how some light skinned folks go get tans or go into tanning beds, while the darker skinned folks tend to want LIGHTER colored skin and they get skin lightner solutions in bottles

besides, too much tanning is bad--causes cancer and burned tissue
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 1:18:09 PM EST
Yep they need permission for piercings, tattoos, (not abortions - Federal Pre-emption) buying cigarrettes, booze, driving. I generally don't think the state should step in , the parents should have stopped it. Since they didn't and the industry won't police itself, then for a health hazard the state can usually make a compelling case. Cigarettes are a very good analogy. Piercings and tattoos aren't.

And trying to reguate common sense into young blondes is an exercise in futility.

Then again, it's our problem and all the crybabies crying about CA can find something local to whine about. Yah ever notice the people that get their knickers really twisted about CA don't live here, say they wouldn't live here. (Hamlet. Act iii. Sc. 2) Try and remind us why you wouldn't move here next midwinter. Otherwise cry in your own damn beer.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 1:24:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Personal responsibility? Hello? Anyone?



The law only applies to children. They dont typically understand the cause and effect relationship of personal responsibility.



Besides, this GIVES parents control. Kids 14 and over need to have their permission. Parents can't be everywhere.

Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:58:48 PM EST

Looks like he'll sign anything. Freakin robot!



Yep, he really did come back in time to Terminate..........

the peoples right to choose...
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 7:15:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/25/2004 7:19:26 PM EST by luger355]

As for the topic at hand - it bears repeating that we are talking about KIDS UNDER 14! The fact that tanning salons would let 13 year olds in tanning beds to begin with is disgusting, so it makes plenty of sense that the state would have to step in.


+1 again
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 9:45:11 PM EST
Funny how they ban minors from using tanning salons, but there is no such law prohibiting minors from having elective plastic surgery. I guess we know who has the more powerful lobby.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:31:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By mattja:
Funny how they ban minors from using tanning salons, but there is no such law prohibiting minors from having elective plastic surgery. I guess we know who has the more powerful lobby.



There's probably a lot more 13 year old with the cash for an hour in the tanning bed than with the cash for a nose job.

Heck, if they did try to pass such a law, apparently half of this board would see it as a violation of some other "right" to bodily modification!
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 9:00:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By METT-T:
Can't say I've got any problem with this.



Me either.

Hopefully they will need a parents permission slip for tattoos, piercings, and abortions too.



Ditto - I don't see why a kid 13 or under has any business in a tanning bed anyway. Has California really gotten so bad that kids feel the need to be tan to fit in? Parents really need to get back to teaching kids what's important in life. Get them outside to get some exercise and natural sun.

Dave
Top Top