NE2: Northeast Healthy Skin Act of 2012 [Signed]

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

The Assembly will now consider legislation introduced by the Representative from Rhode Island. Debate will last 72 hours.

The Northeast Healthy Skin Act 2012

Given the cancerous causing effects of tanning beds on the human body, tanning beds and tanning salons are to be banned in the Northeast Region.

The ban shall be phased in over a period of one year.    

[Governor Scott]

I oppose this.  Why should the government dictate what people do to their own bodies with their own dollar?  And frankly, why not just ban natural sunbathing, as well?  Such a thing would be impossible and irrational, of course.  I would support placing age limits for people who can use tanning beds, but this bill is very overreaching.  I advise the Assembly to vote this down.

[Simfan34]

I have known a disproportionate amount of people who have lost their lives in such contraptions. I support this legislation.

[Senator Napoleon]

I don't necessarily oppose this but I wonder if there may be a better way to go about it. We could require tanners to be 18 years of age and have them sign a waiver before each use that warns of the risks associated with tanning. I would like to hear what Representative Winfield has to say before I take a position.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

I submit the following article by Susan Evans, MD, Dermatologist

http://www.doctoroz.com/blog/susan-evans-md/dangers-tanning-beds

The Dangers of Tanning Beds

By Susan Evans, MD

How Healthy are Tans?

A tan is no different from a sunburn in terms of the effect on our skin. Tanning is an indication that your skin has been exposed to UV radiation; none of which is known to be safe.


Ever since a tan was the sign of health and vitality, we have been battling the culture of society about the dangers of sun damage to our skin. Back in the 1920s they didn't know much about the dangers of UV radiation, any more than they knew about the dangers of smoking. Now, we know so much more, and yet for some reason much of society still believes that a tan is the ultimate sign of good health.


Sunburns and tans are both dangerous because they cause DNA damage to our skin. Your risk of developing melanoma increases after just one blistering sunburn. Squamous cell cancer increases based on your lifetime exposure to UV rays. Basal cell carcinoma risk increases based on the combination of intense sun exposure and lifetime exposure to UV radiation. UV radiation comes from the sun…and from tanning beds.


Tanning Beds
 
Tanning beds are not safe. Both UVA and UVB rays cause cancer. Tanning beds often exceed “safe” UV limits, despite the claims of the salon. Teens are at special risk because their bodies are undergoing such accelerated growth rates that their cells are more prone to the damage of the UV radiation. By routinely tanning their skin starting at a young age, teens put themselves at greater lifetime risk of developing skin cancer. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to get a sunburn in a tanning bed, and your eyes are at an increased risk of developing cataracts and corneal burns.


My Salon Says Their Tanning Beds are Safe

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but salons are merely marketing their wares and not telling you the truth. Salons may take the position that their tanning beds only make use of UVA rays, and tell you that they aren't quite as dangerous as UVB rays. A recent study in Australia has proven that UVA rays are even more of a cancer danger than previously thought.


Some salons try to persuade you that you need to get more vitamin D into your system, possibly even to prevent osteoporosis. While it may be true that you need more Vitamin D, the amount of time you need to spend in the sun in order to absorb Vitamin D is far less than is required for a tan.

 

UV Radiation

UV radiation comes from the sun and from tanning beds. UV radiation damages our skin and adversely affects our immune system. As previously mentioned, one blistering sunburn increases your risk of developing melanoma, which is a very dangerous and lethal skin cancer. You are also 2.5 times more likely to develop basal cell carcinoma and 1.5 times more likely to develop squamous cell carcinoma.


The FDA and the CDC both suggest that you avoid using tanning beds in order to prevent developing skin cancer. There really is no such thing as a safe tan from a tanning bed. In addition to the risk of developing skin cancer, exposure to UV rays causes your skin to age prematurely.


It's time we rethink our position on the standards of beauty. Tan really is not beautiful; it is a walking advertisement for skin cancer.

 

[Senator Napoleon]

I am leaning in favor of this proposal. Is there any way to make tanning beds in the region safer by lowering the UV radiation?

[Cincinnatus]

Though I no longer have standing in this body, I'd just like to take some time to mention how absolutely ridiculous the first draft of this legislation is.  Going about it by outright banning tanning salons?  I'm in complete agreement with the Senator on this issue, and I honestly hope the majority of Rep's are of the same mindset.

[Governor Scott]

I don't think any of us doubt that exposure to UV radiation is unhealthy, but outright banning tanning beds is, to put it frankly, ridiculous.  I am personally okay with tanning salons as long as consumers are well-informed of the health risks and are of proper age.  Banning tanning beds from the region would kill jobs and I am certain that some New Jerseyans would be quite unsatisfied with this act, possibly to the point of rebellion.

[Senator Napoleon]

I don't think any of us doubt that exposure to UV radiation is unhealthy, but outright banning tanning beds is, to put it frankly, ridiculous.  I am personally okay with tanning salons as long as consumers are well-informed of the health risks and are of proper age.  Banning tanning beds from the region would kill jobs and I am certain that some New Jerseyans would be quite unsatisfied with this act, possibly to the point of rebellion.

Which is why I lean in favor of this proposal...I was not elected to aid New Jersey in cultural negligence. I think my 18 and up only combined without a signed waiver is the best way to go.

[Simfan34]

I don't think any of us doubt that exposure to UV radiation is unhealthy, but outright banning tanning beds is, to put it frankly, ridiculous.  I am personally okay with tanning salons as long as consumers are well-informed of the health risks and are of proper age.  Banning tanning beds from the region would kill jobs and I am certain that some New Jerseyans would be quite unsatisfied with this act, possibly to the point of rebellion.

Certainly my background might prevent me from being too sympathetic, but the idea that you are seriously considering such things is insulting to me as a New Jerseyan.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

I oppose Representative Winfield's proposal. An outright ban on tanning would be outrageous. I'm also against "phasing in" any new laws; whenever we pass something, it should go into effect immediately.

I support the proposals suggested by the Governor: No minors, and a required waver.

I would also support a heavy tax on this activity, if other members of this body incline toward supporting it, with all proceeds going toward grants for cancer research.

[Governor Scott]

I don't think any of us doubt that exposure to UV radiation is unhealthy, but outright banning tanning beds is, to put it frankly, ridiculous.  I am personally okay with tanning salons as long as consumers are well-informed of the health risks and are of proper age.  Banning tanning beds from the region would kill jobs and I am certain that some New Jerseyans would be quite unsatisfied with this act, possibly to the point of rebellion.

Certainly my background might prevent me from being too sympathetic, but the idea that you are seriously considering such things is insulting to me as a New Jerseyan.

I do not mean this as an insult to all New Jerseyans, of course.  Just the radical nationalist groups.

[Simfan34]

I don't think any of us doubt that exposure to UV radiation is unhealthy, but outright banning tanning beds is, to put it frankly, ridiculous.  I am personally okay with tanning salons as long as consumers are well-informed of the health risks and are of proper age.  Banning tanning beds from the region would kill jobs and I am certain that some New Jerseyans would be quite unsatisfied with this act, possibly to the point of rebellion.

Certainly my background might prevent me from being too sympathetic, but the idea that you are seriously considering such things is insulting to me as a New Jerseyan.

I do not mean this as an insult to all New Jerseyans, of course.  Just the radical nationalist groups.

The what? I too would support the Governor's proposal.

[Governor Scott]

I don't think any of us doubt that exposure to UV radiation is unhealthy, but outright banning tanning beds is, to put it frankly, ridiculous.  I am personally okay with tanning salons as long as consumers are well-informed of the health risks and are of proper age.  Banning tanning beds from the region would kill jobs and I am certain that some New Jerseyans would be quite unsatisfied with this act, possibly to the point of rebellion.

Certainly my background might prevent me from being too sympathetic, but the idea that you are seriously considering such things is insulting to me as a New Jerseyan.

I do not mean this as an insult to all New Jerseyans, of course.  Just the radical nationalist groups.

The what? I too would support the Governor's proposal.

A joke, of course.  Nevermind.

[Simfan34]

I don't think any of us doubt that exposure to UV radiation is unhealthy, but outright banning tanning beds is, to put it frankly, ridiculous.  I am personally okay with tanning salons as long as consumers are well-informed of the health risks and are of proper age.  Banning tanning beds from the region would kill jobs and I am certain that some New Jerseyans would be quite unsatisfied with this act, possibly to the point of rebellion.

Certainly my background might prevent me from being too sympathetic, but the idea that you are seriously considering such things is insulting to me as a New Jerseyan.

I do not mean this as an insult to all New Jerseyans, of course.  Just the radical nationalist groups.

The what? I too would support the Governor's proposal.

A joke, of course.  Nevermind.

I was just being obstinate.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Some of the rhetoric expressed here is getting carried away.

Rebellion?  Oh come on now!  Give me and this Assembly a break!

[Governor Scott]

Some of the rhetoric expressed here is getting carried away.

Rebellion?  Oh come on now!  Give me and this Assembly a break!

Don't blame me - blame the Taniban.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Introducing an amendment:

1. Tanning beds are permitted only within licensed tanning salons.
2. Only individuals of at least age 16 are permitted in licensed tanning salons.
3. Tanning salons may only admit individuals who have signed a waiver indicating that they understand relevant health risks.
4. Tanning salons are responsible for enforcing Provisions 2 & 3 of this law. Tanning salons found to be in violation will be penalized $1000 for the first offense, $2500 for the second offense, and $5000 for the third offense. Any further violations will be met with the immediate revocation of the tanning salon's license.
 

This is the most draconian version of this law that I would be willing to support (and it is far more strict than I would prefer, but it is meant to be a compromise). Representative Winfield, what are your thoughts?

[Senator Napoleon]

Let's add the tax too and I am on board. I don't care if you guys want to specify where it goes or not.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Excellent, Governor. Previous amendment withdrawn, re-introducing:

1. Tanning beds are permitted only within licensed tanning salons.
2. Only individuals of at least age 16 are permitted in licensed tanning salons.
3. Tanning salons may only admit individuals who have signed a waiver indicating that they understand relevant health risks.
4. Tanning salons are responsible for enforcing Provisions 2 & 3 of this law. Tanning salons found to be in violation will be penalized $1000 for the first offense, $2500 for the second offense, and $5000 for the third offense. Any further violations will be met with the immediate revocation of the tanning salon's license.
5. Tanning salons will collect a $1.00 tax per half-hour of tanning time.

[Simfan34]

I would like to introduce an amendment- considering the average time in a tanning bed is about 7 minutes.

5. Tanning salons will collect a $1.00 tax per minute of tanning time.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Excellent, Governor. Previous amendment withdrawn, re-introducing:

1. Tanning beds are permitted only within licensed tanning salons.
2. Only individuals of at least age 16 are permitted in licensed tanning salons.
3. Tanning salons may only admit individuals who have signed a waiver indicating that they understand relevant health risks.
4. Tanning salons are responsible for enforcing Provisions 2 & 3 of this law. Tanning salons found to be in violation will be penalized $1000 for the first offense, $2500 for the second offense, and $5000 for the third offense. Any further violations will be met with the immediate revocation of the tanning salon's license.
5. Tanning salons will collect a $1.00 tax per half-hour of tanning time.

2.  of at least age 18
5.  $1.00 tax per minute
 

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Rep. Winfield, I'm fine with the age being 18 rather than 16, but the $1.00 per minute tax that you and Rep. Simfan propose equates to de facto prohibition. I am already going against my socially libertarian instincts by supporting this compromise.

I can't vote for a tax any higher than $5.00 per typical session. According to a variety of sources, most sessions run between 10 and 20 minutes. Would a tax of $5.00 per 15 minutes be acceptable?

[Simfan34]

Rep. Winfield, I'm fine with the age being 18 rather than 16, but the $1.00 per minute tax that you and Rep. Simfan propose equates to de facto prohibition. I am already going against my socially libertarian instincts by supporting this compromise.

I can't vote for a tax any higher than $5.00 per typical session. According to a variety of sources, most sessions run between 10 and 20 minutes. Would a tax of $5.00 per 15 minutes be acceptable?

20 minutes is the upper bound. I was looking at $20 per session, but I really do think that $1.00 minute is reasonable- I see prices usually are about $10 per session, so I think such a tax is wholly reasonable.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

It's possible that Rep. Pyrofox will support a higher tax, but my vote is contingent on the tax being no higher than about half of the cost of a typical session.