Ban teens under 18 from tanning beds? Oregon bill advances
»Play Video
EUGENE, Ore. - Christina Pelton says most of her clients at Color of Beauty Tanning are over 18, but they don't have to be 18 to get a tan there. They just need parental consent.
"We'll have the person who's under 18 sign right here and then their parents signature right here," she said.
A House committee on Health Care voted unanimously Wednesday in support of House Bill 2896. The legilsation that would bar anyone under 18 from using tanning beds.
The bill still has to pass the full House and Senate before the governor could sign it into law.
So how young do some teens really start tanning?
"I have friends who've been tanning since they were like 14," said Colleen Curry, 19. "Really young, like middle school almost."
Colleen said she waited until she was 18 to go tanning. When she was younger, she cautioned her friends against it. "I've said stuff to them like, you know that's not really good for you and they're like, well we're going to die anyways, so might as well die tan."
Lane County Senior Public Health Officer Patrick Luedtke said people under the age of 30 who tan have a 75 percent higher risk of getting skin cancer.
The statistic hits home with him.
"My sister had skin cancer at age 17," Luedtke said. "She was a sun worshipper."
It hits home with Colleen, too. One of her friends has also had skin cancer. "She just had some removed actually which was scary. She's 21."
Luedtke said he tells teens to stop tanning all the time - but just like smoking, he said, they don't stop.
The 75% increase in the chances to get skin cancer, according the Association of Dermatology, the main advocate for this ban, is based on the statistic that people normally have a 2.25% chance of developing skin cancer usually, and with tanning, it DRASTICALLY climbs to 2.75%... that's where that number comes from. It's deceptive to say the least.
This should be up to the parent to decide. I know a few people with sunbeds in their basements and I would rather my kids go to a salon where they limit how often and how long a person tans based on their skin type. If salons are not available, teens will seek out other methods like home units or spending extended periods of time outdoors and risking burns. Professional salons teach moderate, responsible UV exposure and they have safety measures they follow to minimize the risk of burn. My son goes to a professional salon to treat his severe acne at a fraction of the cost of a dermatologist. This should be a decision for my son and me, not the government.
Total control police state.... where did those freedoms go while I said "oh well, it aint me"...
Some government intervention I agree with.
Just ban teens from Oregon.
Ironic...an Oregon minor can have an abortion without parental notification but our esteemed legislators now want that same minor to be banned from a tanning bed until they're 18 years of age?! What's right is now considered wrong, what's backwards is now considered forwards and so on...how about keeping all your political hands off me and mine! I'll decide what's good or otherwise for my children, after careful consideration and consultation with those worthy of my respect (psst - it won't be my progressive-minded Oregon legislators!).
@JMain Hey Jim, They need to ban the sun, its radiation causes skin cancer, they need to make it a crime to go out during the daylight, daylight causes cancer and we can solve this problem by forcing citizens to stay indoor during sun up,. Abortion is a problem, but so far the right people are dying, Liberals kill their kids and we will raise ours with our values, at the end of the day we win by attrition. I will admit that abortion kills millions instantly and the sun kills an insignificant number over many years, but we have it in our power to stop the sun deaths, we are powerless to stop the liberals from killing their children.
@Fancy Jack The sun isn't in our government's jurisdiction. Business is well within their scope though. And it's amusing that you seem to think liberals are the only ones that get abortions and that children will grow up to have the political ideals of their parents.
@PleaseBeSmart @Fancy Jack It appears you have limited or selective comprehension.
@Fancy Jack Way to not answer the question.Â
@PleaseBeSmart Looked for the insults, did not see them, made some unflattering accurate observations, your "conversation" appears irrational and negligent, I was just pointing that out, had a cop cite me for not licensing my dog on my property, I made the same arguement in court, the judge told me the police can come on private property for any legal purpose, I asked that if I was truely afraid of the police and feared for my life could I shoot them?, she became quite flustered, fined me 10 dollars and threw me out of the court room.
@Fancy Jack You predict incorrectly, and your personal insults are getting old. Can't you have a conversation without attacks? As I said before, was it private property open to the public or not? If so, it is of course against the law. If not, he could have easily gotten it overturned. And I'd be curious to know what the cop was doing handing out tickets on someone's land.
@PleaseBeSmart @Fancy Jack Retroductive Inference predicts your positions, although you proclaim to be Libertarian, so logic may not apply to you, Private property, the individual had a suspended license, the Sheriff Deputy recognized the driver and knew he was suspended, was on private property up Days Creek way...I do not believe the individual owned the property, was living with a relative...Check Douglas County
@Fancy Jack Again, let's not pretend I said something I did not.Â
Was this person driving on their own, private land not open to the public, such as their home? Or were they driving around drunk in a parking lot or some other "private property but open to the public" land?
@PleaseBeSmart @Fancy Jack So, you admit that you are reckless and imprudent and willingly conduct yourself in a manner that is a threat to others and yourself and indemnify yourself by virtue of private property right, actually, that is Libertarian logic. I know of one arrest for driving on private property with a suspended license and no insurance, and the vehicle never left the property, so I know you can be arrested and the operator was not drunk at the time, but his license was suspended for drunk driving, so, give it a shot let us know how that works out for you.
@Fancy Jack If wanting government to respect the Constitution and keep their nose out of places it doesn't belong is funny, I certainly don't mind being laughed at. :)Â
My hypothesis? It is the LAW. No one said driving drunk on private property was safe... merely that it is not the place of the government to regulate it. Same reason that on private property you can legally drive without a license, without a seat belt, in an unregistered and uninsured vehicle that is not fit to be on the road.
@PleaseBeSmart @Fancy Jack Libertarians are the laughing stock of the electorate, Your attention span seems limited, I was speaking to drunk driving, please test your hypothesis at your discretion, I believe you will be arrested. If a drunk can drive safely on private property, they can drive safely on public property, as the state deems drunk driving a threat, then your arguement is that you are not a threat by virtue of private property right, the arguement will fail when confronted with the prudent man.
@Fancy Jack The Libertarian party and Republican party overlap on many issues. Two libertarians ran to be the Republican nominee, so of course I had to support them. :) Plenty of people consider us a splinter of the Republican party... we're just not hypocrites and we actually respect the proper role of government and the Constitution even when it doesn't line up with our ethics. Good job referencing which specific fact you have a problem with, btw.
@PleaseBeSmart @Fancy Jack Not even a RINO, an imposter, like the rest of your facts
@Fancy JackFailing to refute constitutes a failure to refute. Agreement constitutes agreement. It seems you have your own definition for a lot of things.Â
Feel free to stop rambling nonsense and put a law up. I quoted the law directly but you'd rather keep on your same spiel than look at it in black and white.Â
So your "statistics"... your definition of conservatives or the actual definition?Â
I'm libertarian actually. I only registered Republican to vote in the primaries. :)
@PleaseBeSmart @Fancy Jack A failure to refute constitutes agreement. Drunk driving is prohibited throughout the state, split hairs if you must and test the law at your leisure. Conservatives are defined by their actions, if you behave like a liberal, then you are a liberal, register republican all you like, you are republican in name only, alcoholic dementia is not a factor in this discussion is it?
@Fancy Jack Let's not pretend that I said something that I didn't. It's a cheap, meaningless tactic.Â
Oregon law states, very specifically, "applicable upon any premises open to the public." So like I said, you can drive drunk on your property all you like.Â
Oh, so you have your own definition of a "conservative." Funny that you have statistics on conservatives since you have your own meaning... did you conduct these surveys yourself?
@PleaseBeSmart @Fancy Jack RINO, so you acknowledge that the government can regulate your exposure to the sun, good, as for operating a motor vehicle intoxicated on your property, would be an interesting test, let me know how that works out, as I recall the law forbids driving drunk anywhere in the state to include private property. Now lets clarify, if you have an abortion, you are not a conservative, simple really, liberals kill their kids, register as you like, it is your actions that define you.
@Fancy Jack The citizens are not under the complete control of the government. They can rightfully regulate drinking and driving because they can rightfully regulate publicly held roadways. I can drink and drive on my land all I want and it's no one's business but my own. I think conservatives have abortions? Nope, I know so. I know a couple "conservatives" who have had abortions. And sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm (currently) a registered Republican.
@PleaseBeSmart @Fancy Jack The government can control the actions of its citizens, drunks cannot drive for example, the citizens are under their jurisdiction and they can prevent cancer by forcing citizens to stay indoors during sun up. It is amusing that you think that the conservatives are out there killing their kids, we love our children, you see yours as an obstacle that has to be over come, it is why it is so easy for you to kill them. Politics are discretionary, but 40%% of the electorate is conservative and 20%% is liberal, you could catch up if you stopped killing your kids, 50 million so far...
@JMain Abortions don't cause cancer. And you can decide what's good your you and yours all you want... the state has the right to regulate business.