By Ryanne Wise
TheStatehouseFile.com
INDIANAPOLIS — Commercial tanning beds may soon be off limits to Hoosiers younger than 16 under a bill approved Wednesday by a Senate committee.
Sens. Ron Grooms, R-Jeffersonville, and Vaneta Becker, R-Evansville, listen Wednesday during testimony about a bill to ban anyone younger than 16 from using commerical tanning beds. Photo by Brandon Mullens, TheStatehouseFile.com
Senate Bill 50 – unanimously passed by the Senate Health and Provider Services Committee –would repeal a provision that requires minors 15 years of age and younger to be accompanied by a parent or guardian when using a tanning bed at a salon. The bill also requires 16 and 17-year-olds to have a parent or guardian’s written consent given in front of tanning salon operators before being allowed to tan.
SB 50 now moves to the full Senate for consideration.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, no other state has specifically banned tanning for minors under 16, although 33 states have some sort of regulation on tanning for minors and five states have gone as far as completely banning minors from tanning.
All who testified in Wednesday’s committee meeting supported the bill being passed.
Dermatologists David Gerstein, left, and William Hanke tell the Senate Health and Provider Services Commitee about the dangers of tanning. Photo by Brandon Mullens, TheStatehouseFile.com
Dermatologists William Hanke and David Gerstein spoke to the committee about the dangers of allowing minors to use indoor tanning methods. The doctors cited a study published in 2011 that found a 69 percent increase in the risk of basal cell carcinoma due to tanning, a risk that is even higher for those who tan prior to turning 16.
The two also discussed the widespread nature of melanoma, which is the most common cancer in people ages 25 to 29 and the second most common cancer in people ages 15 to 29.
Hanke cited data from the American Cancer Society which estimated that there were 1,470 new cases of melanoma in 2013 and approximately 230 deaths in Indiana alone.
“For all these reasons, no amount of UV exposure from tanning beds is safe. There is no such thing as a safe tan,†Hanke said. “By definition, a tan in evidence of skin damage.â€
Gerstein and Hanke urged the committee to see that stronger laws are needed due to the damage that can be done by tanning.
“We as physicians can only educate the public so much,†Gerstein said. “Our government restricts the minors’ use of tobacco and alcohol. We do not have parental consent permission for use of cigarettes or alcohol for teenagers. For something that’s classified as dangerous of a substance as cigarettes, why do we need to consent to ultraviolet radiation exposure when tanning?â€
Ryanne Wise is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.
An outrage. This is beyond the pale.
Don’t that tan yer hide.
Reading this really burns me.
Don’t republicans usually bitch about the “nanny state?”
Agreed! Where are the libertarians??
You, the Ghost, and I are on the same page on these smoking bans. The governments have no place in protecting us from ourselves, especially those younger than 16. Republicans have no right trying to control our lives. That’s the liberal Democrats’ mission.
Uh, hello! The republicans control every branch of Indiana govt.
Yes they do but I don’t consider Grooms and Becker true to heart Republicans more a RHINO.
Don’t you know that’s the GOP’s place to only call legislation they don’t like “big government”?
As opposed to Democrats not calling anything big government.
You are right. The governments should not control who, when, and where citizens smoke.
Perhaps the government could also hire everyone bodyguards that make sure we don’t hurt ourselves. If i had it my way, they would know everything so we would never have to look anything up to find out the dangers associated with whatever we want to do! We could just take their word for it! I mean, itt sure would create a lot of jobs!
This is precisely the kind of legislation that leads to banning Big Gulps and trans-fats. This isn’t a ‘liberal’ position and it isn’t a ‘conservative’ position. It is an authoritarian position.
As a libertarian, classical liberal, I reject all forms of authoritarianism. What teenagers do is the responsibility of their legal guardians. It isn’t the job of goverent to protect people from themselves.
Most people’s cognitive and critical thinking skills are not fully developed until they’re 23-25 years old, and emotional maturity is sometimes not fully developed until we’re in our late 20’s early ’30’s.
http://www.livescience.com/7005-brains-young-adults-fully-mature.html
http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwatch/fall05/science1.htm
I fail to see how restricting teens from drinking, smoking, tanning beds, driving with other passengers, etc is somehow restricting freedoms/facism.
If your argument is that people aren’t emotionally or intellectually mature enough to make their own decisions until they’re 23 or 25, then perhaps the government should stop actively recruiting 17 and 18-year-olds into the military.
Furthermore, if we are truly this concerned about skin cancer, should we not be banning people from going outside in the summertime without sunblock? Maybe we should require people to purchase government-approved sunblock and set up checkpoints and roadblocks to ensure they’re wearing it. A system of fines, taxation, or even criminal penalties would, of course, be needed to enforce this mandatory sunblock wearing. There shouldn’t be any problem with legal challenges because now government can require us to buy whatever they want us to buy.
I am pretty sure the government knows that 17 – 18 year-olds have not yet fully developed their cognitive thinking ability and specifically target these young thrill seekers to join the military before they wise up. Some people never develop cognitive abilities. Many of them end up as a lifetime government dependent as a result of not being able to think and act. After all, what person with a good head on their shoulders would choose a life on the dole.
What a stupid subject, basically,this “clearly” must be a caucasian civil rights violation. Geez, someone call the ACLU.
“good grief.” (Charlie Brown)
or the NAAWCP. The W is for Wannabe
Old corrupt, greedy, hateful dictators and politicians have sent boys off to fight their wars throughout all of history. We’re still doing it today.
See Robert Gates, Bush and Cheney, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman(retired) for great examples.
I would call the ages of 16-24 a gray area with each individual having a different levels of intellectual and emotional maturity.
Of course it’s a grey area, but 18 is a lawful adult in the United States, and before that kids are the responsibility of their lawful custodians. It is the custodian who should decide what they allow and what they do not. There may be a place for the nanny state in cases of gross negligence or abuse, but I hardly think tanning even comes close. You have to be an authoritarian to believe so, and if you do believe so, then you must take the extra step and admit that full fidelity to this authoritarian philosophy means you would need to protect the ‘helpless children’ from every possible danger to which their less-than-perfect parents or custodians might subject them. That could prove difficult and pointless.
Please add Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, and Woodrow Wilson to your list of great examples of those who sent boys off to war by playing on youthful patriotism.
What a stupid subject, basically,this “clearly” must be a caucasian civil rights violation. Geez, someone call the ACLU.
“good grief.” (Charlie Brown)
Comments are closed.