| First, I've never been to a tanning booth, although I've fried my skin a few times naturally. I don't it particularly necessary or attractive to have that "perfect tan", although I don't begrudge those who seek their desire or means in doing so.
But this strikes me as plain hilarious - and a waste of legislative time in a state with too many regulations. And even the somewhat conservative Oakland Press editorial board has taken to praising these legislators. And I know each of them individually and find them to be mostly likable characters.
Get this: Chuck Moss and David Law have joined with a Macomb Democrat to increase tanning salon regulations. Here's an Oakland Press clip:
That's the reason we support House Bill 4146, introduced by state Rep. Frank Accavitti, Jr., an Eastpointe Democrat. Co-sponsors include Oakland County representatives Chuck Moss, R-Birmingham, and David Law, R-Commerce Township.
The bill addresses the risks of indoor tanning facilities.
Accavitti researched provisions in other states after a woman from Eastpointe complained about her granddaughter suffering a severe sunburn when going to a tanning salon prior to her prom.
"Her sunburn was so bad she wasn't even able to attend her prom," the lawmaker said.
The proposal would require parental consent for anyone younger than 18, larger warning signs in tanning facilities listing potential health consequences, a signed informed consent from for all customers and licensing by the state.
Get this though - the FDA and federal government already have a warning label system and law in place on that aspect (hence the word "larger" signs, above).
Larger warning signs? What size is good enough? I guess size really does matter.
If there are federally mandated signs, what the heck does Michigan need larger ones for? And why require a non-standardized sign (raising the price to salons). And an "informed consent form" for all customers? That's an administrative nightmare waiting to happen, and a route to ridiculous litigation years down the road. How long do salons need to retain these informed consent forms? I'd say if they don't retain them literally forever they risk a lawsuit 10 -- 20 -- or 30 years down the road in the legal environment such a law creates for tanning salons.
The only part of this law that isn't totally outrageous is the idea of requiring minors - those under 18 - to have parental consent. I could buy into that if the law was limited to that.
But the real kicker is that last line - "licensing by the state." Sounds like a method of garnering hidden fees - essentially a tax.
Government is evolving into a nanny-state. Lot's of things are risky or "bad for us". We do them anyway. It's our choice - and our consequences. And sometimes even our choices aren't connected to the consequences (that's called good luck and bad luck) and that's simply the way life is.
If our economy were really rolling and legislators had nothing else to dream up, maybe I could see this legislation as explainable. But we're in an economic crisis -- and this is what they're talking about? I'm sure they're all motivated by thinking they're helping people, but come on. Even Democrats are honorably motivated in that sense - but the idea that everything should be regulated, even when federal regulations already seem to be moving in that direction, baffles me.
As John Stossel would say, give me a break. |
