I don't know if anybody has thought about this or not.

So what this amounts to is a tax that puts a 'disparate impact' on Caucasians. The Supreme Court already ruled that this counts as discrimination (Briggs vs. Duke Power Co.)

Put a tax on hair weaves and  dreadlocks and we'll see if it's racist.

Anyways, food for thought

wow

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

wow

It does make ya think though doesn't it? Something one might think, but dares not say!

Quoted Text

State should ban all minors’ use of tanning beds

    A bill working its way through the state Legislature would make New York the first state in the nation to ban use of indoor tanning beds by anyone under 18. It merits passage.
    The ultraviolet light from indoor tanning has been definitively linked to melanoma — the deadliest form of skin cancer that kills an estimated 8,000 Americans every year. In fact, melanoma is the leading killer of 25- to 29-year-old women, many of whom started damaging their skin with tanning beds when they were in their teens.
    While New York has banned the use of tanning beds by anyone under 14 and has required parental consent for those between the ages of 14 and 18, the latter has been a tough rule to enforce. Tanning salons have an obvious conflict of interest in policing such activities since their livelihoods depend on selling as many tanning treatments as they can. And law enforcement authorities have more important things to do than to make sure every parent’s signature submitted by a 14- to 18-year-old is legitimate. .....................>>>>................>>>>...........http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00702&AppName=1

Everybody already knows that using a tanning bed in excess can cause cancer but people chose to keep using them so now it's time for the state to ban it for our own good. This is just another free choice being taken away by a controlling government.

OK shadow, we won't take the choice away.  

But can we get a guarantee from our government that neither government nor our health insurance plans will pay for the medical care for those who get skin cancer.

You can say the same thing about people who lay out in the sun all day and the result is the same, will they get medical care for their stupidity. People are free to make up their own mind and if they choose to do the wrong thing so be it. Are you going to regulate what everyone eats because being over weight causes health problems too. Keep the government from taking our rights and choices away because once they start they will be deciding everything you can do or can't do.

what about everyone who doesn't go to a tanning bed and continue to use whatever kind of bodywash/lotion with ALL kinds of chemicals in them (thanks to J&J and P&G etc etc) then vacation in the sun even with
sun block on(another filled chemical concoction) only to get skin cancer.......

what happened to farmers back in the day before all the lotions/concoctions/sunblocks etc???? did they all die from skin cancer???? anyone have #'s on that?????? I bet J&J and P&G and BASF and SI and GE
have a whole list........

I'm all for technology/research etc but I dont live in a vacuum and neither do you...........

Quoted Text

Some customers heated over indoor 'tan tax,' which was part of health-care law

By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 8, 2010

The sun hasn't exactly set on Solar Planet, but anxiety over the fate of the Arlington tanning salon has been running high ever since a "tan tax" took effect last Thursday.

Some at Arlington salon grow heated over 'tan tax'
One of the less-publicized measures in the new health-care law, the tax imposes a 10 percent surcharge on the use of ultraviolet indoor tanning beds.

Supporters -- including the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and dermatologists -- have argued that the tax will raise an estimated $2.7 billion toward the cost of expanding health coverage to the uninsured, while discouraging a practice that increases the risk of skin cancer by as much as threefold in frequent users, according to scientific research.

But outraged owners of tanning salons worry that the levy could deal a death blow to an industry already reeling from the recession.

"In 26 years of business, this is the worst I've seen it," said Scott Shortnacy, owner of the Arlington Solar Planet as well as six other branches in the Washington area. "Normally for people who tan, it's a part of their lifestyle. They keep doing it even in a recession. But everybody has been looking for ways to cut back on those areas. . . . Our sales are down 20 to 30 percent."...............................>>>>.....................>>>>....................http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070701076.html

Quoted Text

'Tan tax' discussions include allegations of reverse racism
By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 8, 2010; 5:18 PM

Mention the new "tan tax" in a major news outlet and cries of discrimination and reverse racism often follow.

The complaint surfaced on reader comment boards to blogs and news Web sites back in December, when it became clear that the levy -- a 10 percent surcharge on the use of ultraviolet tanning beds -- was likely to be included in the new health-care overhaul bill. Since then, it's been repeated by conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Doc Thompson, a fill-in host for Glenn Beck who intoned in March, "I now know the pain of racism."

When an article about the fallout from the tax -- which took effect last week -- appeared on the Washington Post's Web site Wednesday, dozens of commenters questioned the tax's legality.

The case can seem deceptively simple: Since patrons of tanning salons are almost exclusively white, the tax will be almost entirely paid by white people and, therefore, violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law.

"There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect," he said.....................>>>>..................>>>>.........................http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070804488_pf.html