The FDA wants to ban use of tanning beds by kids under 18, to fight skin cancer

[Read the post]

1 Like


The number of people who need to tan is exactly zero. Considering what it does to your body, it’s more in the nature of an unnecessary medical procedure. I wouldn’t mind if they were banned for everyone.


Yea, except then you’d have to live in the country that banned tanning. Even a lefty like me thinks that’s too much government.


There are skin conditions for which UV therapy is effective, but using a tanning bed for those is sort of like guzzling pitchers of Screwdrivers to address a vitamin C deficiency.



Mandating vaccines is understandable: unvaccinated people can affect public health.

Restricting smoking is also understandable: second-hand and third-hand smoke carry similar risks to non-smokers, compared to the risks of actually smoking.

But tanning beds affect only the people who use them. Slap all the warning labels you want on them, make sure that people are competent to make the decision to use them, but a ban goes too far.


Are they going to be paying all their medical bills in full out of pocket?

But the reason not to ban tanning beds is that it would be pointless. People would just go lie in the uncontrolled sun, without shutoff timers, without anyone monitoring to make sure they don’t fall asleep for an hour and burn. I have to think that alternative is even unhealthier than a tanning salon.


Ah yes, the classic drown a cold/drown a fever defense…


Not unless skydivers, motorcyclists, smokers, couch potatoes, serial monogamists, and anyone else who has a lifestyle or leisure activity that increases their risk of needing medical care are made to do the same.

ETA: An enlightened society should have people picking each other up when they fall. Even if they were doing something damned stupid that probably contributed to, if it didn’t outright cause, the fall.


Don’t worry, in a while we will police each other to keep up our citizen score…


I think the problem is lying under a tanning bed is like lying under 3 suns, at least outside your limited by what’s there, not by how many watts your machine is rated for. Tanning bed tan vs beach bum tan are like 2 shades apart on the who are you trying to impress scale

1 Like

I get my protein through rum 'n egg nog. Veggies through caesars.


I’m good with that. We ban lots of things. Sassafras oil is banned in the US for health reasons. So is haggis. Casu marzu, a type of cheese, is banned. What does it take for a cheese to be banned in the cheese-loving USA? Well, it’s made with unpasteurized milk (banned from selling in the US), and fly larva. Living fly larva. Yeah.

We banned lawn darts and those boxes of small, “buckyball” magnets. We banned Ephedra as a weight-loss drug. Real Absinthe has long been banned in the US.

I don’t think adding tanning beds to the list is going to destroy the country.

#####(haggis isnt banned, it is the sheep lung as part of a ‘pluck’ that is not legally sellable for human consumption. You can still get them though :D)


wat? Those ain’t banned.

You must be south of the equator, right?

Too many things are banned, and new ones are added virtually daily. It’s time to ban banning. I for one am fed up with all the inane restrictions.

1 Like

But how can you ban banning if banning is banned?

Unless, of course, the ban on banning banning is itself banded to the ban on banning.

I’m not sure that it’d be more than a band-aid fix, though.


Easily. At the moment of banning banning, banning is not banned yet, so the banning of banning is the last banning to be done before banning is banned.

Is it clearer now?


Unless it’s grandfathered in, the ban on banning will itself be banned by the ban of banning, and therefore, by banning the ban on banning, the ban on banning will be its own bane, and the ban on banning will ban banning the bans, thus killing itself with a bang.


Retroactively acting is frowned upon, hence the ban on banning will be grandfathered and not affected itself.