Ah. I thought that the ban on banning would ban the bans which were already banked.
So, the proposed ban on banning will only ban bans of things that have not already been banned.
Sounds rather like banging the barn door shut and banding it after the band of horses have already left.
⌠And I think Iâm starting to overstretch this theme, so Iâll stop arguing now.
Youâre forgetting - people are stupid. The fact that people actually use tanning beds is proof positive of this. Common sense isnât nearly as common as we would like to believe. We get an example of this, every time someone in Florida says, âHang on. Iâm going to try sumpinâ.
Shouldnât they have the freedom to do even stupid things? Who are you to think taking these freedoms away is a good idea?
Ask anyone who smokes, and has tried to quit, if they would rather that cigarettes never existed.
And letâs not forgetâŚ
Ask anyone who doesnât want to quit.
Again, shouldnât people be free to make mistakes?
Can all the do-gooders, stuff-grabbers and thing-banners get their own island, make it foam padded and safe, and move there? Make it a kickstarter project and Iâll even chip in.
I was under the impression that they lifted this ban several (10?) years ago. Am I flat out wrong, or is there something different about the composition of what we can buy here in the US?
Yeah, donât ban tanning beds. Just put pictures of bad tans on all of them. That should sort the wheat from the chaff.
Oh shit I woke up the Libertarians. Sorry, guys!
Can we just ban the people that use them? I hear Australia is nice? 
All good names for rock ânâ roll banneds.
If, just for argument, I wanted to open a salon where you can get a nice UVC (germicidal) tan, to go along with your high colonic radium irrigation, would that be OK?
Serial monogamists?
I used to know of couple of those. but theyâre not answering questions anymore.
And what people are we talking about? Eleven-year-olds? The FDA is looking to ban tanning beds for those under 18. But we now know that the part of the human brain that governs making good decisions (the prefrontal cortex) doesnât mature until weâre 25 (and thatâs just an average), so as I see it, the FDA is short by about 7 years.
By which I mean people who repeatedly and/or indiscriminately have unprotected sex without prolonged commitment.
I donât think that Charlie Sheen should be shamed for having HIV, or for his sex life, but it seems that the latter raised his risk for the former, in much the same way that tanning beds raise a personâs risk of getting skin cancer.
If those who use tanning beds should have to pay for their own medical treatments if they get skin cancer (the way @L_Mariachi suggested) then shouldnât the same be said for serial monogamists and HIV (or other STIs)?
Thanks for the explanation. Had no clue what you were referring to.
Regarding Sheen, didnât he had a public history of hiring prostitutes?
More than likely. I try to give Sheen as little attention as he deserves, so Iâm not up-to-date on all of his affairs.
I didnât suggest that, I brought it up to point out that behaviour doesnât have to directly affect others (secondhand smoke, nonvaccination) to affect others. No man is an island and all that. Thatâs whatâs wrong with the âIâm not hurting anyone but myselfâ argument.
My apologies for misinterpreting. I thought that you were trying to suggest that those who choose to participate in such a high-risk activity should bear a higher burden in terms of health care costs. I was just trying to say that itâs not fair to do such a thing for tanning without also doing it for other voluntary high-risk activities as well.
