The same governor who vetoed a law requiring kids to wear helmets when they ski, saying “Not every human problem deserves a law”, has just signed a law banning teens from tanning salons. Wait, is this a nanny state or not? I’m confused.
7 Comments
Comments are closed.
Now the 14 year olds with botox and implants won’t have an even tan.
Something something tanning salons already regulated, so not a big deal for them to check IDs? Dunno where his thinking was on this one.
Will this regulation have disparate impact?
Overuse of tanning beds can lead to serious health problems, while skiing without a helmet can merely cause brain damage, quadriplegia, and death.
I was about to say: Maybe someone can say “not every problem deserves a law” and say “but some problems do deserve a law” and remain intellectually consistent.
However, now that I’ve re-read your post, the two–a refusal to require children to wear helmets and the willingness to ban children [or teens] from tanning salons–seem contradictory, at least as they apply to children.
Maybe the difference is one of ease of enforcement: it might be easier or more feasible to enforce the first law than the second. Maybe tanning is more dangerous than skiing (I don’t know whether it is).
At any rate, I’m not too exercised about such a ban.
Tanning doesn’t have much in the way of a health benefit. Skiing does, like any other physical activity.
Still, that’s stretching.
Once you abandon the idea that the dichotomy between these actions is somehow principled, it becomes much easier to address. It’s easy to figure out if you think that only the powerful, well-organized, and better-financed groups are able to pull strings in Sacramento to divert the heavy foot of government regulation from trampling on its operations.
When you think about it that way, the occupy wall street types begin to look like they have a point. I do wish they had some sort of a demand to go with it, though.