If the Senate gets its way (which I hope they do!), we might see fewer Oompa Loompas walking around in the near future.That's right. Fewer bright orange, Banana Boat-glistening bodies walking around sporting their carcinogenic tans.
The Senate has proposed a 10% tax on indoor tanning beds, hoping that the price increase will dissuade folks from baking in the fake sun which is linked to the deadliest form of skin cancer, melanoma. Unfortunately, opponents of the bill have angrily cried out that the proposal discriminates against women, since most young tanners and salon owners tend to be women. Shouldn't these women feel like someone is finally advocating on their behalf? Trying to limit their risk of developing cancer? That feels more like a gift than a gag to me.
Nevertheless, there is hope that this tax will at least cause first-time tanners to run in the opposite direction. With as many carcinogens as we are exposed to these days, why would you want to voluntarily expose yourself to even more risks?
I'd love to know how you feel about this proposal. Should the government take active measures to approve "sin taxes?" Taxes on sugary drinks, high-calorie junk foods, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. as a means to lower the use or intake? The government has tried to impose high taxes on that most dangerous of addictions- cigarettes- yet people are still lining up to destroy not only their own health but the health of those around them. So, could a tax on tanning work? And, more important, is it the government's responsibility to regulate its use?
Send your comments my way!
Quick take--because I'm going to blog on this later:
ReplyDeleteSmoking: Affects other people directly--tax it or ban it. If you want to smoke at home, fine. Don't subject me to your habit.
Tanning, junk food, etc.: Do not tax. This is a personal decision that does NOT directly affect me. Besides, some people have diets that REQUIRE "junk" food (diet soda, etc.). Yes, tanning is stupid, but taxing it doesn't make any sense. People STILL smoke, even though the price of a pack is $5+ (I think?).
I hate smoking probably more than anyone on the planet. Why can't they just sell those things for $100 and just force people to quit? The tobacco industry unfortunately has billions of dollars lobbying for them...ugh.
ReplyDeleteWith tanning, though, I think we are all still affected by it or at least we will be in the future. When those people develop cancer, the public still pays for it.
I can't wait to read your post on this, Em!
Thanks for your insight!
I like to get my carcinogens in my skin once a year, when lying in the sun with a book on the beach :) Otherwise, I am pasty white.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that a 10% tax is really gong to dissuade people. Tanning is pretty inexpensive. Maybe $2-$3 per tan if you do small packages - so maybe $25/month. I can't imagine that too many people are going to stop over $27.50. :)