Minors should not be banned from tanning salons
July 7, 2009 · By Charles Anthony
The Canadian Dermatologists Association should stop telling young people what to do with their lives. Instead of promoting bans against using tanning salons, they should promote educating people and then letting people make their own decisions.
Sure, skin cancer is nasty but to some people, there is a lot of value to having a tan. Some people find tans to be attractive. As such, their self-confidence may be improved. They may even have a better chance of getting a date. Nobody has a right to deny such choices from young people.
The problem with Education Projects is that it allows people to make their own decisions instead of accepting the “wisdom” of those who supposedly “know better” and submitting to their judgment.
The egos involved want their conventional wisdom and conclusions to be adopted as the new “truth” and think that everyone else should be brought to believe as they do, even if they don’t want to.
Soon, as has happened with smoking, it will be seen that people are not accepting the Education being heaved upon them, and so these egos will turn to Lobby Groups to press for legislation in favor of their exalted conclusions.
“The Canadian Dermatologists Association should stop telling young people what to do with their lives.”
But what of the hip young people in the Canadian Dermatologists Association?
Divide by zero!
By that logic, why do we stop them from buying porn, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, or guns?
I do not know about you but the only minors I am stopping are my own kids and I am not expecting you to share my responsibility in the matter either.
Who is this “we” of which you are attempting to draw a logical parallel?
Yeah – what the hell do doctors know anyway??? If young kids want to bombard their skin with cancer causing UV rays because the magazines tell them it is sexy they should have the choice to do it. Let’s abolish the driving, drinking, and smoking age too while we are at it because “freedom” is cool.
Traciatim and ferrethouse, the issue being raised isn’t one about whether or not these “experts” are right or wrong, it’s about people being responsible and accountable for their own choices and decisions in all aspects of their lives.
Expecting the “state” to assume all responsibility for your well-being is a gross violation of personal liberties, that’s the communist philosophy. Freedom and Responsibility are not even remotely exclusive of one another in a free and democratic country. That’s why we have the privilege of voting; to elect those in whom we have faith to enact our will. The will of the people. And those elected members are accountable to us because of it.
But again, that does not absolve us of all responsibility. We know that trying to run into busy traffic is a stupid idea. Not because there are laws and legislation against it, but because we’ve been educated on it. We are free to do so if we choose to however. That logic is what should be applied to anything that most people can voluntarily partake of or participate in, and as such, parents should be parents and take responsibility for the welfare and care of their children.
Why does the “State” have to be responsible for everything?
“Expecting the “state” to assume all responsibility for your well-being is a gross violation of personal liberties”
I’m not sure anyone’s advocating that the state takes over all responsiblities for one’s well-being. It seems to me that they’re advocating the state taking over the responsibility for preventing children from using tanning salons, buying porn, drinking, buying guns, drugs etc.
“Freedom and Responsibility are not even remotely exclusive of one another in a free and democratic country. That’s why we have the privilege of voting; to elect those in whom we have faith to enact our will.”
It should be noted at this point that children are not responsible for voting. Presumably then, it follows that they should have less freedon in a free and democratic country.
“But again, that does not absolve us of all responsibility. We know that trying to run into busy traffic is a stupid idea. Not because there are laws and legislation against it, but because we’ve been educated on it. We are free to do so if we choose to however.”
Indeed we have been educated on it. By the time we are adults, we are quite aware of the consequences. It might be interesting to know how road traffic death rates compared between minors and adults. Maybe minors are involved in a higher number of road accidents as pedestrians per capita than adults. Maybe this is because they have more freedom. It is of course possible that they might not be as aware of the dangers as adults are.
“That logic is what should be applied to anything that most people can voluntarily partake of or participate in, and as such, parents should be parents and take responsibility for the welfare and care of their children.”
It is not always possible for parents to keep an eye on their children 24 hours a day. Besides which, this seems a little unfair on the children of bad parents. But then, I suppose what they lose in parents, they win in freedom.
“Why does the “State” have to be responsible for everything?”
As I’ve already said, I’m not sure anyone is advocating the state being responsible for everything. Most people would agree that what children lose in freedom through being banned by law from buying cocaine is a reasonable balance against what society, and the children themselves gains from that same law. The same case, when made for banning minors from using tanning salons is not as clear cut, but to portray it as being one step away from class struggle, and the workers controlling the means of production is more than a little far of the mark.
But that’s my point. Why should they? It is the job of a parent to rear and educate their children in their values and beliefs and in the responsible use/consumption of commercial items. Sure, certain laws are put in place as general rules, but how many parents permit their children to consume alcohol underage? How many parents take their children hunting and teach them how to survive in the wilderness? Drugs are generally illegal for anyone in Canada: child or not.
Presumably, this is why they have parents to care for and protect them.
Fair enough. It’s actually impossible. However, that doesn’t absolve them of their responsibilities to, and on behalf, of that child. And there are systems such as Child Services already in place to deal with victims of bad parenting. Granted they tend to lean pretty far to the left sometimes, but the systems do exist.
I guess what I’m getting at, and using this as an example, is that the more we allow the Government to Legislate our lives, the easier it becomes for people to avoid responsibility themselves. Nothing is their fault, and someone else is always responsible for their problems or difficulties.
Social Safety Nets do serve a purpose, but please please please, in moderation only. Already we are too heavily dependent on governmental services to provide for our desires and whims. At what point will we take a stand against when inconvenience trumps responsibility and accountability?
How can a social safety net be maintained in moderation? Who gets to determine when it becomes excessive?
Thus spake the Reader of News:
Freedom is cool but you are clearly confusing the study of medical science with the studies of sociology and law.