Do we own our bodies?

[Enoch the Red]

California bans use of tanning beds by minors
LOS ANGELES | Sun Oct 9, 2011 5:15pm EDT

(Reuters) - Minors in the state of California will no longer be allowed to use tanning beds after Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill on Sunday prohibiting anyone under the age of 18 from using ultraviolet tanning devices.

California is the first state in the nation to ban minors from using tanning beds, legislators said.
Previously, California had banned minors under the age of 14 from using tanning beds, but allowed those between 14 and 18 years of age to use tanning beds with parental consent.

The bill was part of a cluster of legislation signed on Sunday designed to "improve the health and well-being of Calfornians," according to a statement from the Governor's office.

"I praise Gov. Brown for his courage in taking this much-needed step to protect some of California's most vulnerable residents -- our kids -- from what the 'House of Medicine' has conclusively shown is lethally dangerous: ultraviolet-emitting radiation from tanning beds," the bill's sponsor, state Senator Ted Lieu, said in a statement.

"If everyone knew the true dangers of tanning beds, they'd be shocked. Skin cancer is a rising epidemic and the leading cause of cancer death for women between 25 and 29."

The law will go into effect on January 1, 2012, according to Lieu's office.

I suppose this is primarily a question for GGT, as she has most recently been the most vocal when it comes to a woman's right to choose. Where is the outrage here? It would be fine for a minor to pursue a potentially deadly elective surgery, (an abortion) without the knowledge and consent of her parents or guardian, but a minor wouldn't be permitted to go tanning, even with the full knowledge and approval of their parents? It's her body, her choice, right? Does this really fall under a reasonable purview of government? What about excessive sunbathing? Is there any remaining doubt that the government's role as nanny-state?

I think what bothers me most is this quote: "I praise Gov. Brown for his courage in taking this much-needed step to protect some of California's most vulnerable residents -- our kids -- from what the 'House of Medicine' has conclusively shown is lethally dangerous: ultraviolet-emitting radiation from tanning beds." Where do the parents enter into this equation?

And before I get accused of only using unpasteurized, unregulated, raw tanning oil, were I parent I certainly wouldn't approve of, or encourage my minor to go tanning, and I certainly don't go tanning.

[Dreadnaught]

I don't think abortions and UV radiation are really comparable. That said, it seems silly to ban something that anyone can get outside.

[Enoch the Red]

I don't think abortions and UV radiation are really comparable. That said, it seems silly to ban something that anyone can get outside.

You're right in that the two aren't remotely comparable, but I believe it's the underlying philosophical question that matters. If we are the owners of our bodies, we should be able to make choices about what we do with them. If it's a minor's right to choose abortion because it is her body, (and that's an aphorism round these parts) then why can't that same woman choose to go tanning? As I've said before, allowing somebody freedom is scary, and it's potentially dangerous. It means they might make the wrong choices, that they might get hurt, and they might regret their decisions, but even with those dangers, it's still the right thing to do.

[GGT]

It's California. They have a particular way of "banning" certain things, like male infant circumcision, that end up being overturned. It would premature to be OUTRAGED.

I suppose this is primarily a question for GGT, as she has most recently been the most vocal when it comes to a woman's right to choose. Where is the outrage here? It would be fine for a minor to pursue a potentially deadly elective surgery, (an abortion) without the knowledge and consent of her parents or guardian, but a minor wouldn't be permitted to go tanning, even with the full knowledge and approval of their parents? It's her body, her choice, right? Does this really fall under a reasonable purview of government? What about excessive sunbathing? Is there any remaining doubt that the government's role as nanny-state?

Besides the fundamental differences between tanning and abortion...that should be obvious...I have no problem with minors using tanning booths. Without parental consent. Daily, even. So long as they've been informed about the facts surrounding UVA/UVB light and skin cancer, and premature ageing of skin.

[wiggin]

Actually, circumcisions were never banned - they never even made it onto the ballot after a court challenge. This tanning ban has been made law.

Don't know what to think about this; is it really any different from banning the sale of cigarettes or alcohol to minors? Probably not. And tanning doesn't have a small chance of complications (like abortions, where the risks from teenage pregnancy are almost certainly higher), but rather a guaranteed higher exposure to radiation and the attendant DNA damage. That's probably the difference - we won't regulate behaviors in general, just ones that are 100% bad for you.

[GGT]

Then California is gonna ban teenagers on the beach, wearing swim suits? They're gonna have sun-screen monitors? Nah, I don't think so.

[wiggin]

You have to do a lot more sunbathing (or, say, second-hand smoking) to get the same effects as an hour in a tanning bed (or a cigarette). They can only regulate the easy-to-regulate, no?

[Enoch the Red]

That's probably the difference - we won't regulate behaviors in general, just ones that are 100% bad for you.

Is that a distinction you are comfortable with, and is it the role of government to do so? If this behavior is 100% bad for you, why not ban it for adults as well?

[wiggin]

On the one hand, I think arbitrary age limits are unreasonable (it would be like making wearing seat belts only the law for the young, but not the old). However, I think there is a case to be made for it. My preferred method of changing bad behavior of a populace is to tax the hell out of it - most bad behaviors have hidden costs to society, so you're effectively recouping those costs while discouraging people from doing the bad behavior. If the behavior isn't a good that can be taxed, it's best to fine people for engaging in it (say, littering). But kids don't generally have the same financial levers; they tend to get their money from non-income sources (parents, whatever). I'm not sure this is a good argument, but it might be.

The other argument, of course, is that adults can make their own decisions about how stupid they want to be, but it's our job as a society to protect the inexperienced from making mistakes.

As for the distinction between the 'really bad' behaviors and behaviors with just a small chance of a bad result - yeah, I think that's a very reasonable distinction. As for whether it's the role of government, I think it depends on whether there is a negative externality associated with the behavior - long-run healthcare costs, or pollution, or cost to public services, or whatever. If there is, then it definitely is the government's place to price that externality into markets one way or another, yes.

[Enoch the Red]

On the one hand, I think arbitrary age limits are unreasonable (it would be like making wearing seat belts only the law for the young, but not the old). However, I think there is a case to be made for it. My preferred method of changing bad behavior of a populace is to tax the hell out of it - most bad behaviors have hidden costs to society, so you're effectively recouping those costs while discouraging people from doing the bad behavior. If the behavior isn't a good that can be taxed, it's best to fine people for engaging in it (say, littering). But kids don't generally have the same financial levers; they tend to get their money from non-income sources (parents, whatever). I'm not sure this is a good argument, but it might be.

The other argument, of course, is that adults can make their own decisions about how stupid they want to be, but it's our job as a society to protect the inexperienced from making mistakes.

As for the distinction between the 'really bad' behaviors and behaviors with just a small chance of a bad result - yeah, I think that's a very reasonable distinction. As for whether it's the role of government, I think it depends on whether there is a negative externality associated with the behavior - long-run healthcare costs, or pollution, or cost to public services, or whatever. If there is, then it definitely is the government's place to price that externality into markets one way or another, yes.

Out of curiosity, what would you say the benefits of alcohol/tobacco use are? What about unhealthy eating?

[wiggin]

Benefits? Little to none. Modest alcohol use in some formulations (e.g. certain wines) may have mild antioxidant effects; I believe that very modest nicotine use can help deal with ulcerative colitis and the like. Unhealthy eating is similar, though I suppose one could argue that at times the convenience of fast food enables greater economic activity (eating on the run, etc.), so modest intake of unhealthy foods wouldn't be a big issue. Otherwise, all three have some entertainment benefit, just like a movie or whatever, but no specific benefit otherwise.

Why would I think there's a benefit?

[Enoch the Red]

Benefits? Little to none. Modest alcohol use in some formulations (e.g. certain wines) may have mild antioxidant effects; I believe that very modest nicotine use can help deal with ulcerative colitis and the like. Unhealthy eating is similar, though I suppose one could argue that at times the convenience of fast food enables greater economic activity (eating on the run, etc.), so modest intake of unhealthy foods wouldn't be a big issue. Otherwise, all three have some entertainment benefit, just like a movie or whatever, but no specific benefit otherwise.

Why would I think there's a benefit?

Do you feel as though the current taxes on alcohol, (and to a lesser extent cigarettes -- to a lesser extent because they are more heavily taxed) are sufficient to counteract the negative externalities associated with it's usage?

[Ominous Gamer]

seems silly to ban something that anyone can get outside.

tanning beds ≠ to the exposure someone could reach 24/7 naturally in America.

[wiggin]

Not even close to enough. I'm sure the long-run costs in drunk driving-related accidents and health problems (not to mention messed up productivity, etc.) are far higher than the current taxes. The proof is in the pudding - is our level of drinking at a societally acceptable level? I'd say no, given all of the current problems. That means the market price is still far too low. Ditto for fossil fuels, tobacco, yadda yadda yadda.

The only danger is raising taxes so much that it becomes worthwhile to start up a black market (which generally provide goods that are either illegal or highly taxed). Assuming you can keep the cost of black marketeering higher than the expected profits from circumventing the tax, you can raise the tax to achieve whatever equilibrium level of consumption you target as desirable. I doubt that we should attempt to completely eliminate any of these vices, but making people aware of the societal costs is definitely worth it.

[Enoch the Red]

Not even close to enough. I'm sure the long-run costs in drunk driving-related accidents and health problems (not to mention messed up productivity, etc.) are far higher than the current taxes. The proof is in the pudding - is our level of drinking at a societally acceptable level? I'd say no, given all of the current problems. That means the market price is still far too low. Ditto for fossil fuels, tobacco, yadda yadda yadda.

The only danger is raising taxes so much that it becomes worthwhile to start up a black market (which generally provide goods that are either illegal or highly taxed). Assuming you can keep the cost of black marketeering higher than the expected profits from circumventing the tax, you can raise the tax to achieve whatever equilibrium level of consumption you target as desirable. I doubt that we should attempt to completely eliminate any of these vices, but making people aware of the societal costs is definitely worth it.

How often are these vice taxes actually used to balance out the negative externalities associated with abuse, and how often are they used as revenue generation?

[Being]

You're right in that the two aren't remotely comparable, but I believe it's the underlying philosophical question that matters. If we are the owners of our bodies, we should be able to make choices about what we do with them. If it's a minor's right to choose abortion because it is her body, (and that's an aphorism round these parts) then why can't that same woman choose to go tanning? As I've said before, allowing somebody freedom is scary, and it's potentially dangerous. It means they might make the wrong choices, that they might get hurt, and they might regret their decisions, but even with those dangers, it's still the right thing to do.

Seat belts. You guys haven't advance at all. Your body belongs to insurance.

[GGT]

You have to do a lot more sunbathing (or, say, second-hand smoking) to get the same effects as an hour in a tanning bed (or a cigarette). They can only regulate the easy-to-regulate, no?

I didn't realize that was the premise behind regulation. /sarcasm

[Enoch the Red]

Seat belts. You guys haven't advance at all. Your body belongs to insurance.

What is my position on seat belts again, Being?

[GGT]

Seat belts. You guys haven't advance at all. Your body belongs to insurance.

Or to the employer-based insurance products we trade for wages! See, it's okay if a private entity "controls your body", huh.

[wiggin]

How often are these vice taxes actually used to balance out the negative externalities associated with abuse, and how often are they used as revenue generation?

1) Sometimes it does - e.g. some pollution taxes go to fund cleanup efforts and the like (or taxes on, say, cigarettes might partially fund a public education campaign about lung cancer). A lot of times it doesn't directly, though, but that's because it's very tough to figure out how it should be distributed - do you pay X to Medicare because of long-run healthcare costs? What about payments to families of victims of DUI accidents? What about addition prevention/treatment programs? It gets messy. So instead the programs are funded by general revenue, and these taxes feed into general revenue.

2) It doesn't matter. The real goal of such a tax isn't to exactly recoup the costs associated with the externality - it's to price those costs into the market. How we use the money afterwards is largely irrelevant if we've carried out our main policy goal, of reducing, say, tobacco consumption to X level. Actually, as consumption goes down, your revenues also drop, but that's a good thing - you'll have a hangover of externalities to pay for which won't be compensated for by the current trickle of revenue, but that's fine; your main policy goal was achieved.

I didn't realize that was the premise behind regulation. /sarcasm

It isn't, but there are eminently good reasons to discourage too much sunbathing; it's just impossible to effectively regulate, so we don't. We can regulate tanning beds, so why not if there's a good reason to do it?

[LittleFuzzy]

Actually, circumcisions were never banned - they never even made it onto the ballot after a court challenge. This tanning ban has been made law.

Because you can challenge the procedure to put something on the ballot in court. You can't make an external challenge the workings of the legislature until it has finished the item, i.e. passed the bill. AND had it signed into law. Courts here can come up with wonky results the same as the legislative and direct democracy processes, but it would not surprise me in the least to see this latest law struck down.

Don't know what to think about this; is it really any different from banning the sale of cigarettes or alcohol to minors? Probably not.

Of course it is. Massively different. Freedoms to engage in commercial transactions are very distinct from the freedoms one has over one's own body. Banning the sale of something to a minor is qualitatively different from banning its use BY a minor.

[Being]

What is my position on seat belts again, Being?

That private sector profits trump individual's rights.

[Enoch the Red]

That private sector profits trump individual's rights.

How's that?

[wiggin]

Because you can challenge the procedure to put something on the ballot in court. You can't make an external challenge the workings of the legislature until it has finished the item, i.e. passed the bill. AND had it signed into law. Courts here can come up with wonky results the same as the legislative and direct democracy processes, but it would not surprise me in the least to see this latest law struck down.

Oh, no, I don't doubt that. The distinction I was drawing was that there was never any majority/plurality consensus in any forum for circumcision bans in CA, but there was a consensus on the tanning bed ban for minors (at least in the legislature and governor's mansion). Giving the circumcision initiative as an example that Californians are somehow uniquely likely to enact such bans is silly. Wasn't trying to make a point about whether this law will stand up in court.

Of course it is. Massively different. Freedoms to engage in commercial transactions are very distinct from the freedoms one has over one's own body. Banning the sale of something to a minor is qualitatively different from banning its use BY a minor.

Okay, but I'm betting the law doesn't ban the use of tanning beds (say, if a family buys a tanning bed and uses it); I'm betting it's something along the lines of "commercial tanning establishments can't have minors as patrons". I haven't looked at it in detail, though.

[Enoch the Red]

Okay, but I'm betting the law doesn't ban the use of tanning beds (say, if a family buys a tanning bed and uses it); I'm betting it's something along the lines of "commercial tanning establishments can't have minors as patrons". I haven't looked at it in detail, though.

Do you think banning them for private home use would be wrong, or would it be infeasible because it's impossible to effectively regulate?

[Loki]

How's that?

It's newspeak for individuals having the right to not have rights.

[wiggin]

Do you banning them for private home use would be wrong, or would it be infeasible because it's impossible to effectively regulate?

Hmm. A worthwhile question. I'm not sure. I see the logic of not regulating what individuals actually end up doing, but at the same time I see the broader societal imperative. One could argue that a minor, by having to have an adult do the actual transaction, would have some level of oversight so the government isn't needed? I don't know.

So, to be clear: I'm not convinced we have the freedom to do whatever we want with our own bodies. I do see that it's a reasonable argument, though. I definitely think that one couldn't effectively regulate personal use of anything, but whether or not it's fundamentally wrong to regulate it...? I don't know.

[LittleFuzzy]

Okay, but I'm betting the law doesn't ban the use of tanning beds (say, if a family buys a tanning bed and uses it); I'm betting it's something along the lines of "commercial tanning establishments can't have minors as patrons". I haven't looked at it in detail, though.

I haven't either but while I am of course always leery about journalistic accuracy I do note that all the news reports I'm finding do phrase the ban as one on using tanning beds, and the one text excerpt of the legislation I've managed to grab was

Persons under 18 years of age are prohibited from using an
ultraviolet tanning device.

[Loki]

Push comes to shove, this law only applies to minors, and there are plenty of precedents for it doing so. We don't believe minors are capable of making potentially life-changing decisions, and this activity certainly meets that criterion. Ideally, it should be parents who are banning their kids from these activities, but it's in society's interest to limit the damage minors do to themselves due to irresponsible or incompetent parents.

[GGT]

Wait, wasn't there a huge tax imposed on tanning salons, in order to discourage this type of behavior?