Teen Tanning

Many of you hit the nail on the head, the only one I disagree with is PGA on this one…

…this DOES set a precedent.

Its not really the issue of some stupid teenagers getting too much UV rays …yeah thats bad and all, but that’s their choice, their life, and its not the government’s job to try and regulate THAT part of it (its the parents.)

Common sense should be used when judging where the government can step in and should stay out.

Same thing with supplements. If a few teenagers are too stupid, and have no boundaries and go and take some supplements irresponsibly, oh well. That sounds “harsh” but the whole lot should not be punished by a few irresponsible fucks!

Let’s quit trying to protect everyone from theirselves!

Again, government needs to stop infringing on minute shit it deams “harmful.” As I alluded to earlier, I’m not talking about staying out of murder, rape, drinking, etc- those are more serious.

Is it subjective? You can make that argument, but again, if you have any commen sense you should be able to discern between making laws preventing younger people from drinking and getting intoxicated and killing someone, and …getting a fake-n-bake.

Jesus Christ.

Come on vroom…for once…admit the democrats are WRONG HERE!!! It won’t hurt to admit it bro!..believe me!

LOL, a rose by any other name?

Anyhow, I did (assuming it was done by democrats). Look at these two statements in my post…

The whole thing is stupid.

Looks like more of the apocalypse to me.

To me it just looks like more government control. The democrats want to establish COMPLETE control. The republicans are a ways behind them…but of similar ilk. Thats why I tend on the conservative side and vote Libertarian.

Are we actually arguing that the government shouldn’t have special laws for children? If children are our future, I see alot of shitty parents out there who are breeding a shitty future for the rest of us. It’s because of terrible family life that laws get allowed like this in the first place. Until the kids start getting raised right, I’m just fine with Uncle Sam telling kids when they can drink, enter contracts, have sex, etc etc etc

I agree with you Reignman that parents are letting their kids down.
However, it is NOT the place of the government to play mommy and daddy. I mean…do YOU trust the government enough to call them “momma” or “daddy”?

Uh…I work for the government; DOD. And it scary as HELL to think of trusting the government to help dictate life to my kids!!!..
You seem to have WAAAAYYY more faith in beauracracy that I do!!!

Reignman, no, we are not saying that at all, and your comment is what I attempted to address in my post. Please see my quote below.

[quote]Common sense should be used when judging where the government can step in and should stay out.

Let’s quit trying to protect everyone from theirselves!

Again, government needs to stop infringing on minute shit it deams “harmful.” As I alluded to earlier, I’m not talking about staying out of murder, rape, drinking, etc- those are more serious. [/quote]

Government regulations on actions which can pose a threat to the general wellbeing of society as a whole, such as setting a drinking age which, for the most part, ensures a little more maturity, is MUCH different than saying that “teens shouldn’t tan because they can get cancer” or some shit.

Also, lets not forget the PRINCIPLE at stake here: being, government control getting out of hand! This is more than just “regulations for teens.”

Common sense. Common sense. Where has it gone?

In a power struggle:

Common sense = Compromise
Compromise = Status Quo
Status Quo = No gain of power
No gain of power = Hindrance

Therefore:

Common sense = Hindrance.

Now you know why politicians always polarize debates and get people emotional. Common sense is a handicap in handling Crowds.

Well,
If we’re gonna have teen porn might as well tan them…at least it’s what I think

The RETARD

Thats hilarious Retard!

Parents should be responsible enough to raise their own children. The problem is that parents do not take responsibility. They have become dependent on others raising their children. Thank God for big government. With out big government there is no telling where our kids would end up (sarcasm). Remember it takes a village (and an idiot).

Me Solomon Grundy

Thank God for big government…LMBO!..thats a good one dude!

I think the idea here is that tanning a lot at a young age can lead to increased risk of skin cancer (?)

Ptrdr, believe it or not, not every issue should be seen through the prism of partisan politics. Look at the attempts to ban sports supplements, led by Republican Arlen Specter.

Should we assume that means that Republicans want to control every aspect of our lives (as you accused Democrats)?

Our government has banned teenage drinking and smoking and we’ve all seen how well that worked.

Perhaps California’s legislature should be doing something more worthwhile like getting the state out of the massive debt it is in.

Or they could just keep on wasting more tax dollars implementing laws like this.

And for the people who think teens should not have rights, just wait until the government is breathing down your neck. After steroids were banned, didn’t many say pro-hormones could not be touched?

The more we let them have, the more they are going to keep taking.

Peace

El Burro Loco

Come to think of it…

Banning something maybe just another way to boost sales, in a perverted type of way.

You sell the same stuff, but scarcity drives prices waaaaaaaaaaay up. Less clients, sure. But the margins are so much higher, it overcompensates for the loss.

Now excuse me, I`ll go order a suntanning bed. I wanna be the future local sun pimp. ;0)

Lumpy…please take the time to read!! my posts before you say something dumb!
I have stated eariler IN THIS THREAD that I thought BOTH parties want control…the democrats just to a greater extremem than the republicans. That’s why I am libertarian!

Do you understand the words that are coming from my fingers!LOL!

Another good example of this such was a month ago in Louisania which I am sure many seen.

?State Rep. Derrick Shepherd (search) said he filed the bill because he was tired of catching glimpses of boxer shorts and G-strings over the lowered belt lines of young adults.
The bill would punish anyone caught wearing low-riding pants with a fine of as much as $500 or as many as six months in jail, or both.
“I’m sick of seeing it,” said Shepherd, a first-term legislator. “The community’s outraged. And if parents can’t do their job, if parents can’t regulate what their children wear, then there should be a law.”
The bill would be tacked onto the state’s obscenity law, which restricts sexual activity in public places and the sale of sexually explicit items.
Joe Cook, head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s (search) Louisiana chapter, said the bill probably does not meet the U.S. Supreme Court’s standard for the prohibition of obscene behavior under the First Amendment (search).
“What about a woman who is wearing a bathing suit under her garment or she has something like a sarong wrapped around her and it’s below her waist,” he said. "I can think of a lot of workers, plumbers, who are working and expose their buttocks …?

Don’t politicians have things of higher priotiy on their agenda? I do think quoting Rep. Shepherd “if parents can’t do their job, if parents can’t regulate what their children wear, then there should be a law,” shows us the problem some politicians believe its their job to pass laws to regulate things parents do not. Now personally I am not offended by low riders (especially on certain women), but whether you are offended or not its the parents decision to allow their kids to wear certain clothes or not, same thign with tanning. In this country if your not HURTING someone else and infringing on their rights by wearing low rider jeans or getting a tan then the government has no right to interfere, because htats up to the parents.

Billyguns ? Just wondering where you stand on ?Kinder-hos? (young girls dressing trashy). Not that I am saying that it is the governments business, but I don?t want to see a thong on a 10 year old. They just need to enforce laws of common decency that already exist.

Me Solomon Grundy

I’m not a fan of oppressive laws against teenagers. In general, I have more misgivings about systems that enable parents to have “Big Brother” kinds of control over their children… GPS trackers, car recording equipment, etc, as I feel that this kind of violation goes against the very real need of teenagers to feel a sense of independence.

I don’t see tanning beds as a huge issue. I don’t know why they care, or that they should, but I really can’t get too worked up about it.

Ha, I already had this copied as soon as I read the quote , then you mentioned it yourself Billy:

Un-fucking-believable.

Statements like the above should have people rioting in the streets.

We really elect people to office who believe such things ? Fuckin scary.

Solomon Grundy:

Agreed, enforce decency laws that already exist, and use common sense when enforcing. Of course, that would require agencies to treat every case as an individual…yeah, right, thats going to happen.

A couple of people have mentioned teens not needing regulations. I don’t believe anyone is arguing that teens should not have regulations. However, what type, and to what extent, are being argued here. Some things make sense (drinking age) some things are fucking absurd ( tanning might be bad!!)

Yes Solomon I agree I don’t want to see 10 year olds wearing thongs and low riders either. I agree the should enforce they laws they have, but when it comes to these kids wearing these clothes it is the parents who need to not just let them wear them but not buy them in the first place. THe same with tanning if the kid is 14 or so its the parents who would have the say to drive them to a tanning salon or own a tanning bed, you don’t need a law passed to take place of what is the parents job. I just think our elected officals have better things to do than create bills that fine someone “$500 or as many as six months in jail, or both.”