Banning Sunbeds

bleg · 24-08-2009, 18:58

Do you agree that sunbeds should be banned?

Vorsprung · 24-08-2009, 21:22

Sunbeds are described as "carcinogenic to humans" by the WHO only (as far as my quick Google search can tell me), and as probably carcinogenic by the American Cancer Society.

I probably wouldn't ban them altogether to be honest. I would ban them for those under 18 though, on the same basis that smokes are banned for that age group. If people want to use, that's their choice. Tax the life out of them though to help pay for skin cancer treatment, and put health warnings on them, but that's as far as I'd go. I reckon it would be hypocritical to ban them while still allowing cigarettes to be sold.

My 2c.

drzhivago · 24-08-2009, 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by bleg

Do you agree that sunbeds should be banned?

Ban them
why do we all need to look orange

PhysiologyRocks · 24-08-2009, 23:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by drzhivago

Ban them
why do we all need to look orange

Exactly! Orange people just look silly and it doesn't make anybody more attractive.

They seem to be dangerous, and I just don't see the benefit.

2Scoops · 24-08-2009, 23:25

Why not ban everything that is carcinogenic and see how far we get? And while we're at it, let's put as many people out of work as possible. This is the most important health issue facing the Irish people at present. Well done to Ms. Harney and all those involved with this sensible, non-reactionary, non-knee-jerk legislation.

bleg · 25-08-2009, 00:07

I'm no fan of hers, however she was at the livestrong cancer conference today and was asked a question about it by the press.

We're not going to ban everything carcinogenic because for example: cigarettes are easy to smuggle and quite easy to set up a black market, it's harder to smuggle a sunbed in, the amount made from duty on cigarettes is huge.

2Scoops · 25-08-2009, 00:17

So, if tanning beds made more money, they would be an acceptable carcinogen? Let's send all that money to the UK instead. And let's put ~100 people out of work and onto social welfare. And why, why, WHY aren't we banning sunlight, that dangerous cancer-causing agent?!

peanuthead · 25-08-2009, 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorsprung

Sunbeds are described as "carcinogenic to humans" by the WHO only (as far as my quick Google search can tell me), and as probably carcinogenic by the American Cancer Society.

I probably wouldn't ban them altogether to be honest. I would ban them for those under 18 though, on the same basis that smokes are banned for that age group. If people want to use, that's their choice. Tax the life out of them though to help pay for skin cancer treatment, and put health warnings on them, but that's as far as I'd go. I reckon it would be hypocritical to ban them while still allowing cigarettes to be sold.

My 2c.

I agree 100 pc with this. I would never use them personally, but you can't ban them and continue to sell cigarettes/alcohol. Its a bit stupid really.

Also there are skin cancer cases that are a result of direct exposure to real sunlight here. Irish people need to be more educated on proper protection against the sun too

Fremen · 25-08-2009, 00:29

Banning is a bit of a ham-fisted way to go about dealing with something like this. People should be educated about the dangers, and if they still feel like growing a melanoma or two, so be it.

bleg · 25-08-2009, 00:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2Scoops

So, if tanning beds made more money, they would be an acceptable carcinogen?

No, because there are loads and loads of reasons why other carcinogens aren't banned apart from the amount of money they make. For example, if sunbeds were banned only a tiny portion of the current users would still want to use them, therefore there would be a tiny market, therefore it wouldn't be profitable to set up a black market. Therefore sunbeds are a lot easier to ban than other carcinogens.

2Scoops · 25-08-2009, 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by bleg

No, because there are loads and loads of reasons why other carcinogens aren't banned apart from the amount of money they make. For example, if sunbeds were banned only a tiny portion of the current users would still want to use them, therefore there would be a tiny market, therefore it wouldn't be profitable to set up a black market. Therefore sunbeds are a lot easier to ban than other carcinogens.

So we should ban it because it's easy to ban?

bleg · 25-08-2009, 00:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2Scoops

So we should ban it because it's easy to ban?

No, I was merely explaining why it is more bannable than other carcinogens such as cigarettes.

We should ban it because it is harmful and causes cancer.

Kevster · 25-08-2009, 00:52

... ...but, bleg, then alcohol, cigarettes, internal combustion-engined vehicles, pesticides, etc should all be banned too. The tanning industry is an easy target right now because it's not as large as the others. If you banned cigarettes and alcohol, every government would miss out on a huge amount of revenue. If you banned pesticides, then billions would go starving around the world.

So, anyway, my point is that they shouldn't be banned at all, but just that people should know of their ill-effects.

PhysiologyRocks · 25-08-2009, 01:05

I can think of reasons to ban it, but none not to.

In terms of keeping people in jobs, couldn't the salons be restocked with safe artificial tanning machines?

Alun · 25-08-2009, 08:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by drzhivago

Ban them
why do we all need to look orange

I think you'll find the orange 'oompa loompa' look is generally from the use of tanning sprays/creams not from sunbed use or 'normal' tanning.

View Poll Results: Should sunbeds be banned?
Yes	34	65.38%
No	18	34.62%
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll

24-08-2009, 18:58	#1
bleg Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Location: Cork Posts: 2,117 Adverts \| Friends	Banning Sunbeds Do you agree that sunbeds should be banned? __________________ Internets?

24-08-2009, 21:22	#2
Vorsprung Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brisbane Posts: 1,492 Adverts \| Friends	Sunbeds are described as "carcinogenic to humans" by the WHO only (as far as my quick Google search can tell me), and as probably carcinogenic by the American Cancer Society. I probably wouldn't ban them altogether to be honest. I would ban them for those under 18 though, on the same basis that smokes are banned for that age group. If people want to use, that's their choice. Tax the life out of them though to help pay for skin cancer treatment, and put health warnings on them, but that's as far as I'd go. I reckon it would be hypocritical to ban them while still allowing cigarettes to be sold. My 2c. __________________ Got extra blood you're not using?

25-08-2009, 00:07	#6
bleg Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Location: Cork Posts: 2,117 Adverts \| Friends	I'm no fan of hers, however she was at the livestrong cancer conference today and was asked a question about it by the press. We're not going to ban everything carcinogenic because for example: cigarettes are easy to smuggle and quite easy to set up a black market, it's harder to smuggle a sunbed in, the amount made from duty on cigarettes is huge. __________________ Internets?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

24-08-2009, 23:25	#5
2Scoops Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Pianosa Posts: 1,538 Adverts \| Friends	Why not ban everything that is carcinogenic and see how far we get? And while we're at it, let's put as many people out of work as possible. This is the most important health issue facing the Irish people at present. Well done to Ms. Harney and all those involved with this sensible, non-reactionary, non-knee-jerk legislation.

25-08-2009, 00:17	#7
2Scoops Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Pianosa Posts: 1,538 Adverts \| Friends	So, if tanning beds made more money, they would be an acceptable carcinogen? Let's send all that money to the UK instead. And let's put ~100 people out of work and onto social welfare. And why, why, WHY aren't we banning sunlight, that dangerous cancer-causing agent?!

25-08-2009, 00:29	#9
Fremen Registered User Join Date: May 2006 Location: arrakis Posts: 1,147 Adverts \| Friends	Banning is a bit of a ham-fisted way to go about dealing with something like this. People should be educated about the dangers, and if they still feel like growing a melanoma or two, so be it.

25-08-2009, 00:52	#13
Kevster Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Leicester, UK Posts: 2,487 Adverts \| Friends	... ...but, bleg, then alcohol, cigarettes, internal combustion-engined vehicles, pesticides, etc should all be banned too. The tanning industry is an easy target right now because it's not as large as the others. If you banned cigarettes and alcohol, every government would miss out on a huge amount of revenue. If you banned pesticides, then billions would go starving around the world. So, anyway, my point is that they shouldn't be banned at all, but just that people should know of their ill-effects.

25-08-2009, 01:05	#14
PhysiologyRocks Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Location: Corcaigh Posts: 669 Adverts \| Friends	I can think of reasons to ban it, but none not to. In terms of keeping people in jobs, couldn't the salons be restocked with safe artificial tanning machines?