Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Skin laws

  • 30-06-2010 01:53PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭


    From here
    'Fair-skinned people are to be banned from using sunbeds under proposed new legislation'

    Is it really ok to have a lway based on skin colour? Sun beds are a stupid idea 'a 75pc increase in the risk of melanoma when people began tanning on sunbeds regularly before the age of 30' and for fair people they are a really stupid idea. But where should the stupid/illegal line be drawn? Does anyone find the idea of a skin based law a bit odd?

    Take one slightly different hypothetical. Imagine a law that stopped people with east asian skin complexion buying alcohol.
    'An ALDH2-deficient person who has two beers a day has 6 to 10 times the risk of developing esophageal cancer as a person not deficient in the enzyme.'
    This ALDH2-deficient deficient gene is found in 'a third of people of East Asian ancestry' from here

    Now this is a trait that correlates with skin colour not one that is due to skin colour. But if we can ban people from doing dangerous things based on the colour of their skin does that not set a dangerous precident.

    Are there any other colour laws coming?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    cavedave wrote: »

    Now this is a trait that correlates with skin colour not one that is due to skin colour. But if we can ban people from doing dangerous things based on the colour of their skin does that not set a dangerous precident.

    It does set a precedent. It stops people from being complete morons and turning themselves into dried prunes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    T.W.H Byron

    It does set a precedent. It stops people from being complete morons and turning themselves into dried prunes.

    How does it do that? Does it block out the sun? the candlemakers will love that part of the legislation

    It seems to be an EU wide regulation


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,968 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    You'll looking for a problem that isn't there.

    The Minister of Health has talked often on the sunbeds issues for a number of years now
    If fair skinned people are at risk then it applies to them especially.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,612 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Sun beds cause cancer.

    They're of no benefit to anyone beyond those wishing to deceive others (or themselves with American pseudo-psychological babble such as SAD :rolleyese:).

    Ergo, ban them outright imho.

    We ban plenty of other things based on tenuous links to them being dangerous (e.g. marijuana, prostitution etc.) that legalisation would make safer but a ban of something clearly damaging as sunbeds is done in a fashion that seems designed to engender further racist tendencies on the ignorant of our population...

    "High Foives All Round Goys!"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭edellc


    A long time ago i worked in a video shop that did sunbeds and i was shocked at the amount of ppl who would come in everyday to use a bed you could always spot them a mile away due to their orange leather complexion, one even told me she brought in baby oil and used it while in the bed even though i told her she shouldnt do that she never listened
    two of the regulars ended up getting skin cancer i only worked there a year i never used them myself and never sold them to ppl they could read disclaimer and once over 18 make their own mind up of the pros and cons but the whole experience what shocking as the company made more on sales and usage of sunbed products that it did on video rentals :eek: some nights there where queues of over an hours wait for them :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    feelingstressed

    The Minister of Health has talked often on the sunbeds issues for a number of years now
    If fair skinned people are at risk then it applies to them especially

    She has talked about the alcohol issue for a number of years now
    If east asian people are at risk then it applies to them especially.

    You would be ok with banning alcohol for east asians?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭smellslikeshoes


    They should ban them outright. Having fair people banned is not realistic or enforceable. I don't want to turn this into another anti government thread but this really is a proposal from someone not living in the real world.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,639 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    but if you do use one you'll no longer be fair skinned but dark and therefore you'll be ok to use them:confused::o

    :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Ban all sunbeds tbh. They are dangerous.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,968 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    cavedave wrote: »
    She has talked about the alcohol issue for a number of years now
    If east asian people are at risk then it applies to them especially.

    You would be ok with banning alcohol for east asians?

    Has Mary Harney actually highlighted this, I've googled for news links but didn't find any.
    Or did you just lazily take my post and substituted in your own words? It's nearly word for word


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    cavedave wrote: »
    From here
    'Fair-skinned people are to be banned from using sunbeds under proposed new legislation'

    Is it really ok to have a lway based on skin colour? Sun beds are a stupid idea 'a 75pc increase in the risk of melanoma when people began tanning on sunbeds regularly before the age of 30' and for fair people they are a really stupid idea. But where should the stupid/illegal line be drawn? Does anyone find the idea of a skin based law a bit odd?

    Take one slightly different hypothetical. Imagine a law that stopped people with east asian skin complexion buying alcohol.
    'An ALDH2-deficient person who has two beers a day has 6 to 10 times the risk of developing esophageal cancer as a person not deficient in the enzyme.'
    This ALDH2-deficient deficient gene is found in 'a third of people of East Asian ancestry' from here

    Now this is a trait that correlates with skin colour not one that is due to skin colour. But if we can ban people from doing dangerous things based on the colour of their skin does that not set a dangerous precident.

    Are there any other colour laws coming?

    You're confusing a medical reason with a non-medical reason. That the condition that's contra-indicated for sunbed use happens to be a skin colour doesn't set a precedent for the non-medical use of skin colour in legislation - well, let's say shouldn't, assuming the legislation is well written.

    Also, this isn't an EU regulation - the EPHA is an NGO umbrella group, not an EU institution, and while they may have called for EU regulation, this appears to be purely Irish in origin.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You're confusing a medical reason with a non-medical reason. That the condition that's contra-indicated for sunbed use happens to be a skin colour doesn't set a precedent for the non-medical use of skin colour in legislation - well, let's say shouldn't, assuming the legislation is well written.

    Also, this isn't an EU regulation - the EPHA is an NGO umbrella group, not an EU institution, and while they may have called for EU regulation, this appears to be purely Irish in origin.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    How do you measure skin colour?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    feelingstressed

    Or did you just lazily take my post and substituted in your own words? It's nearly word for word
    Yes she has
    Minister Harney proposes to introduce legislation to provide for the placing of health advice and warnings on all alcoholic drink containers and on promotional material.

    Yes it was a direct substitution that was the point

    Scofflaw having East Asian skin colour particularly if you go red after one beer is a potential medical use of skin colour in legislation. Even if you do not think correlation is enough to ban something based on skin colour but also need more evidence you could have bar staff check for east Asians with red faces in pubs. These people could be refused alcohol due to cancer risks. Banning east Asians whose face goes red when they drink from drining alcohol would be a similar cancer safety idea to banning fair people using sunbeds. Would it be a socially acceptable law though?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    k_mac wrote: »
    How do you measure skin colour?

    Having not seen the advisory leaflet, I couldn't say. However, the law is only supposed to apply to the fairest grade of a standard classification (see here or here).

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    cavedave wrote: »
    Yes she has


    Yes it was a direct substitution that was the point

    Scofflaw having East Asian skin colour particularly if you go red after one beer is a potential medical use of skin colour in legislation. Even if you do not think correlation is enough to ban something based on skin colour but also need more evidence you could have bar staff check for east Asians with red faces in pubs. These people could be refused alcohol due to cancer risks. Banning east Asians whose face goes red when they drink from drining alcohol would be a similar cancer safety idea to banning fair people using sunbeds. Would it be a socially acceptable law though?

    Having East Asian skin colour has no relationship to having the genetic issues that produce the problems with alcohol. Using skin colour would therefore be unacceptable in a law intended to prevent alcohol use by people with that particular genetic profile. Similarly, there are far too many causes of red faces when drinking for that to form an acceptable test either. The link in the case of sunbeds and fair skin is direct, defined, and consequential, whereas the other 'markers' you've suggested are not.

    Now, if genetic sequencing becomes normal, and you're, say, required to carry a genome scan on an ID card, you might be able to enforce the 'no alcohol' rule for people with that genetic profile - although, realistically, that would require a very different attitude to alcohol, genetics, and ID cards. What's more likely is that you wouldn't get health insurance cover for oesophageal cancer if you had that genetic profile and were known to drink at a level that meaningfully changed your chances of contracting the cancer.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Are they going to ban fair skinned people from going outside on hot days?

    Ban them from going to hot countries?

    F*cking ridiculous nanny-state nonsense.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,780 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    i was wondering this when they said this on the news laast night, i really think they should ban them, i think they are probably leaving themselves open to a legal challenge (if anyone can be bothered) with this skin colour nonsense.

    My weather

    https://www.ecowitt.net/home/share?authorize=96CT1F



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Are they going to ban fair skinned people from going outside on hot days?

    Ban them from going to hot countries?

    F*cking ridiculous nanny-state nonsense.

    Sure - if you have very fair skin, you shouldn't be next, nigh or near a sunbed. And if you haven't got that much sense, you're probably better off out of the gene pool.

    I'd have preferred to see a required warning, and maybe the invalidation of insurance or medical card cover for skin cancer if you decided to go ahead.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Sure - if you have very fair skin, you shouldn't be next, nigh or near a sunbed. And if you haven't got that much sense, you're probably better off out of the gene pool.

    I'd have preferred to see a required warning, and maybe the invalidation of insurance or medical card cover for skin cancer if you decided to go ahead.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    Smoking also causes cancer. Should we ban that too?

    Whether or not sunbeding is dangerous is really not the issue here. People are quite capable of analysing the risk involved and the government should not have the right to ban people from doing something.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    Iwasfrozen

    Whether or not sunbeding is dangerous is really not the issue here. People are quite capable of analysing the risk involved and the government should not have the right to ban people from doing something.

    My issue was not whether the government should be able to ban people from doing something. The majority of Irish people accept the government have the right to ban people from doing certain things. Even if you limit those things to ones that do not directly harm others you still have many things we accept the government banning.

    The question I had is do we accept this level of micromanagement particularly using skin colour as the criteria to judge whether someone can decide risks to take for themselves or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Once you are over 18, you should be capable of making an informed decision. I don't fancy the idea of a Government minister doing so for me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Nodin wrote: »
    Once you are over 18, you should be capable of making an informed decision....

    My experience of life (my own and others') suggests to me that it is a very poor basis on which to proceed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Smoking also causes cancer. Should we ban that too?

    Whether or not sunbeding is dangerous is really not the issue here. People are quite capable of analysing the risk involved and the government should not have the right to ban people from doing something.

    As I said in the post you've quoted, no, I would prefer not. Activities that are essentially only detrimental to the person undertaking them should never be banned.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    My experience of life (my own and others') suggests to me that it is a very poor basis on which to proceed.
    How so?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    How so?

    Have you never made badly informed decisions?!

    impressed,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Have you never made badly informed decisions?!

    impressed,
    Scofflaw
    I have yes, and then I usually pay the cost of those decisions. But that doesn't mean the government should take those decisions away from me in the future.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 7,486 ✭✭✭Red Alert


    I think it's about time a 'get tough' policy on sunbeds was adopted, and I think this bill of Harney's is one small step forward. So in one respect I support it, but in another respect it's woefully inadequate. On the other hand, they are no more dangerous than other carcinogens like smoking - which the government is still taking a 'softly softly' on.

    There still remains a very big problem with supervision of sunbeds. For example, the one in my gym is essentially uncontrolled - you can buy as many tokens as you want at reception, no questions asked. This is really the kind of setup that should be banned outright. If places like gyms want to offer this 'service' it should be subject to mandatory membership scanning or sign-in so that the minutes and visits per-customer could be checked. It would probably do a lot more than the 'fair skin' condition.

    There is also no register of sunbeds operated for commercial use. We need legislation to establish a mandatory register of any premises offering sunbeds, and a register of each machine (manufacturer, technical details and serial number). Each machine should have a registration sticker in full view on it, and it should be an offence to operate a sunbed in commercial service without first having had it registered and inspected. This would apply even in the case of a "machine swap" of the same type. While it wouldn't do anything in terms of limiting exposure, it would ensure compliance if/when tighter rules were to be brought in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    My experience of life (my own and others') suggests to me that it is a very poor basis on which to proceed.

    C'est la vie. Its infinitely preferable to a state of affairs whereby a small elite decide what the rest should be permitted, down to the last trivial detail.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,080 ✭✭✭hallelujajordan


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As I said in the post you've quoted, no, I would prefer not. Activities that are essentially only detrimental to the person undertaking them should never be banned.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


    Medically detrimental to the individual but financially detrimental to society as we pay to treat the self-inflicted illnesses. .

    The same is true for smoking but I guess the high taxes shift the balance back in society's favour. Perhaps we should tax sunbed use (maybe we already do) so that there is no longer a societal effect.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,612 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    If we're dragging the (almost inevitable) comparison to cigarettes into this topic, I'd like to ask how much the idiot tax (i.e. duty) is on sunbed usage, why it's still legal to advertise sunbeds etc.

    Given that duty is €6.70 on a pack of 20 cigarettes and packs generally cost €8.55.

    Judging from here , it's €49 for an hour's tanning (at 25% off mind you), so given the duty rate of 362% on cigarettes, we should be imposing a duty of €177.38 on an hour's sun bed use.

    Mightn't be the worst idea in the current climate ;)


Advertisement