Skin laws

cavedave

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?

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.

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

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.

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!"

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

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?

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.

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:o

dlofnep

Ban all sunbeds tbh. They are dangerous.

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Iwasfrozen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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

How so?

Scofflaw

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How so?

Have you never made badly informed decisions?!

impressed,
Scofflaw

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.

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.

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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.

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.

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

imme

Sleepy wrote: »

Sun beds cause cancer.

They're of no benefit to anyone

true

Sleepy

imme wrote: »

true

?

cavedave

So if we have a Pigovian tax on sunbeds how much should it be? 6% of people use sunbeds. these seem to about double skin cancer risk. So 12% of skin cancers are caused by using a cancer bed.

Skin cancer costs the UK 200* million per annum (pdf). Say here we have a tenth the number of people. That it would cost 20 million pounds. So 12% of that is about 2.5 million pounds cost here a year. Call it 4 million euro. Divided amongst 6% (250 thousand) of the population would mean a cost of 16 euro per sun bed user a year.

Put a charge of twenty euro on to register yourself as a cancerbed user each year?

*not 71

Red Alert

Inconvenience or associated operational costs rather than tax is one way to deal with it:

Everyone should have to sign a multi-page health disclaimer for each session. People should also have to sign a separate statement of intent to wear correct eyewear at each session. Salons should have to require sight of photo ID and retain a copy of same for each session. Each sunbed should have to get an electrical safety cert issued every month. Same thing for a UV-strength inspection by the radiological regulatory body every month. Salons should be subject to rigorous and unannounced inspections to make sure that they are complying with the regulations. The inspectors should audit the sunbed's hour counter, cash register records and signed documentation to ensure that complete records are being kept.

Then it just gets too costly for the majority of businesses to operate them.

Sleepy

I don't have the figures to hand but I'm pretty certain the duty collected on tobacco far exceeds the cost of smoking related illnesses... I think you're looking at something more akin to the €177 an hour duty I mentioned in my post above if it's to be implemented along those lines.

Which should effectively kill the industry, save lives and reduce the number of tangoed idiots making our streets uglier. Win, Win, Win

MagicSean

I can see the situation going bad. A video shop worker telling customers "No whites allowed". Very messy. Will tanning bed owners be giving training on the recognition of very fair skin? What about fair skinned people who already have gotten a tan? Does it go by natural skin colour or current colour? I think it will be a total mess.

Chuchoter

I think this is completely unfair. Ban them outright or don't ban them at all. Even though I would never use one, I don't appreciate being babied by the state. In any case the fair skin rule doesn't make sense, my friend is half Japanese and half Irish. She looks asian, but she burns worse than I do, because she has weak Irish skin from her Dad.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

I don't have the figures to hand but I'm pretty certain the duty collected on tobacco far exceeds the cost of smoking related illnesses... I think you're looking at something more akin to the €177 an hour duty I mentioned in my post above if it's to be implemented along those lines.

Which should effectively kill the industry, save lives and reduce the number of tangoed idiots making our streets uglier. Win, Win, Win

If only sleepy. Teh cost of treating diseases relating to smoking is astronomical compared to the tax on the cigarettes.

2Scoops

I'm appalled but not surprised that people are so willing to concede liberties to the government. Why do we need to ban sunbeds? It will result in lost jobs (lost revenue + increased social welfare). It will have a negligible effect on cancer incidence (how many skin cancer cases in Ireland have been linked, even tenuously, to sunbed use?). And it is a ridiculous double standard when far more potent carcinogens are ignored because they aren't as 'easy' or 'inexpensive' to ban.

Yes, tanning beds are easy to write off as trivial and stupid and, sure, let's ban them. But do you think it's really appropriate or necessary to make renting or using one a crime? An actual crime. This is what we need to legislate? Give me a break.

And one final question: how much has been spent already pushing this patently necessary law through? Six figures? Seven?

syklops

2Scoops wrote: »

I'm appalled but not surprised that people are so willing to concede liberties to the government. Why do we need to ban sunbeds? It will result in lost jobs (lost revenue + increased social welfare). It will have a negligible effect on cancer incidence (how many skin cancer cases in Ireland have been linked, even tenuously, to sunbed use?). And it is a ridiculous double standard when far more potent carcinogens are ignored because they aren't as 'easy' or 'inexpensive' to ban.

Yes, tanning beds are easy to write off as trivial and stupid and, sure, let's ban them. But do you think it's really appropriate or necessary to make renting or using one a crime? An actual crime. This is what we need to legislate? Give me a break.

And one final question: how much has been spent already pushing this patently necessary law through? Six figures? Seven?

I wish I could thank you twice.

cavedave

2Scoops I'm appalled but not surprised that people are so willing to concede liberties to the government. Why do we need to ban sunbeds?

I will hazard a guess at that one. Say the costs of skin cancer are within an order of magnitude of the ones I gave in post #34. That would mean the costs pail in comparison to smoking, drinking and diet.
In comparison to sunbed users yearly costs of the obese are huge

United States estimates that medical costs of obesity are $700 higher than the costs of a thin person.

So could it be that we are willing to have serious paternalistic control on sunbeds but not mars bars and hamburgers because of the people who use each. If we believe only poor working class women use sunbeds and we also believe these sorts of people cannot make decisions for themselves wouldn't paternalistic control of sunbeds make sense?

piby

2Scoops wrote: »

I'm appalled but not surprised that people are so willing to concede liberties to the government. Why do we need to ban sunbeds? It will result in lost jobs (lost revenue + increased social welfare). It will have a negligible effect on cancer incidence (how many skin cancer cases in Ireland have been linked, even tenuously, to sunbed use?). And it is a ridiculous double standard when far more potent carcinogens are ignored because they aren't as 'easy' or 'inexpensive' to ban.

I agree it's very hard to distinguish between skin cancer caused by sunbeds and skin cancer caused by other factors. Interestingly I've even read a few papers from the Scandinavian countries whereby the authors actually advocate using sunbeds for a very short duration because the exposure to sunlight in those countries is limited during winter. I don't use sunbeds and I think people who do are foolish but I think that it should be a person's right to choose until there is overwhelming scientific/medical evidence to base a ban on. At present we know skin cancer is increasing and we know that exposure to UV light can cause cancer but we don't have the link yet as to what degree this is attributable to sunbeds. If that link is firmly established then I think the government could justify a ban. Trying to ban people of a certain skin tone is so Victorian in thinking and so impossible to implement that I can't believe it's being entertained!

PS. I loved 2Scoops!! The audacity of a contender to give himself a nickname . . . There's some 90's nostaligia right there

bmaxi

Who is going to define what is fair skinned, the gum chewing stereotype at reception? Will tanning shops have to employ Dermatologists?
Will fair skinned, fair haired people be banned or red haired or dark haired?
Fcuking nonsense, another ridiculous law that can't be policed or enforced, either ban sunbeds outright or leave adults free to make up their own minds whether or not they wish to risk skin cancer.

aDeener

are under 18s currently banned from using them?

cavedave

No it seems under 18's are not currently banned from using them

Under-18-year-olds will also be banned from using sunbeds.

Stark

I'd better get working on my tan before I end up being banned from sunbeds.

Executive Steve

Scofflaw wrote: »

assuming the legislation is well written.


cordially,
Scofflaw

amused,
Executive Steve

columok

My body is private property. If I'm stupid enough to expose it super doses of carcinogenic rays (minus all of the good anticarcinogenic stuff in sunlight) then its my own problem. If I'm a sunbed vendor I should be exposed to the liability of my product giving people cancer.

No need for government intervention on this one!!!

ardmacha

If I'm stupid enough to expose it super doses of carcinogenic rays (minus all of the good anticarcinogenic stuff in sunlight) then its my own problem.

Fine. So long as you do not go to publicly funded health services to seek treatment for this ailment.

Fine. So long as you don't seek public funding to support you or your dependents while you are sick or after you die.

johnmcdnl

RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 surely this is racism... not allowing people do something because of the colour of their skin...

what's the odds that if DARK skinned people weren't allowed use them it'd be the front page of every paper in the country and would be a national scandal..


now i'm all for banning tanning beds and all but surely you can't ban them for white people and not for black people...

now i know black people don't use tanning beds in general put still.. it's the reasoning behind it... ban everyone or ban no-one...



and yes - they should just ban everyone...
but you can't be racist about it