ND Legislator Wants To Ban Tanning For Kids Under 16

[Editor-in-Chief]

ND Legislator Wants To Ban Tanning For Kids Under 16

Jan 7 2007 6:59AM
http://sayanythingblog.com/index.php

The nanny state hard at work.

Ashley Callahan's plan to tan for an upcoming school dance would be illegal under a bill proposed by North Dakota lawmakers.

• House Bill 1154 aims to prohibit people younger than 16 from using tanning facilities.
• The idea was brought forward by two Bismarck-area dermatologists, said Rep. George Keiser, R-Bismarck, the prime sponsor of the bill.
• "These folks are the people who work in the industry every day that have the opportunity to see skin cancer," Keiser said.
• "Dermatologists in general do not like tanning beds at all, but they have a great concern when people begin to use them at too early of an age," he said.

I don’t really have an opinion on tanning beds one way or another, but I sure don’t like the idea of the state stepping in to do what should be the parents’ job in keeping too-young kids away from the tanning booths.

Really, how much of a problem is this? If there has been a spate of teenagers with skin cancer caused by tanning beds I’ve yet to hear about it.

If these dermatologists in Bismarck are worried about skin cancer let them raise some money to run ads about it or convince tanning salons to establish a minimum age policy.

What we don’t need are our tax dollars going to enforce a law that is aimed at solving a problem that, to this observer, doesn’t even seem to exist in the first place.

Does a ban on under-16 tanning seem like a small thing? Sure, because it is.

But we citizens must always be wary of government bans which are ever encroaching upon our freedoms. This time the government trying to protect us by banning something trivial like tanning. Next time the government may try to protect us by banning something we like. Like aluminum bats or certain types of restaurants.

The positions we citizens should have when it comes to this sort of legislation is that we are capable of making ourselves and that we don’t need the government to protect us from our own choices.

Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

Teens’ tan regulation in N.D. bill

Teri Finneman, The Forum
Published Sunday, January 07, 2007


Ashley Callahan’s plan to tan for an upcoming school dance would be illegal under a bill proposed by North Dakota lawmakers.

House Bill 1154 aims to prohibit people younger than 16 from using tanning facilities.

The idea was brought forward by two Bismarck-area dermatologists, said Rep. George Keiser, R-Bismarck, the prime sponsor of the bill.

“These folks are the people who work in the industry every day that have the opportunity to see skin cancer,” Keiser said.

“Dermatologists in general do not like tanning beds at all, but they have a great concern when people begin to use them at too early of an age,” he said.


Do you think people under 16 should be prohibited from going to tanning salons?

Several other states have passed similar legislation. Wisconsin state law prohibits people under 16 from using tanning salons.

Keiser said he understands girls like to tan before prom and other dances. However, there are other options, such as spray-tanning.

“Given that there are safer alternatives that work reasonably well, we are supporting our local dermatologists on this issue,” Keiser said of himself and the bill’s co-sponsor, Sen. Ralph Kilzer, R-Bismarck.

The idea received mixed reviews from Fargo South teenagers.

Callahan, a 15-year-old sophomore preparing for the school’s Snowball dance, thinks the bill is “sort of stupid.” She uses a tanning salon three or four times a year.

“The person who’s tanning – I think it’s mainly their concern,” Callahan said. “It’s their fault if something happens to them.”

In her case, Callahan said her mother had to go to the tanning salon to give her permission to tan, due to her age.

Some girls at school have tanning beds in their houses, she said.

Fargo South sophomore Lindsey Kringlie – who turned 16 last week – said it’s more common for juniors and seniors to tan than underclassmen.

She doesn’t use tanning salons herself, but said she thinks it should be a person’s choice.

“They’re not really hurting other people,” Kringlie said.

Fargo South junior Bryan Klepperich, 16, said he takes more of a middle-of-the-road approach.

The bill to limit people who can tan “makes sense” because some people overdo it, he said. He said he used a tanning salon when he was 15 to prevent a burn before he went on a cruise.

West Fargo Native Sun manager Alicia Odens said the business has brochures about teenage tanning.

The business rarely sees people younger than 16 unless they’re cases similar to Klepperich’s – teens going on vacation.

In that case, customers 15 and younger must have a guardian come in and sign a release form, she said.

It’s wise for anyone who is going to suddenly be exposed to strong sun to develop a base tan ahead of time, Odens said.

“A tanning bed is actually smarter than tanning outside because it’s a controlled environment,” she said.

Odens said she thinks the decision of teen tanning should be up to parents.

Attempts to reach Fargo and Bismarck dermatologists for comment on the bill were unsuccessful Friday afternoon.

The bill’s first hearing is scheduled for 8 a.m. Wednesday.

Readers can reach Forum reporter Teri Finneman at (701) 241-5560

Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

The poll:
Do you think people under 16 should be prohibited from going to tanning salons?


Yes 60%
No 35%
Don't know 5%


Total votes: 766

Vote Here!

Vote Here!

[Din]

I voted Yes.....that's good right?

[Editor-in-Chief]

Comments posted too the original blog ("ND's Most Popular Political Blog")

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/nd_... 16/#comments

[Editor-in-Chief]

Text of ND HB-1154: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-...t/HATO0100.pdf

[Editor-in-Chief]

70432.0100
Sixtieth
Legislative Assembly HOUSE BILL NO. 1154
of North Dakota
Introduced by
Representative Keiser
Senator Kilzer

A BILL for an Act to create and enact chapter 23-39 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to regulation of tanning facilities; and to provide a penalty.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:

SECTION 1. Chapter 23-39 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

23-39-01. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Department" means the state department of health.
2. "Phototherapy device" means equipment that emits ultraviolet radiation and is used in treating disease.

3. "Tanning device" means equipment that emits electromagnetic radiation having wavelengths in the air between two hundred and four hundred nanometers and which is used for tanning of human skin and any equipment used with that equipment, including protective eyewear, timers, and handrails. The term does not include a phototherapy device used by a physician.

4. "Tanning facility" means a place or business that provides individuals access to a tanning device.

23-39-02. Permit - Fee.

A person may not operate a tanning facility without a permit issued by the department under this chapter. The holder of a permit shall display the permit in a conspicuous place at the tanning facility for which the permit is issued. Permits issued under this chapter expired annually on June thirtieth. An applicant for a permit shall submit an application for a permit to the department, on a form provided by the department, with a permit fee established by the department. The application must include the name and complete mailing address and street address of the tanning facility and any other information reasonably required by the department for the administration of this section.

23-39-03. Advertising - Notice - Warning sign - Tubes - Prohibited claims.

1. A tanning facility may not state in any advertising that the tanning facility holds a license or permit issued by the department to operate a tanning facility.
2. A tanning facility shall give to each of the tanning facility's customers written notice of the following:
a. Failure to wear the eye protection provided by the tanning facility may result in damage to the customer's eyes and may cause cataracts;
b. Overexposure to a tanning device causes burns;
c. Repeated exposure to a tanning device may cause premature aging of the skin and may cause skin cancer;
d. Abnormal skin sensitivity or burning of the skin while using a tanning device may be caused by:
(1) Certain foods;
(2) Certain cosmetics; and
(3) Certain medications, including tranquilizers, diuretics, antibiotics, high blood pressure medicines, and birth control pills; and
e. An individual who takes a drug should consult a physician before using a tanning device.
3. A tanning facility shall display prominently a warning sign in each area where a tanning device is used. The warning sign must convey the following directions and information:
a. Follow instructions.
b. Avoid too frequent or too lengthy exposure. Like exposure to the sun, use of a tanning device can cause eye and skin injury and allergic reactions. Repeated exposure can cause chronic sun damage, which is characterized by wrinkling, dryness, fragility and bruising of the skin, and skin cancer.
c. Wear protective eyewear.
d. Ultrviolet radiation from tanning devices will aggravate the effects of the sun, so do not sunbathe during the twenty-four hours immediately preceding or immediately following the use of a tanning device.
e. Medications and cosmetics may increase your sensitivity to ultraviolet radiation. Consult a physician before using a tanning device if you are using medications, have a history of skin problems, or believe that you are especially sensitive to sunlight. Women who are pregnant or using birth control pills and who use a tanning device may develop discolored skin.
f. If your skin does not tan when exposed to the sun, it is unlikely that your skin will tan when exposed to this tanning device.
4. A tanning facility shall post a sign in each area where a tanning device is used stating the date on which each fluorescent tube in that tanning device was last replaced. The tanning facility shall maintain a record of the date on which each fluorescent tube is replaced.
5. An owner or employee of a tanning facility may not claim, or distribute materials that claim, that using a tanning device is free of risk.

23-39-04. Liability.

A tanning facility's compliance with this chapter does not relieve the owner or any employee of the tanning facility from liability for injury sustained by a user of a tanning device.

23-39-05. Duties.

1. The owner of a tanning facility shall ensure that all of the following are fulfilled:
a. A customer under sixteen years of age is not permitted to use the tanning facility.
b. During operating hours there is present at the tanning facility a trained operator who is able to inform customers about, and assist customers in, the proper use of tanning devices.
c. Each tanning bed is properly sanitized after each use.
d. A customer, before using a tanning device, is provided with properly sanitized and securely fitting protective eyewear that protects the wearer's eyes from ultraviolet radiation and allows enough vision to maintain balance.
e. A customer is not allowed to use a tanning device unless the customer uses protective eyewear.
f. A customer is shown how to use such physical aids as handrails and markings on the floor to determine the proper distance from the tanning device.
g. A timing device that is accurate within ten percent is used.
h. Each tanning device is equipped with a mechanism that allows the customer to turn off the tanning device.
i. A customer is limited to the maximum exposure time recommended by the manufacturer.
j. A customer is not allowed to use a tanning device more than once every twenty-four hours.
k. The interior temperature of the tanning facility does not exceed one hundred degrees Fahrenheit.
l. The statements under subdivision a of subsection 2 are retained by the tanning facility for the lesser of three years or until the customer signs a new statement.
2. A user of a tanning facility shall do all of the following:
a. Immediately before the customer's first use of a tanning facility in a year, sign a statement acknowledging that the customer has read and understands the notice under subsection 2 of section 23-39-03 and the warning sign under subsection 3 of section 23-39-03 and specifying that the customer agrees to use protective eyewear.
b. Use protective eyewear at all times while using a tanning device.

23-39-06. Injury reports.

If an individual requires medical attention due to use of a tanning facility, the owner of that tanning facility shall report that injury to the department in writing and send a copy of that report to the injured individual. The owner of the tanning facility shall retain a copy of the report for at least three years.

23-39-07. Enforcement - Rules - Penalty.

The department shall enforce this chapter. The state health council shall adopt rules necessary to implement this chapter. The department may deny issuance of a permit to an applicant or suspend or revoke any permit issued under this chapter if the applicant or permitholder, or an employee of the applicant or permitholder, violates this chapter or any rule adopted to implement this chapter. Violation of this chapter or any rule adopted to implement this chapter is a class B misdemeanor.

[Editor-in-Chief]

A customer under sixteen years of age is not permitted to use the tanning facility.

This is best left up to the parents. There is nothing wrong with requiring written parental permission for people 16years of age and under.

A customer, before using a tanning device, is provided with properly sanitized and securely fitting protective eyewear that protects the wearer's eyes from ultraviolet radiation and allows enough vision to maintain balance.

"Community Eyewear" rules are bad public policy. Clients should be required to use their own purchased eyewear. They are more likely to use their own purchased eyewear than salon provided "community eyewear". Consider the analogy of hotels being required to provide sanitized "community toothbrushes" in guest rooms. It's just a dumb rule.

A customer is not allowed to use a tanning device unless the customer uses protective eyewear.

This is impossible to enforce. An employee can't know what happens behind closed doors. Most people don't like using "community eyewear".

The interior temperature of the tanning facility does not exceed one hundred degrees Fahrenheit.

Why does this clause keep showing up in legislation? There is no science suggesting this is important or relevant.

The state health council shall adopt rules necessary to implement this chapter. The department may deny issuance of a permit to an applicant or suspend or revoke any permit issued under this chapter if the applicant or permitholder, or an employee of the applicant or permitholder, violates this chapter or any rule adopted to implement this chapter. Violation of this chapter or any rule adopted to implement this chapter is a class B misdemeanor.

This is a legislative IED. It allows more anti-tanning salon rules to be implemented without legislative oversight or industry input.

[Editor-in-Chief]

Legislature to Address Tanning Bed Bill

Jan 8 2007 8:42AM
KXMBTV

Video: http://www.kxmb.com/video.asp?Articl...9&VideoId=4285

The North Dakota Legislature is looking to regulate tanning beds.

A proposed law would bar anyone under 16 from using a tanning bed in a salon.

And all tanning beds would have to be registered with North Dakota's Health Department, even if they're in private homes.

Bismarck Representative George Keiser is sponsoring the bill and says he's doing it at the request of skin doctors.

Dermatologists worry that use of tanning beds can increase a person's risk of getting skin cancer.

The North Dakota House Human Services Committee is holding a hearing on Wednesday.


Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

Representative George Keiser, AssHat

[Ezliving_Jim]

Heitkamp: Proposed tanning salon rules too strict

By DALE WETZEL Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press - Wednesday, January 10, 2007

BISMARCK, N.D.
North Dakota would adopt a "radical" restriction on the use of tanning salons by banning anyone younger than 16 from using them, former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp says.

The Indoor Tanning Association, a Washington, D.C., trade group, is contesting some details of a bill to regulate the industry for the first time in North Dakota. The state has an estimated 650 tanning salons, said Kenan Bullinger, a state Health Department administrator.

Two Bismarck dermatologists argued in favor of the bill. "This has been well documented, in sound scientific fact, that ultraviolet light, which is a radiation, does cause skin cancer," Dr. William Cornatzer said.

The House Human Services Committee held its first hearing Wednesday on the bill. It requires salons to be licensed and inspected, and includes a number of provisions intended to protect salon users from radiation overexposure and injury.

Heitkamp, who is representing the tanning association, said most of the legislation's provisions are already standard industry practice. But of the 25 states that regulate the tanning industry, only one, Wisconsin, does not allow salons to serve anyone younger than 16, she said.

Heitkamp suggested the legislation be amended to lower the minimum age to 14 and require anyone ages 14 to 17 to get parental consent before using a tanning bed. The committee will make a recommendation on the bill later.

"With the passage of this bill, if you would not amend it, North Dakota would have, perhaps, the most radical restrictions on tanning bed facilities," Heitkamp said.

Cornatzer and another Bismarck dermatologist, Dr. Denise Forte-Pathroff, said the minimum age should not be lowered. The World Health Organization and the American Medical Association believe no one under 18 should be allowed to use a tanning bed, Cornatzer said.

"In North Dakota, as well as the whole United States, we as dermatologists are seeing an epidemic of skin cancers, especially in malignant melanomas," he said. "This is a mole that turns malignant. It has no cure if it actually gets too deep into your skin ... This is a skin cancer that will kill you."

Heitkamp said there were disagreements among dermatologists about the reasons behind an increase in skin cancer occurrences.

"What some dermatologists are saying is that we're seeing more cases of melanoma because we're testing more for melanoma," she said. "If you look at the rate of testing, it has increased dramatically."
___
The bill is HB1154.

Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

HB-1154 Fiscal Notes: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-...s/HATO0100.pdf

HB-1154 Bill Status: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-...ex/bi1154.html

HB-1154 Official text: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-...t/HATO0100.pdf

[Editor-in-Chief]

Grand Forks Herald Editorial

OUR OPINION: Reject the tan ban in N.D.


Published Monday, January 08, 2007

Skiing is more dangerous. Hunting is more dangerous. Heck, youth hockey and high school football send many more young people to emergency rooms, by far.


So, why are some lawmakers in Bismarck talking about preventing 16-year-olds from using tanning facilities?

For one thing, because they can. Tanning has a Coppertone aroma of vanity about it that makes it harder for freedom-lovers to defend and easier for health police to attack.

For another thing, because tanning is associated with cancer - the big C, a letter that prompts almost as much outrage and condemnation in modern society as a scarlet A did in years past. But in this case, the link between tanning and cancer shouldn't be enough for the state to step in.

That's because skin cancer is not lung cancer, sunlight is not cigarette smoke, and smoking is not tanning. In other words, the evidence used to ban smoking among young people and crack down on it in public places isn't nearly as strong regarding the risks of getting a tan.

• -- Skin cancer is not lung cancer. The Centers for Disease Control estimates 440,000 deaths each year in the United States are associated with smoking. In addition to lung cancer, the causes of death include heart disease, pulmonary disease and other illnesses aggravated by smoking.

In contrast, “the American Cancer Society estimates there will be about 10,710 deaths from skin cancer in 2006,” the society's Web site reports.

In North Dakota, that translates into 20 to 30 skin-cancer deaths a year.

And remember, a tanning-bed law would help only a much smaller number - namely, those who would develop skin cancer as a result of visiting tanning salons as a teen.

Is it worth restricting the freedom of tens of thousands and usurping parents' authority to maybe, possibly, benefit a few?

• -- Sunlight is not cigarette smoke. The sunlight/skin cancer link, it turns out, is complicated. Here's how an MSNBC story summarized the data in August:

“There's no doubt that sun exposure increases the rate of basal and squamous cell carcinomas. . . . Having them removed frequently can be bothersome and even disfiguring, but they almost never threaten your life.

“With melanoma, the potentially deadly skin cancer, the role of the sun gets murkier. . . . A review article in this week's New England Journal of Medicine concludes that the strongest risk factors for melanoma are a family history, multiple ‘nevi' skin lesions and a previous history of the disease. Exposure to ultraviolet light, the harmful rays from the sun, are a more distant ‘additional risk factor.'"

• -- Smoking is not tanning. Then, there is the recent bombshell that “a role for sunlight and vitamin D in cancer prevention (emphasis added) is strongly suggested by epidemiologic obserations.” That's not MSNBC speaking; it's an editorial in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, commenting on the startling new research about vitamin D's role in human health.

In August, a USA Today story summarized that research this way: “Even if too much sun leads to skin cancer, which is rarely deadly, too little sun may be worse.” By the way, people in Northern climates in winter are said to be especially vulnerable to vitamin D deficiency.

No, this isn't an ad for the tanning industry. It's a suggestion that banning teenagers from visiting salons is an overreaction. The state should have to clear a high bar before it restricts a free people's lawful activities; and in the matter of the risks of tanning salons, North Dakota's not over that bar yet.

- Tom Dennis for the Herald

Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

Teens cool to tan ban
By JONATHANRIVOLI
Bismarck Tribune



MIKE McCLEARY/Tribune Jeri Heiser, of Tan Express in Bismarck, talks afterwards about her testimony and opposition to house bill 1154 prohibiting 14-15 year olds from using tanning beds at a House Human Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.



Prom is just around the corner, so what's a teenage girl to do?

Along with hair, makeup, nails and picking out a new dress, many make a trip to the tanning salon for that perfect bronzed look. But under a measure being debated by the North Dakota Legislature, those plans would become illegal for teenagers under 16.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. George Keiser, R-Bismarck, said at a hearing Wednesday that preventing younger teenagers from tanning is crucial to keeping them healthy and cancer-free later in life.

Keiser modeled his bill after a Wisconsin measure on underage tanning, which is the strictest in the nation.

A Bismarck dermatologist, Dr. William Cornaster, said his profession is seeing an increasing incidence of skin cancer, espcecially among women in their 20s and 30s who have been tanning since their early teens.

"This has been well-documented, and it is a scientific fact that ultraviolet light does cause skin cancer," he said.

According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, U.S. deaths from melanoma, the deadliest skin cancer, are at 8,000 a year and climbing.

The foundation also finds that blistering sunburns during childhood more than double a person's chances of getting melanoma later in life.

Still, scientific evidence is mixed on whether there's a direct link between indoor tanning and increased risk of skin cancer.

Many states aren't waiting for more convincing evidence.

Twenty-five states currently place some restrictions on underage tanning, often setting a minimum age or requiring a parental signature.

South Dakota and Montana don't restrict tanning bed use.

In Minnesota, tanners under 16 must have a parent sign a warning statement in the presence of tanning salon employees.

Some young tanners say North Dakota's idea of an all-out ban goes too far.

"I think it's dumb," said Elise Enerson, a 15-year-old Bismarck High School sophomore.

Enerson said she went tanning three times last week and is already required by the salon to present written permission from her parents.

"It helps you get some color," she said.

"It's all about confidence," added her friend, Kendra Bratten, a 15-year-old sophomore at Bismarck High School, who tans occasionally for special occasions.

Bratten said she and her peers should be trusted to use common sense and not overdo it.

The measure also has caught the ire of local tanning salon owners.

"Tanning is natural; it's the overexposure of tanning that's dangerous," said Jeri Heiser, owner of Tan Express, which has two locations in Bismarck.

Heiser said improved technology and a diligent staff work to prevent injury or overtanning at her salons.

She also said teens under 16 make up a very small portion of her business, often coming in droves around prom time and not much during the rest of the year.

(Reach reporter Jonathan Rivoli at 223-8482 or jonathan.rivoli@;bismarcktribune.com.)

For related information, click here to check out the National Conference of Sate Legislatures.

Source

[Ezliving_Jim]

Ray restrictions: ND House votes to regulate tanning


The Associated Press - Wednesday, January 31, 2007


BISMARCK, N.D.


North Dakota teenagers would need permission from a parent to visit a tanning salon under legislation approved by the state House to regulate the industry.

"This is good public policy," said Rep. Jasper Schneider, D-Fargo.

As introduced, the measure would have barred anyone younger than 16 from using a tanning bed. Only Wisconsin has a similar restriction, and North Dakota dermatologists urged the Legislature to adopt it.

The measure was changed to allow young people ages 14 to 18 to use a tanning bed if they had permission from a parent or guardian.

Anyone younger than 14 needs a doctor's permission and must be accompanied by a parent or guardian to use a tanning bed, the legislation says.

The North Dakota House voted 62-27 on Wednesday to approve the bill. It now goes to the Senate for its review.

North Dakota has an estimated 650 tanning salons, which the state does not presently regulate.

The bill requires licensing of tanning salons and provides sanitary guidelines, and says salons must provide customers with safety information and protective goggles.

Under the bill, the Department of Health would be in charge of licensing and inspecting tanning businesses.
___
The bill is HB1154.

[Ezliving_Jim]

Lawmakers regulating tanning age

By Anna Jauhola, Daily News

At the end of January, the N.D. House of Representatives passed bill 1154 regarding parental consent for those younger than 18 to use tanning beds.

The bill passed 62 to 27 and did not follow partisan lines. District 25 Rep. John Wall, R-Wahpeton, was among the majority of lawmakers who voted in favor of the bill.

With legislative crossover happening today, the Senate will now takes its shot at the bill. Wall thinks the Senate will also pass it.

"Considering what we know about skin cancer, what I've heard in testimony and in floor action it seemed a threat," Wall said. "As policy makers we need to protect minors from ultraviolet radiation."

Northcoast Tanning owner Steve Hinsverk originally thought the bill was for those younger than 16, but doesn't think the bill, if made a law, will make a difference in business. "A large percentage of my customers are under 18," Hinsverk said.

However, Hinsverk also sees a lot of men in their 30s and 40s coming in to tan, "probably because it's not a salon" he added. These men come in to tan mainly because they are traveling. Women in their 30s and 40s are a steady customer base as well and are even seen bringing their daughters in to tan.

Bill 1154 is meant to protect minors from getting skin cancer, which is basically protecting people from themselves — Wall doesn't always support this type of legislation, but in this case however, he supports the bill because it seeks to protect minors.

Wall is a retired teacher. He said many teenage girls tan during prom season with parental consent. He said this law likely won't change the present tanning culture. He said if parents are against tanning, their children simply don't tan. He still supports this legislation because it seeks to protect children.

Hinsverk agreed because he's seen so many parent-children duos coming in to tan together and many parents dropping their children off to tan.

Source

[Ezliving_Jim]

Senate passes bill regulating teens’ use of tanning salons

Teri Finneman, The Forum
Published Tuesday, March 13, 2007


BISMARCK – Teenagers hoping for a bronze glow during prom season could face a cloudy outlook next year.

North Dakota lawmakers have approved a bill banning teens under 18 from using indoor tanning salons without written permission from their parents.

Customers under 14 will not be allowed to indoor tan without a written order from a physician and without being accompanied by a parent.

The bill also requires indoor tanning salons in the state to be regulated and requires salons to advise customers of potential harmful effects.

Sen. Nick Hacker, R-Grand Forks, opposed the bill, saying lawmakers don’t walk around telling parents not to keep their kids in the sun for 2½ hours.

RELATED CONTENT

Should North Dakota Gov. John Hoven sign legislation to tighten rules on tanning salons?

“I just think this is a place where we maybe don’t need to be regulating every part of people’s lives in the state of North Dakota,” he said.

Sen. Judy Lee, R-West Fargo, said she’s not a fan of overregulation, either. However, she said there are serious health and sanitation issues that need to be considered.

Representatives of the tanning industry also voiced support for the bill, Lee said.

The Senate approved the bill on a 38-7 vote. The bill will now go to the governor for signature.


Readers can reach Forum reporter Teri Finneman at (701) 241-5560


Source

[Ezliving_Jim]

Tanning dictates passed

E-mail This Story | Print Version

North Dakota youth can no longer tan without parental permission.

Those younger than 14 cannot tan at all unless the practice is prescribed by a doctor after the N.D. Senate passed stricter tanning requirements Monday.

The tanning legislation requires salons to warn customers about the hazards of indoor tanning, including information about the need to wear eye protection and to avoid too much exposure. It says tanning salons must follow sanitary practices and keep records of how often the bulbs in their tanning beds are changed.

Senators approved the measure, 38-7.Sen. Arden Anderson, D-Wahpeton, voted in favor of the bill simply because testimony about tanning beds causing harm was presented. "Sometimes non-adults may have sensitive skin and a parent knows it," Anderson said.

Anderson isn't quite sure about the amendment prohibiting those younger than 14, but feels the Legislature should give the issue time to see whether it works. The bill can be amended in two years when the Legislature convenes in 2009 if issues crop up after implementation.

Rep. John Wall, R-Wahpeton, voted for stricter controls when the issue was before the House. He was convinced by strong testimony about how tanning beds have the potential to cause skin cancer, Wall said. He received mixed correspondence from District 25 constituents on this issue.

Some parents wrote about wanting to protect their children from direct exposure to ultraviolet rays, others were against the government dictatorial stance and taking away their rights as parents.

Source