Quote:
Originally Posted by dlish
i dont really see a problem with a tax on people who intentionally put a strain on the public health system.
If you're going to reduce the governments bottom line by sucking up precious health care resources, they're going to claw it back from somwhere.
|
What if the people in question (broadening the issue from just people who use tanning booths) are not putting a strain on the system and can pay for the health care services they need? Where does this philosophy end? We already have people wanting to tax salt, sugar, fats...is the goal to turn everyone into tofu eating automatons? Why take all the fun out of life, just because there is a risk? I would rather live a full life full of gusto and passion than a long life in a world where others control what I do.
---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
There are many things that are extremely harmful if not used correctly. A tanning bed is one of those things that is harmful even when used correctly.
|
I think you are, pardon the pun, beginning to split hairs. The chemicals in some hair products are used because they change the structure of hair, in order to do that there is a destructive property in play and an extreme high risk of misuse (sorry I am not a scientist so try to accept my attempts here). The same is true with tanning. Exposure to ultra violet radiation occurs in situations outside of tanning beds and there is no tax and no out cry. Also, there are many cosmetic procedures that require a destructive process before the perceived benefit comes. All these can end in a cost greater than the benefit when done incorrectly. If the nanny state is going to address this, why do it in a targeted manner? This tanning tax, was simply someone's pet issue and they happened to have the power to get it put into legislation - in my view this is the wrong way to govern.