View Single Post
Old 03-31-2010, 07:58 AM   #33 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Those of you decrying the "nanny state" should realize that if it were truly the case, then the beds would be banned along with a host of other potentially harmful health & beauty products. (Besides, where were some of you "nanny staters" when Buy American was sold to you?) No, this is a tax to offset the real cost of cancer that arises out of regular use of tanning beds. It's documented. Any dermatologist worth his or her weight in salt will tell you that a suntan is a sign of skin damage, and that this damage has a "memory" (i.e. it never goes away).

I don't know enough about hair products to know whether some of the potentially harsher ones require a professional to administer them, but it is, indeed, a separate issue.

People who pay for such luxuries as tanning aren't about to be dissuaded by this tax. It's like many people with the price of gasoline. It might stay relatively high, but that doesn't dissuade many from rolling around in SUVs and V6es.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57