Brown signs law banning children under 18 from using commercial tanning beds

Organization links rapid rise in melanoma rates among younger women to tanning beds

AIM at Melanoma, the largest international foundation dedicated to melanoma research and patient advocacy, yesterday applauded Governor Jerry Brown's signing of Senate Bill 746, which now bans children under 18 from using indoor tanning beds.

Tanning beds have been linked to the rapid rise in melanoma rates among 15-39 year olds, the organization claims.

Co-sponsored by AIM at Melanoma and the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatological Surgery, SB 746 replaces the current law, which required teens aged 14-17 years old to obtain parental permission to use a tanning bed.

Nearly 28 million individuals use tanning beds in the U.S. annually, of which 2.3 million are teens, said Valerie Guild, president and founder of AIM at Melanoma. Those who use tanning beds before the age of 20 double their risk of developing melanoma.

Melanoma is the No. 1 cancer killer of young women between the ages of 25-30, and second only to breast cancer in women 30-34, she added. Over 8,000 new cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in California in 2011.

Guild, whose daughter died of melanoma at the age of 26, praised Brown's decision to break new ground by signing SB 746 into law.

"This is a major victory in the fight against melanoma," she said. "It is alarming that so many young women are unnecessarily developing melanoma because of a recreational activity."

Guild added: "We applaud Governor Brown for taking advantage of this unique opportunity to blaze a trail by banning minors from using tanning beds. We thank him for joining our fight against this preventable killer.

"Scientific research has shown conclusively that tanning beds cause skin cancer," said Senator Ted Lieu, who authored the bill in the Senate. "The younger kids are when they start using tanning beds, the greater the cumulative damage to their skin and the more likely they are to die of skin cancer."

California is the first and only state to impose a law banning minors from tanning beds.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Quentin
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:29 am

This post is OK, but Brown signed an even more consequential bill providing financial aid for education of illegal aliens. I guess the jist of this is that Democrats are doing everything they can to increase the number of illegals in this country because they know that at least 80% of them vote Democrat. Meanwhile the cost to the country is just staggering. When are people going to wise up?

 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Parkside
on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:34 am

Quentin, the answer is either not ever, or too late. It's sad to see what this state has become and it's all due to many folks who made some really bad choices when going to the polls.
They are running out of Republicans to vilify, since most of the politiicnas are dems. Who will they blame now?

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Oct 11, 2011 at 10:04 am

Not only did I vote for Governor Brown but I also support his signing of the bill to provide financial aid for education for illegal aliens!

These educated students will eventually pay taxes and support the American economy. I don't understand why some poster's don't want the "illegal aliens" to eventually pay their fair share?

I strongly support the move by Governor Brown to make America a better place. The bill is fair and reasonable.

i rest my case...

 +   Like this comment
Posted by reasonable
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 11, 2011 at 10:05 am

I'm so glad to see some action and awareness around melanoma. As a melanoma survivor (caught very early)I am shocked at how little attention and research is given this extremely deadly cancer. The unfortunate truth is that for those who catch it early it is not a big deal -- it almost "doesn't count" as a cancer.

And those who catch it late die so quickly that they have no time to fight or advocate. It's not like breast cancer, where there are legions of 5 year survivors, fighting to find a way to survive 10 or 20 years more. Melanoma is a horrifyingly efficient killer if it "gets away" from its original site.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by reasonable
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 11, 2011 at 10:13 am

Cholo - I don't always agree with you but on this one your are spot on.

Kids who go to public US schools need an equal chance to become contributing, taxpaying members of society.

If we treat the illegal graduates of our high school differently than the legal ones, we are a) discouraging those kids from finishing high school at all, and b) perpetuating an underclass that is MORE likely to cost us taxpayer money.

Uneducated illegal kids who grew up here in the US are NOT going back to Mexico! They are getting involved in criminal activity, costing us money in prisons, law enforcement, yep, even deportation costs money. They are also more likely to be teenage/unwed parents (i.e. more welfare and food stamps). They are more likely to drive around uninsured and unlicensed (they have to get around somehow and they're afraid of the DMV). They are more likely to go to the emergency room (costing the rest of us more money in taxes and insurance premiums), since they can't work at an "official" job that would give them insurance. And so on.

The prospect of getting financial aid for college is a small price to pay to motivate these kids to at least finish high school and contribute to our society in a positive way.

Do I wish their parents had just stayed in Mexico and not brought them over? Sure. But if they grew up and went to school here, they are not going back -- deal with it.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by mike
a resident of Charter Oaks
on Oct 11, 2011 at 11:28 am

So if you are under 18 you can't get a tan, but you can have an abortion? If a person is in charge of their own body (as I believe they should be) then they should be allowed to make whatever choice they want to make about their body. If the consequences of these decisions is detrimental to that person, so be it.

On the illegal alien issue, I still don't understand how educating illegal's is a benefit. They will still be illegal, and still not be able to get a higher paying job if the employers are doing the necessary status checks.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by reasonable
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 11, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Illegals with an education should have the opportunity to get an H-1B visa just like any other foreign worker. We hire and let in educated foreign workers all the time.

Otherwise we are creating a caste system where certain kids grow up knowing there is nothing out there for them except working in the informal (cash) economy and no need or benefit for education. This will eventually come back to bite us as it breeds anger and resentment, crime, etc.

We are not talking about the parents here; but the kids they brought along at age 2,5 or 8, who are now in our schools. These kids had no choice in coming here or not and are not equipped to move back to where they were born.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Oct 11, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Woa! This thread has really gotten messed up. Thanks for hijacking the topic, Quentin. I agree that the other bill that Brown signed is also appropriate for discussion, but you really need to start a separate topic for that.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tark
a resident of Ironwood
on Oct 11, 2011 at 9:30 pm

But what is a self-loathing immigrant hater otherwise to do but hijack threads?

 +   Like this comment
Posted by crz
a resident of Civic Square
on Oct 12, 2011 at 3:09 am

woow quentin people like you will NEVER be satisfied. all you guys complain about us not going to school dropping out etc. But when a bill is signed so we can actually go to college you complain some more? get real! and last time I checked this article is about tanning not immigration issues so stop.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by phil
a resident of Danbury Park
on Oct 12, 2011 at 8:21 am

This bill is why we need to cut our senate and assembly in Sacramento to met for 6 months only. INSTEAD OF HANDLING THE BUDGET AND BRINGING FISCAL RESPONSIBILTY TO SACRAMENTO THEY PASS A BILL ON TANNING SHOPS AND SHEETS FOR HOTELS. Give us a break we have a state government who is out of control.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by ca94566
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2011 at 9:48 am

If the member of State & Fed houses pass laws that affect our children, where do the parents fit in this equation?

AND on the illegal aliens:

Documented and tracked! A total cost a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!
Medical, welfare, education, incarceration, under the table money NOT spent here, but sent back to the home country.
I agree, H1B and go to school legally. My G-grandparents must be rolling in their graves; they had to go through a process before they even got on the ship to come to the USA.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by lazzboy
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2011 at 12:09 am

"If a person is in charge of their own body (as I believe they should be) then they should be allowed to make whatever choice they want to make about their body. If the consequences of these decisions is detrimental to that person, so be it."

So if an 8 year old wants to smoke crack that should be fine. Let's assume they are an orphan so no parents, only the state to tell them what's best (and you/we are the state). According to you crack is fine. And for your kids, heroin, crack, meth, etc are all acceptable at any age?

I just want to be clear before starting an argument

 +   Like this comment
Posted by mike
a resident of Charter Oaks
on Oct 13, 2011 at 9:24 am


let the arguement begin

I don't beleive I said it was okay, I said a person is responsible for their choices. It doesn't matter if they are 8 or 80, stupid should hurt.

It's the parents role to help their children make good choices. If the child does not have a parent, teacher, pastor, or support system of any kind, they are going to have tougher time making good choices. Frankly, that child is probably doomed from the start.

I see no purpose in making laws that have such a narrow application. We are constantly managing to the lowest common denominator instead of the highest expectation.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Parkside
on Oct 13, 2011 at 11:36 am

This statement really encapsulates how Dems view the populace: "We are constantly managing to the lowest common denominator instead of the highest expectation."
These folks are the Dem voting base and cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. You see, Dems, in all their worldly, compsssionate wisdom always know what's best for the citizenry. They want to take the place of parents, manage their lives, teach them only what meets their agenda and generally control people. It's a full time job, requiring lots of resources (money, employees, etc.) and unfortunately, many lazy Calif. voters are more than happy to go aong with this scheme. Good luck to you lemmings.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by AnnaS
a resident of Val Vista
on Oct 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm

As it usually happened in such discussions we are missing the main problem of Brown's bills. Yes, tanning beds are harmful, and girls should receive HPV vaccine before they become sexually active and minors girls definitely should have have an abortion if they need it. But, unless it was decided by a judge that the parents can not make decisions for their children or may endanger children's' lives it's should be parents' responsibility and parents' choice.
The government of the Land of The Free should take care about people being informed of all the possible consequences of their actions, but it should not be allowed to make the personal decisions for the people.
All the latest bills are precedents of taking away a freedom from Californians and transforming the state to the totalitarian regime.
If Californians will not finally wake-up, than tanning, abortions and discussions like this will not be relevant any more. And as it was in USSR, it would be illegal to try to get out of the country, not to get in.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Go out and play in traffic, Johnny!
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 13, 2011 at 3:47 pm

I guess Anna believes that the state's insistence that minors attend school, or that they wear seatbelts in the car, or that their parents shouldn't smoke when kids are in the car are all instances of totalitarianism. For all these kinds of totalitarianism take away the freedom of parents to choose to endanger their kids' lives if they want to. Got any other pearls of wisdom for us, Anna?

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Parkside
on Oct 13, 2011 at 7:46 pm

Where, exactly, does your nanny state utopia end? How much control do you leftists need over other people's lives? Again, you have failed to be a parent to your child if you have given the state control over their lives. Maybe you feel safer having politicians controlling every aspect of your daily life, but the rest of us adults are opting out of your lazy approach to parenting.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Another bad idea from the air board
By Tim Hunt | 19 comments | 1,241 views

Exchange Club Meeting on First Amendment
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 588 views