02.21.12
House Bill 486 in the Idaho legislature would ban the use of indoor tanning devices by minors under 18. The bill, which is chiefly supported by Representative John Rusche, MD, (D-Lewiston), the House Minority Leader and Ranking Minority Member on the Committee, is being considered by the House Health & Welfare Committee.
"This legislation is needed now," said Ronald L. Moy, MD, FAAD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology Association. "A ban for minors is essential because parental consent laws are not working and, according to a recent report released by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, indoor tanning salons are not following existing laws.
Prohibiting the use of indoor tanning beds for all youth under the age of 18 is critical to preventing future skin cancers as survey data indicate that use of these devices increases with each year of adolescence,"[i] he said.
"The Idaho Dermatology Society supports House Bill 486 because it will protect young people who do not fully understand that they are hurting themselves when they tan," said Lindsay D. Sewell, MD, FAAD, president of the Idaho Dermatology Society. "If the Idaho legislature does not pass House Bill 486, it will send a message to the entire country that Idaho is apathetic toward and reckless about the health of our children. We do not allow children to smoke tobacco if they have parental consent. We should protect our children from other cancer-causing agents, such as UV radiation from indoor tanning devices," he said.
In a statement to the Idaho House Health & Welfare Committee, Dr. Sewell said, "The 24-year-old woman I just diagnosed with melanoma wishes someone else had done something about tanning 15 years ago when she was too young to understand the issues and it wasn't too late for her. As the leaders of our state, it is up to you who know better to watch out for those who do not."
Many states now are working on legislation to ban teens and young adults from accessing these carcinogenic devices. In addition to Idaho, the states of Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont, and West Virginia are considering this proposal.
"This legislation is needed now," said Ronald L. Moy, MD, FAAD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology Association. "A ban for minors is essential because parental consent laws are not working and, according to a recent report released by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, indoor tanning salons are not following existing laws.
Prohibiting the use of indoor tanning beds for all youth under the age of 18 is critical to preventing future skin cancers as survey data indicate that use of these devices increases with each year of adolescence,"[i] he said.
"The Idaho Dermatology Society supports House Bill 486 because it will protect young people who do not fully understand that they are hurting themselves when they tan," said Lindsay D. Sewell, MD, FAAD, president of the Idaho Dermatology Society. "If the Idaho legislature does not pass House Bill 486, it will send a message to the entire country that Idaho is apathetic toward and reckless about the health of our children. We do not allow children to smoke tobacco if they have parental consent. We should protect our children from other cancer-causing agents, such as UV radiation from indoor tanning devices," he said.
In a statement to the Idaho House Health & Welfare Committee, Dr. Sewell said, "The 24-year-old woman I just diagnosed with melanoma wishes someone else had done something about tanning 15 years ago when she was too young to understand the issues and it wasn't too late for her. As the leaders of our state, it is up to you who know better to watch out for those who do not."
Many states now are working on legislation to ban teens and young adults from accessing these carcinogenic devices. In addition to Idaho, the states of Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont, and West Virginia are considering this proposal.