No tanning allowed?

By Hilary Tone

If a local legislator gets his way, underage tanners may lose the right to expose themselves to precious ultraviolet rays.

Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-Marin, introduced a bill last month that calls for a ban on anyone under the age of 18 from using tanning beds with ultraviolet rays, excluding people with doctor's orders.

"We don't let kids smoke until they're 18. We don't even let kids get body piercings until they're 18," Nation told the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat. "And yet, we have a law that allows a 14-year-old kid to go to a tanning salon and be exposed to what the federal government has concluded is a carcinogen."

The tanning industry rakes in roughly $2 billion per year, but it could face smaller figures if salons are forced to turn away underage customers. Nation's bill would subject defiant tanning facilities to a $2,500 fine per day for every violation.

But Stephanie Rose, owner of Four Seasons Tanning in nearby Los Gatos, isn't worried.

She said spray tanning has become an increasingly popular alternative.

"People are more into taking care of their skin," Rose said. "Only about 15 percent of business here is tanning beds."

Nation, who had a chunk of his leg removed three years ago from melanoma, thinks the state ought to set limits to what types of radiation kids should be exposed.

"We don't say it's OK for a parent to give their child a cigarette at age 15, because there is no good that can come from that," Nation said. "We also know there is no good that can come from a tanning salon."

Santa Clara students, who seek tans at the Graham and Leavey pools and on the lawns of Mission Gardens aren't sure this bill will prevent young people from damaging their skin.

"If people can't go tanning (in salons), they'll just go sit outside, especially here in California where it's so sunny," sophomore Sarah Arzt said.

But sophomore Lora Reed argued that tanning "shouldn't be under government restriction. The parents should be taking responsibility since this bill is supposed to be affecting people who are still minors."

Reed explained that to avoid the 48-hour rule that many salons use to prevent people from over exposure, her sister used to sign up at two different tanning locations and go everyday.

"You can get around the rules if you really want to," Reed said.

To skirt Nation's bill, minors may take to extremes, such as spending excessive hours in the sun or joining the thousands of underage Americans who own fake driver's licenses.

Yeah, they will definitely try to use that," Rose said. "Sure, the die-hards will try it, but they could also just buy the body beds for $600 and put it in their house and tan everyday."

Betsy Dalby, a freshman from the East Coast, said she's seen places that have already implemented a form of Nation's idea by requiring parent permission.

"In Massachusetts, you're supposed to have a letter from your parents, but kids break the rules all the time," Dalby said. "The only thing the law did was prevent people who didn't care enough to bend the rules from tanning, but there's still a lot of minors doing just that."

Some students support Nation's plan.

"I think it'd be a good idea since we're trying to protect people's health, even though kids will probably find other ways of getting tan," freshman Gabriela Grijalva. "But at least this would eliminate one option."

Others don't believe that a bill should allow the government to determine how and when people could tan.

To them, it is a matter of personal freedom.

"It should be up to each person individually," sophomore Ross Nelson said. "The government shouldn't determine who gets to tan by their age."

"Granted UV-ray tanning can increase one's likelihood of skin cancer, and that's a pretty big deal, but it's still each person's own choice," Nelson continued.

Nation suggests teenagers should try bottled products or spray-on tans as safer alternatives.

"I've used spray-on tanning twice," Grijalva said. "The first time it worked great. The second time I didn't really rub it in and it was kind of streaky. Only lasted for like a week, too."

Earlier this month, the Assembly Committee on Appropriations approved the measure, voting 7-3.

The bill was scheduled for a hearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee May 5.