It must be something in the water. Senate Health and Human Services votes to bring back tan ban.

I couldn't freaking believe it when I read it today.

Bob Mercer was reporting in the Mitchell newspaper (sorry, Mercer stories aren't available on-line) that the Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted to bring back the undeniably stupidest piece of legislation that has been introduced to date.

Senate Bill 208 - the Tan Ban.

Instead of a flat ban on people under the age of eighteen from using the devices, the measure's author has is now offering an amendment. If the measure passes with this change, kids under the age of eighteen will be permitted to use the equipment only under the most strict of strict regulations: A note from their mommy.

In this instance, I've got to praise Senator Gant profusely. Because he's the only one on this committee who realizes how absolutely stupid the State of South Dakota thinks the rest of the committee looks at this moment.

How could three Senators who voted to reconsider this crap call themselves Republican (Tom Dempster, Ed Olson, and Tom Hansen). I mean, how do they look in the mirror this morning and tell themselves that they were for less government after they voted to take another look at this tomorrow?

It's the same silliness that is going to have us wrapped in bubble wrap until we hit our 30's. Sure, someone might try to tell themselves that "it's all for the kids." But it's not. It's all for the expansion of government intrusion into the minutia of everyone's lives.

I could believe the Democrats on the committee (Jerstad, Katus and Two Bulls) went along with the nonsensical line the author of the measure, Al Hoerth, is telling. But for three Republicans to change from "red-staters" to "nanny-staters?" That's just demoralizing.

If the underage tanners are driven underground, then... well, it won't actually be underground. They'll probably be doing the same thing out in the sun. Are we going to ban that too? Is next session going to have a mandatory sun-screening for everyone under 18? Because that's where this stupidness is heading.

Dear God, please save us from overzealous do-gooders. Especially the elected ones.

Yes, Al Hoerth might have found a doctor who says that tanning beds are bad. But I'm sure if I look long and hard enough, I might find one who says that running with a sharp stick is bad. Or that if you play will a BB gun, you'll shoot your eye out.

That doesn't mean we need legislation mandating government oversight of pointed sticks and a division of the Department of Health devoted to the prevention of eye-shootery.

It's called common sense. Something that we seem to be short on anymore.

"Government isn't the solution. It's the problem."
-Ronald Reagan.


Anonymous said…
You are right, PP. This legislation is just incredibly stupid.
Elais said…
It is my understanding that Katus is a melanoma survivor. So he has a personal stake in this. I've seen too many reports teenagers and young women who developed cancer because of tanning booths. I wouldn't mind seeing a ban on tanning booths for 18 and younger. We already have age limits for cigarettes and alcohol.

We do want to prevent people dying, don't we?
Anonymous said…
God formed man and put him into the oven. After five minute God was heard to say, "This man is under baked." and he proceeded to form another man and also put him into the oven. After 20 minute God was heard to say, "This man is over baked." and then God proceeded to form another man and put him into the oven. After 10 minutes God was heard saying, "This man is just right." then placed him in America. The reason why this legislation passed is because everyone could identify with it.
Bob Newland said…
"But I'm sure if I look long and hard enough, I might find one who says that running with a sharp stick is bad. Or that if you play will a BB gun, you'll shoot your eye out."

Or you might find 2000 or 3000 or 7000 doctors who say that it's cruel to deny sick, disabled and dying people the benefits of cannabis therapy.
PP said…
Elias -

At what point is it going to stop?

At what point is the legislature going to let people be responsible for themselves?

Or should we wait for the mandatory rules on bottom wiping which are surely to follow.
Anonymous said…
11:38, if this is true I understand Mr. Katus' position. However, he is one who says that the government shouldn't be interfering with personal choices (i.e.abortion). Women who testified in favor of an abortion ban did so because they have seen the effects of abortions, but this was dismissed by people like Katus. So Katus is hypocritical at best. (And hey, if Newland can slip a fanatical crusade for marijuana -- sorry, hemp -- into discussions whenever he possibly can, I can bring up abortion in this thread.)
Anonymous said…
"We already have age limits for cigarettes and alcohol."
Not the same thing. Irresponsible use and abuse of these things affect other people besides the user (second-hand smoke, DUI). You are just hurting yourself in a tanning booth. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for your own actions!!! The libs
(like Katus) are always whining about how the legislature should be dealing with "important" stuff. Sorry, gang, this isn't one of them.
Elais said…
Hey, like the REpublicans are so concerned about gays they ban them from marriage? And from anything else? Two guys getting married only affect the two guys getting married. Yet the republicans seem more than happy to stick their nose into the bedroom.

Republicans also say women can't have a choice. They shove their hands up a woman's parts so they can protect 'the unborn'. How's that for invasion of privacy?

Hows that hypocrisy for you? They invade people's bedroom and a woman's body.

Republicans LOVE a daddy state.

Daddy say's you can't have an abortion.

Daddy says you can't have privacy.

Daddy says you can't get married.

Daddy says you don't have a right to work.

Daddy says you can't have a raise in minimum wage.

Republicans hurt, democrats help.

What say you guys about that?

Who's are hypocrits now? Look in a mirror.

So if tanning booths hurt more than the individual who uses them, you would be all for this ban? How about the family who would have to shoulder the costs of treatment when kid gets melanoma. Cancer ain't cheap.

If people smoke only in their cars, would you consider a ban on cigarette smoking? After all, only the person smoking would be affected.

How about a someone who only drinks but never drives drunk? You would favor a ban on all acohol because the only person affected would be the person drinking?

Try thinking next time.

Geez you guys get your panties in a wad over a ban on teenagers using TANNING BOOTHS. How stupid is that?

Abortion does not come without risks. Pregnancy itself is a risk, it cause profund changes in a woman's body, not all of it positive. Have you heard about gestational diabetes? How about post-partum depression, which can get so bad, mothers kill their babies?

Adoption can cause untold emotional trauma to the mother. Should we ban adoption to protect the mother from having to part with her child?

Lets ban pregnancies because we don't want women to suffer post-partum depression.

Let's ban adoption so women don't have to leave their babies.

Are you pro-lifers with me?
Anonymous said…
PP, I thought melanoma was just as deadly as HPV can be.

Seems inconsistent to back one but not the other. Both measures are nanny-statish attempts to help save our kids.
PP said…
If a simple vaccination could get rid of another type of cancer, I'd be for it.

What do think I should do otherwise, suggest we turn off the sun?

Otherwise, as I see Elais gets his panties in a twist, he can take solace that the big government on the HHS committee passed it to the floor.
Anonymous said…
smoking is bad for your health, it causes cancer, tanning is bad for your health, it causes cancer. So we taxed one and banned the other. Someone shed some light for me. Why one thing for one and another for the other?
Elais said…

My panties are perfectly positioned
on my nice female butt.

Republicans seem to be happier torturing asses rather than wiping them.

You still don't believe that Republicans want a daddy state?
Anonymous said…

You, and others here, are too complicit using your broad-brush "government is the problem" mantra.

Republicans don't actually believe that as a universal truth. They selectively believe it.

But it's not just confined to Republican-style social issues.

Democrats selectively believe it, too. For example, "keep the government out of women's wombs".

We ban sales of pornography to minors. We say it's "for their own good". We ban sex between a 15 year old and a 17 year old, for their own good. We tell 17 year olds they can't star in porn films, for their own good. We tell car manufacturers to install seat belts in the front and back seats, for our own good. We tell 20-year-olds in South Dakota that they can smoke, but they can't play video lottery. That's also for their own good.

We tell 15-year-olds they can't drive a car without an adult parent after 8:00 pm.

We make kids go to school until they are 16.

The list goes on, but you get the point.

The government is involved and Democrats and Republicans like it.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long