I support this legislation, which at first blush may seem like an unwarranted intrusion on individual liberty.
First of all, this is a state legislature, not the federal legislature, that is considering these new laws. What that means is that it's constitutional. The Constitution is basically a limiting document, limiting the the ways in which our governments, both state and federal, may infringe upon our rights. The federal government is only granted 18 specific powers under the Constitution, while everything else is reserved for the states. Many would argue that tanning salons and tattoo parlors fall under the commerce clause of the Constitution, granting the federal government the authority regulate them and pass laws like the ones being considered in WV. The Supreme Court might agree, but I don't - but the implications of the commerce clause and it's jurisprudential history can be the subject of a future discussion. In any event, there can be no argument that the State of West Virginia is free to regulate tanning salons and tattoo parlors within its borders. That the state may regulate them, however, does not mean that I automatically think it is wise or prudent to do so.
In this case, I think it is appropriate to regulate these industries with regard to minors. As a society, we recognize that people under the age of 18 are not old enough to make adult decisions. We have to draw a line between childhood and adulthood at some age, and 18 is generally accepted as the right age at which to draw this line.
Artificial tanning (and natural tanning, for that matter - although the state would have a rather hard time regulating the sun!) raise legitimate health concerns. Adults should be free to evaluate the risks and rewards of tanning for themselves and decide whether it is a worthwhile activity to engage in. Minors, not having the maturity or capacity to make such informed risk v. reward decisions, should not be permitted to engage in an activity that poses a potential health risk.
Regarding tattoos, they last forever. Again, adults should be fairly permitted to evaluate for themselves whether they want to mark their bodies with permanent art. Minors, for the same reasons as with tanning, should not be permitted to make the decision to permanently mark their bodies on their own. At least providing for parental consent allows parents to make this decision which falls within the realm of how best to raise one's child(ren).
I am all for allowing adults to run their own lives as they see fit, as long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others. But we recognize that there is an age below which a person is not mature enough to fully appreciate the risks and repurcussions of their decisions. A 5 year old may want a tattoo, but surely a 5 year old doesn't fully appreciate the wide range of ways in which a tattoo may affect their lives going forward. Maybe some 12 year olds do. Perhaps most 17 year olds do. But in recognizing that parents are responsible for deciding how they will raise their children, we draw a line at an age that separates children from adults so that parental control over child-rearing is protected. Since we have drawn that line at age 18, anyone below that age should not be free to engage in a great number of activities that adults are free to engage in, and I think it's fair to put tanning and tattoos into that category.
This issue can also be approached as a health care issue. Parents are accountable for making health care decisions for their children - no doctor will perform any exam, evaluation, or procedure on a minor without written consent from the minor's parent. Tanning and tattoos seem to fit squarely within the realm of health care, so that parental consent at the least should be required before such procedures may be used on minors.
In closing, I would like to point out that we ought to have consistency with this bright-line age rule. You can die for your country at age 18, but you can't drink a beer until you're 21. All in all, the age demarcations are satisfactory, but we could tweak them for consistency across the board. Either 18 or 21 is fine by me, but I'd prefer we pick only one and apply it universally.
Here's the article in the local paper about the legislature's consideration of the tanning and tattoo laws:
http://journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/574825/Bills-would-ban-tanning--tattoos-for-kids.html?nav=5006
I don't think anyone under the age of 18 should be able to tan or get tattoos, even with a parent's consent. Parents should (but often do not) recognize the fact that even though their child is begging for these body altering practices because 'all their friends do it', their choice may be one the child could later regret. True, the parents are adults and can make informed decisions, however, I think it is often forgotten that a child's wants and desires can change very quickly. In addition, what message is being sent to our children if we encourage behavior to be like everyone else? Wouldn't we instead want to encourage them to first discover who THEY are, not what everyone wants them to be? The pressure to be like mainstream society can have severe psychological effects (body dysmorphia, depression, suicide, are just a few examples). I think it goes without saying that encouraging this behavior can and often does affect individuals as they grow into adults and become members of society.
ReplyDeleteThis issue leads me to another issue; where does the permission for children to act as adults “with a parent’s consent” stop? The next thing you know, it will be acceptable for a child to drink at the bar, as long as Mom and Dad are there to consent (actually, I believe in some states, parents CAN provide alcohol to their children if on private property). One more point, and I almost hate to say this, but some parents are unable to make responsible choices in their own lives, how can they be expected to make responsible decisions on their children’s behalf?
The same applies to tanning, in my opinion. Obviously, the act of tanning itself usually involves only a temporary change to the color of skin, but there is a potentially long term, and life threatening effect. How terrible would a parent feel if they allowed their child to tan, then found that child being diagnosed with melanoma? A potentially life-ending (!) practice just so your child will fit in. Your child wants a crazy hair style, hair color, or expressive (not seductive) clothing? Hey, express yourself, Baby! These are things that can be changed just as quickly as a teenager's wants and desires. The decision for an alteration that may be life long, and potentially life threatening should be made by the adult whose body these decisions will affect, not a child who has persuaded their parents to agree to it.