Opinion 2: New tanning law provisions are onerous
By Steve Going
Imagine for a second, if you will: You're a small business owner. You've invested all the money you could put your hands on into what you thought was a business that would be successful, and provide a good return on your investment.
The kids are in college at a tremendous cost. The city, state and federal government tax you and fee you to death and just as you are asking yourself why you ever did this to begin with, your government comes along and says, "We are going to create a law in an effort to ultimately make it illegal for your main customer demographic to use your service. In the meantime, we are going to pass a law that makes it as inconvenient as possible for them to use your services."
This is what Senate bill 1329 is designed to do to the indoor tanning industry.
In an industry that is already over-regulated to the point that I sometimes wonder what country I live in, the ability to make a living - much less stay in business - is constantly being tested.
I have created more than 40 jobs, pay more than $10,000 in city taxes and even pay tax on the equipment that I've already paid tax on just for the right to own it. On top of that, the city charges me a fee for a license to run a tanning salon.
The government calls for every client that comes in to one of my salons to fill out three different forms before tanning the first time, and then sign another one each time they tan.
There are four different signs I must display in a certain way informing clients of the possible interactions with a variety of medications, the effect that UVA and UVB rays can have and that eye protection is required.
I pay to have every staff member "Smart Tan certified," which is a very extensive and expensive training program.
Recently, at the request of the Indoor Tanning Association, I was part of a three-person panel, which included myself, another salon owner and a very well-respected and published doctor/dermatologist. We presented to the Legislature in hearings at the State House in regards to Senate bill 1329.
The one component of the bill I disagree with most is the one prohibiting a person under the age of 17 from tanning, unless he or she has a letter of approval, signed in person, stating that a parent has read and understands all the provisions of bill 105 CMR 123.003 (A)(1) and does allow their 17-year-old to tan.
Now hang on for a minute. A 17-year-old can drop out of school, sign up to join the army and report at 18, can terminate a pregnancy without parental approval, but they need written approval to get a tan? Come on.
Melanoma is not something to take lightly, but to scare people into thinking if they tan in a salon, there's a good chance you'll get cancer is preposterous.
I have family members and have met people who have had melanoma and Basil Cell's removed who have never been to a tanning salon.
My problem with this piece of legislation is not with the line items, but that this allows the government to come into your house and tell you how to raise your kids.
Heck, I'm just a guy trying to run a small business. Gimme a break!
Steve Going is owner of Sun City Tanning Salons in Worcester.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments