The Right To A Tanning Bed

Sometimes the government interferes in the marketplace in ways that seem utterly insane. Sometimes, however, the government interferes in the marketplace in ways that seem so completely reasonable that I’m not even sure if I disagree in principle.

Yesterday California became the first state in the nation to ban tanning beds for children under 18. Of course, there were knee-jerk “nanny state” reactions from around the conservative Interwebs. The government is restricting personal liberty and hurting business in the state! Some are pointing out that it’s OK for 17-year-old Californians to get abortions without parental consent, but they can’t tan at all (presenting some pretty flagrant hypocrisy to the “her body, her choice” line). Besides, the sun gives you UV rays too! In general I oppose the government regulating behavior and telling people what they cannot choose to do to their own bodies, but this is a rather complicated issue.

First, let’s get it out of the way that tanning is pretty bad for you, especially if you’re a young girl who does it a lot. The dramatic rise in cases of melanoma (skin cancer) among young girls is heartbreaking, and while I’m open to considering the evidence I think it’s pretty hard to blame this recent rise on the old technology of the sun. It saddens me that so many young women have been led by society to believe they need orange skin to look beautiful, and that their friends and parents have not sufficiently supported their self-image as a unique and beautiful daughter of God.

Now I know the conservative/libertarian response might be, “I don’t care how bad it is for you, the government doesn’t know what’s best for you.” And in general, I agree. If and when California becomes the first state in the nation to ban sales of Twinkies to minors, I will be right there with you in opposing the nanny state.

But hold on a minute. There are many other behaviors that we restrict for minors in the United States, like the purchase and consumption of alcohol or cigarettes. I’ve come across dozens if not hundreds of libertarians who fervently and passionately argue that marijuana should not be illegal. The government can’t tell you what to do with your own body. The government causes so many problems trying to enforce such laws. On and on and on. But I can’t recall that I’ve ever, ever, ever heard a libertarian arguing that the government shouldn’t be restricting cigarettes for minors. No principled arguments about teenagers having the freedom to make their own decisions. No practical arguments about the lost revenue to businesses. Do even a lot of libertarians accept that it’s not a big deal to restrain generally destructive behavior by individuals who aren’t yet very good at making decisions for themselves?

Ah, you may say, but that’s the job of parents and legal guardians. This tanning bed restriction is just the latest action on a slippery slope of government trying to usurp the responsibility of parents to decide what’s best for their children. In an ideal world, sure, you could do whatever you wanted to your own body and your parents would teach you to make good decisions. In the real world, it’s illegal for 14-year-olds to buy alcohol and even most libertarians don’t seem to have much of a problem with that.

And yet there are differences of degree – I think even a lot of liberals would be upset with illegalizing the sale of Pepsi to minors. So what’s the difference? Who decides whether minors in tanning beds are more like minors with cigarettes or more like minors with potato chips?

Well, each community decides that for itself, and this is where nanny-fearing conservatives can take refuge in this new law. The federal government did not prohibit tanning for minors; California did. This is actually a great example of how states’s rights are supposed to work. If our national government was doing this, I might sympathize with those who want to protect children but still disagree in principle that it was something our government should be getting itself into. But when California does it, I don’t even know if I disagree in principle. If the people of California decide they want to ban this activity, that’s their prerogative. And if you’re a Californian who wants your daughter to have the freedom to bake herself orange and develop melanoma in an attempt to become more beautiful, then it’s your prerogative to let her sunbathe for hours every day, or to try to change the law – or to move.