20 April 2016

Tanning Beds – Major Parties Destroy another Small Business

| Steven Bailey
Join the conversation
40
tanning-bed-stock-240914

We’re all going to die, actually, many of us already have. In fact, I think my life is going to be rather short compared to others but regardless of that, Betty Gobin owns a small tanning salon business.

One day it was worth $280,000, now, after last year’s announcement to ban commercial tanning salons in the ACT, it’s worth nothing. Now before all of the do-gooders get up on their high horses, let me explain the situation.

Betty is the sole income provider for her family, and has invested her life and money into her business. She has paid her own way in life, is not reliant on Government, and has paid a lifetime of taxes. Betty is a senior citizen, and now her retirement has been taken away from her… swiftly and without compensation.

Since 2010 numerous regulations have been imposed on the industry in the ACT, and in the interests of public health and safety, of course, this is an industry that needs to be regulated. Betty has willingly complied with Government imposed regulations at her own expense. In order to comply, Betty has borrowed thousands of dollars, and as with any small business, she has complied with imposed regulations on the understanding and assurance that her trade would be able to continue. If the ban is to take effect as planned by the end of the year, Betty will have no way of paying for her lease, to which she is bound until November 2015.

In a cold letter written to Betty, reminding her of the ‘impending ban on commercial tanning units’, the ACT’s Director of Health Protection Service John Woollard has stated that Betty may be eligible for a payment of $1,000 for each tanning bed surrendered; Betty has paid on average about $11,000 per tanning bed, and she owns five of them. Furthermore, the letter states that Green Sheds Pty Ltd holds a ‘license to dispose of tanning units, and offers free removal of tanning units’. After making four separate enquiries today to Green Sheds Pty Ltd, it is clear that they are completely unaware and unclear of Woollard’s claims. And what would they do with them – sell them somewhere else?

mrs-betty-june-gobin

Tanning yourself to a crisp is bad for you – I get it. But saying that there is no safe level of exposure to tanning beds is like saying there is no safe level of exposure to the sun. Are the prohibitionists going to ban the sun? I’m sure they would if they could.

When Governments prohibit the behaviour of personal choice, instead of opting to tax and regulate, the consequences are almost always the opposite to the intent of the policy. As most Governments move towards the prohibition of the small industry, tanning beds are being sold privately like hotcakes across Australia. It isn’t illegal to have a tanning bed in one’s house.

So once again, in the great Australian tradition of politicians trying to alter personal freedoms, Governments will create an unregulated and underground market. If you look hard enough on the internet you will find young girls who have regular tanning parties in their homes. Is it the Government’s policy to have children and people with fair skin using tanning beds? Well, if it isn’t, don’t prohibit the industry. Or, is it the Government’s plan to waste police resources on hunting down and punishing the little grilled goblins?

There are always casualties with freedom, but there are always more casualties with prohibition.

It’s the do-gooding b*stards that believe they champion oppressed minorities, when in fact they are running society and restricting the liberties of a supposedly free citizenry.

I say to the decision makers of the ACT, if you are hell-bent on prohibiting yet another business, at least give Betty some decent compensation.

Join the conversation

40
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

dkNigs said :

Personally I use tanning beds occasionally to treat depression, vitamin D boosts my mood substantially. I come out feeling like a million bucks.

Guess I’ll just have to go spend an hour in a park laying in the sun rotating myself instead. That’ll surely be better for me Govco? Oh wait, except like most young people working casual jobs and studying I spend nearly every waking hour inside working, and don’t get nearly enough sunlight.

Have you tried a light box to improve your mood? Likely less dangerous than a tanning bed.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/seasonal-affective-disorder/in-depth/seasonal-affective-disorder-treatment/art-20048298

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_therapy

Personally I use tanning beds occasionally to treat depression, vitamin D boosts my mood substantially. I come out feeling like a million bucks.

Guess I’ll just have to go spend an hour in a park laying in the sun rotating myself instead. That’ll surely be better for me Govco? Oh wait, except like most young people working casual jobs and studying I spend nearly every waking hour inside working, and don’t get nearly enough sunlight.

Steven Bailey said :

carnardly said :

Tillies01 said :

Betty imposes strict guidelines around her beds. She screens each persons skin type and would never allow someone who wasn’t suitable for solarium beds to tan. .

Wow – so this solarium owner is a qualified dermatologist….

that’s irony for you…

The ONLY people who can assess skin correctly are dermatologists. That is what they spend 7-9 years learning.

Do you think someone should be assessed by a gastroenterologist before drinking alcohol? Betty adheres to guidelines prescribed to her by the Department of Health.

Social and small amounts of alcohol aren’t likely to kill you. However, as you’ll find on any health website, there is NO such thing as a safe solarium tan. And if she’s earning money from these suckers, is she really going to turn too many away?

Not if she’s still claiming that used beds that cost her $11,000 each are still worth that? She obviously had the choice to stay and run her business in 2010 or get out. She can’t complain now that ‘she didn’t know’ or its all too hard. Let her sell the cancer beds to the private suckers then so the idiots can kill themselves privately.

So are you her son, or her husband? or brother…?

Steven Bailey4:03 pm 19 Oct 14

Masquara said :

Steven Bailey said :

Masquara said :

I was wondering why the Sex Party rep would be so concerned about the welfare of a tanning salon at the expense of public health – but I guess the Eros Foundaiton’s business very much depends on head-to-toe tans!

Another insightful comment Masquara, but I don’t mind responding to it. I choose who I defend based on my values. People from the major parties don’t have that freedom. You will see nothing but consistency in my stance on issues such as these. My position is that regulation is a better mechanism than prohibition when balancing the freedoms of people to do what they want with their own bodies and the risks to their health.

In order to protect young people’s health, you’d find that the “regulation” you are vaunting would have to pretty much “regulate” the tanning business out of existence in any case. So your distinction is an irrelevancy and doesn’t go to anything material.
And here, have a gratuitous pointer on English expression: if someone gives an insightful comment, there should be no “but” – it’s “and” you are happy to respond (unless you were being sarcastic).

I would never be sarcastic to you Masquara.

Steven Bailey said :

Masquara said :

I was wondering why the Sex Party rep would be so concerned about the welfare of a tanning salon at the expense of public health – but I guess the Eros Foundaiton’s business very much depends on head-to-toe tans!

Another insightful comment Masquara, but I don’t mind responding to it. I choose who I defend based on my values. People from the major parties don’t have that freedom. You will see nothing but consistency in my stance on issues such as these. My position is that regulation is a better mechanism than prohibition when balancing the freedoms of people to do what they want with their own bodies and the risks to their health.

In order to protect young people’s health, you’d find that the “regulation” you are vaunting would have to pretty much “regulate” the tanning business out of existence in any case. So your distinction is an irrelevancy and doesn’t go to anything material.
And here, have a gratuitous pointer on English expression: if someone gives an insightful comment, there should be no “but” – it’s “and” you are happy to respond (unless you were being sarcastic).

Steven Bailey9:09 am 18 Oct 14

Masquara said :

I was wondering why the Sex Party rep would be so concerned about the welfare of a tanning salon at the expense of public health – but I guess the Eros Foundaiton’s business very much depends on head-to-toe tans!

Another insightful comment Masquara, but I don’t mind responding to it. I choose who I defend based on my values. People from the major parties don’t have that freedom. You will see nothing but consistency in my stance on issues such as these. My position is that regulation is a better mechanism than prohibition when balancing the freedoms of people to do what they want with their own bodies and the risks to their health.

If the only reason someone needs to use a tanning bed is medical, then they only need to put the beds in medical facilities. Not that complicated. Melanoma is too serious to muck about with.

Steven Bailey9:31 am 16 Oct 14

carnardly said :

Tillies01 said :

Betty imposes strict guidelines around her beds. She screens each persons skin type and would never allow someone who wasn’t suitable for solarium beds to tan. .

Wow – so this solarium own is a qualified dermatologist….

that’s irony for you…

The ONLY people who can assess skin correctly are dermatologists. That is what they spend 7-9 years learning.

Do you think someone should be assessed by a gastroenterologist before drinking alcohol? Betty adheres to guidelines prescribed to her by the Department of Health.

Tillies01 said :

Betty imposes strict guidelines around her beds. She screens each persons skin type and would never allow someone who wasn’t suitable for solarium beds to tan. .

Wow – so this solarium own is a qualified dermatologist….

that’s irony for you…

The ONLY people who can assess skin correctly are dermatologists. That is what they spend 7-9 years learning.

I was wondering why the Sex Party rep would be so concerned about the welfare of a tanning salon at the expense of public health – but I guess the Eros Foundaiton’s business very much depends on head-to-toe tans!

Tillies01 said :

Using the beds has helped me hugely with my eczema and I no longer get it.

I took up cigarettes to help me with my asthma, maybe I should be moaning about the stupid amount of tax that is levied on those to stop me from indulging in my right to smoke?

I go to Bettys solarium around once a fortnight and I am really saddened that her business been forced to close. Anyone that goes there knows how much this business means to her and it really is her life. It isn’t as simple as just looking into other business options of makeup, spray tans ect. The beds are the main income for Nefetari and without them the business would cease.

Betty imposes strict guidelines around her beds. She screens each persons skin type and would never allow someone who wasn’t suitable for solarium beds to tan. You are only permitted a maximum of 20 minutes and you must have a day in between each tanning session. I guarantee closing solariums will create an underground business were young girls are using solarium beds at home incorrectly and without guidelines. I agree with the above statement that moderation is key. Without beds being in a controlled environment there will be no moderating of usage.

I think everyone should be able to make a decision for themselves – we are adults – if we want to continue using solariums it should be by choice. Using the beds has helped me hugely with my eczema and I no longer get it. I know the dangers of the beds and I have chosen to continue to use them as is my right, I have yearly checks with my doctor for any new skin spots or moles. Will the government impose bans on smoking (how many people die from smoking a year), drinking (alcohol fuelled violence), junk food (obesity)? It seems we are heading this way and we are now living in a nanny state where everything is monitored and there are regulations in place on everything we do and it is impacting these small businesses.

Antagonist said :

HenryBG said :

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

Not to mention she’s had 7 years to depreciate these assets of hers which are almost certainly not worth a fraction of the $11,000 she is trying to hit up the ACT ratepayer for.

Did anybody bail out Kodak when digital cameras took over?
What about all the VHS video rental shops – did they get bail outs when they went out of business?

Come on Henry. You cannot compare a change in technology to a change in legislation.

I beg to differ: medical science has advanced, it is now known (and has been for some time) that tanning salons are a health risk.

Just like mining asbestos or manufacturing thalidomide became obsolete business practices following improvement in medical knowledge.
(And I sincerely hope the taxpayer never compensated Wittenoom or Grünenthal for having to shut up shop, although I note Australian coal companies are demanding government handouts following the start of the end of the obsolescent coal industry).

Antagonist said :

Maybe she is seeking more compensation than is reasonable, but the current offer of compensation is insulting.

She should get nothing, and her valuation of her assets is suspiciously fantastical.

as a person who uses a solarium to not only get a healthy glow, but to treat several skin conditions and increase my vitamin D, I am shattered that my only solution is being taken away from me. I myself am a qualified spray tanner and i opt to use a solarium, and I love it!! it make me feel healthy and it actually heals my skin conditions. I am greatly confused as to why the government would ban solariums as they are being used in a very controlled environment at the moment, once banned there is no more controlled environment for them as anyone can own one and anyone can use them as often and for as long as they want, not to mention the different skin types that should not use them at all…
Its overall ridiculous what small business’s are having to go through because of the small minds of the parties! at the end of the day, most things these days care cancer causing aren’t they?? the key is moderation!

Steven Bailey3:59 pm 29 Sep 14

Masquara said :

Steven Bailey said :

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

No, other than the argument being more complicated than that, for the reasons I’ve outlined in the article, that is incorrect Masquara.

How can you argue that any tanning salon owner wasn’t aware that post Claire Oliver’s death, solariums were inevitably going to be banned? How exactly is it “more complicated”? I knew back in 2007 and I’ve never been near a tanning bed! For a solarium owner not to be abreast of the biggest news in the industry’s history means it is their lookout, sorry!

No need to apologise Masquara. I could outline how the argument is more complicated but then I would be stating the obvious and insulting those people who have read the article properly. Perhaps you could try to read the article again.

Steven Bailey said :

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

No, other than the argument being more complicated than that, for the reasons I’ve outlined in the article, that is incorrect Masquara.

How can you argue that any tanning salon owner wasn’t aware that post Claire Oliver’s death, solariums were inevitably going to be banned? How exactly is it “more complicated”? I knew back in 2007 and I’ve never been near a tanning bed! For a solarium owner not to be abreast of the biggest news in the industry’s history means it is their lookout, sorry!

Steven Bailey2:31 pm 29 Sep 14

Antagonist said :

HenryBG said :

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

Not to mention she’s had 7 years to depreciate these assets of hers which are almost certainly not worth a fraction of the $11,000 she is trying to hit up the ACT ratepayer for.

Did anybody bail out Kodak when digital cameras took over?
What about all the VHS video rental shops – did they get bail outs when they went out of business?

Come on Henry. You cannot compare a change in technology to a change in legislation. Maybe she is seeking more compensation than is reasonable, but the current offer of compensation is insulting. If a change to the legislation not only forces her out of business, but also leaves her with additional costs, then she should be compensated accordingly.

* I have never used a tanning salon, and love to laugh and point at the orange spray tan Oompa Loompas.

Good point Antagonist. Perhaps we should call you Protagonist! 😉

HenryBG said :

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

Not to mention she’s had 7 years to depreciate these assets of hers which are almost certainly not worth a fraction of the $11,000 she is trying to hit up the ACT ratepayer for.

Did anybody bail out Kodak when digital cameras took over?
What about all the VHS video rental shops – did they get bail outs when they went out of business?

Come on Henry. You cannot compare a change in technology to a change in legislation. Maybe she is seeking more compensation than is reasonable, but the current offer of compensation is insulting. If a change to the legislation not only forces her out of business, but also leaves her with additional costs, then she should be compensated accordingly.

* I have never used a tanning salon, and love to laugh and point at the orange spray tan Oompa Loompas.

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

Not to mention she’s had 7 years to depreciate these assets of hers which are almost certainly not worth a fraction of the $11,000 she is trying to hit up the ACT ratepayer for.

Did anybody bail out Kodak when digital cameras took over?
What about all the VHS video rental shops – did they get bail outs when they went out of business?

Steven Bailey9:35 am 29 Sep 14

Masquara said :

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

No, other than the argument being more complicated than that, for the reasons I’ve outlined in the article, that is incorrect Masquara.

Someone mentioned 2011 – solariums have actually been on notice since 2007 that the industry would be closed down – following the death of young melanoma victim Claire Oliver. Betty has effectively had seven years to adjust to this reality.

Steven Bailey12:02 pm 28 Sep 14

justin heywood said :

Steven Bailey said :

Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. Okay well….

And thanks for the polite response. I see that in my original post I was unacceptably insensitive towards someone who is obviously a friend in a difficult situation. I too once lost a business through no fault of my own; I know how devastating it can be and I should have known better.

Steven Bailey said :

I don’t accept that there is any meaning in the language or the statistic that ‘a single visit to a solarium could increase the risk of melanoma by 41%.

Well the figures are all we have to go on, and the figures are scary even if halved; tanning beds are extremely dangerous. The worst of it is that the danger is not immediate and obvious as in, say, a motorcycle, and thus the risk is more insidious. The use of these beds, according to the data we have, may well result in a slow, painful death many years after the event.
I would argue that because the risks are high but hidden by time and effect, the public should be protected.

Steven Bailey said :

Just politely, it isn’t the prerogative of anyone in this forum to argue that Bety’s business was not worth what I say it is. The value of her business was simply based on her income and her assets.

You nominated the value of the business in your OP, presumably to strengthen your argument. I think it’s reasonable to question the value, by way of discussion. The opinion of an anonymous blogger such as me is worthless in the real world.

Steven Bailey said :

To answer some of your questions – no, people of any age should not be able to drink alcohol and take drugs. Adults should be aware of the risks involved regarding the purchase of any service or product.

Of course I don’t believe in a society without safeguards.

Well that partly answers my question. If you agree that, sometimes, the government should protect people from themselves, then all there is to decide is at what point should the government step in.

And isn’t that what governments already do?

Steven Bailey said :

I am a democratic libertarian. I see freedoms being afforded to the corporate world whilst being taken from the public realm. I support the opposite.

And yet here you are fighting for a business whose product is demonstrably dangerous to the public.

If Monsanto was selling time in tanning beds, would you be defending their right to do so, given the data we have on the dangers. Is it only a matter of scale?

I stuffed up the last response so I’ve just written it like this:

Governments should protect citizens from one another if need be. I don’t believe that it’s the prerogative of Governments to protect people from themselves, so long as they are aware of the relevant risks

Corporations are protected by Corporate Law, rendering the organisation able to function with relative legal impunity compared to a sole trader or small business. To a reasonable extent, I oppose gigantic and faceless organisations being involved in any behaviour that is a risk to individual citizens.

And no, the opinions of an anonymous blogger such as yourself are incredibly important because it’s people like you who engage in the contest of ideas and should inevitably determine the future for us all. Cheers

Steven Bailey11:53 am 28 Sep 14

Steven Bailey said :

To answer some of your questions – no, people of any age should not be able to drink alcohol and take drugs. Adults should be aware of the risks involved regarding the purchase of any service or product.

Of course I don’t believe in a society without safeguards.

Well that partly answers my question. If you agree that, sometimes, the government should protect people from themselves, then all there is to decide is at what point should the government step in.

And isn’t that what governments already do?

Governments should protect citizens from one another if need be. I don’t believe that it’s the prerogative of Governments to protect people from themselves, so long as they are aware of the relevant risks.

Steven Bailey said :

I am a democratic libertarian. I see freedoms being afforded to the corporate world whilst being taken from the public realm. I support the opposite.

And yet here you are fighting for a business whose product is demonstrably dangerous to the public.

If Monsanto was selling time in tanning beds, would you be defending their right to do so, given the data we have on the dangers. Is it only a matter of scale?

Corporations are protected by Corporate Law, rendering the organisation able to function with relative legal impunity compared to a sole trader or small business. To a reasonable extent, I oppose gigantic and faceless organisations being involved in any behaviour that is a risk to individual citizens.

Steven Bailey said :

The opinion of an anonymous blogger such as me is worthless in the real world.

And no, the opinions of an anonymous blogger such as yourself are incredibly important because it’s people like you who engage in the contest of ideas and should inevitably determine the future for us all. Cheers

KarlGO said :

The campaign against UV-exposure has another purpose than to cater for people’s health. The indoor tanning people are the only defenders of healthy sun-exposure and must therefore be eradicated.
Get the full picture about the evil agenda behind the sun-avoidance campaign in this article:
http://www.thetanningguru.com/tanning-regulations-2/sunsmart-stupid-sunbed-ban-australia/

Exposure to sunlight is actually healthy for you. Sunlight contains Vitamin D and Vitamin K and these vitamins are necessary for a healthy lifestyle.

The campaign against UV-exposure has another purpose than to cater for people’s health. The indoor tanning people are the only defenders of healthy sun-exposure and must therefore be eradicated.
Get the full picture about the evil agenda behind the sun-avoidance campaign in this article:
http://www.thetanningguru.com/tanning-regulations-2/sunsmart-stupid-sunbed-ban-australia/

justin heywood6:11 pm 27 Sep 14

Steven Bailey said :

Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. Okay well….

And thanks for the polite response. I see that in my original post I was unacceptably insensitive towards someone who is obviously a friend in a difficult situation. I too once lost a business through no fault of my own; I know how devastating it can be and I should have known better.

Steven Bailey said :

I don’t accept that there is any meaning in the language or the statistic that ‘a single visit to a solarium could increase the risk of melanoma by 41%.

Well the figures are all we have to go on, and the figures are scary even if halved; tanning beds are extremely dangerous. The worst of it is that the danger is not immediate and obvious as in, say, a motorcycle, and thus the risk is more insidious. The use of these beds, according to the data we have, may well result in a slow, painful death many years after the event.
I would argue that because the risks are high but hidden by time and effect, the public should be protected.

Steven Bailey said :

Just politely, it isn’t the prerogative of anyone in this forum to argue that Bety’s business was not worth what I say it is. The value of her business was simply based on her income and her assets.

You nominated the value of the business in your OP, presumably to strengthen your argument. I think it’s reasonable to question the value, by way of discussion. The opinion of an anonymous blogger such as me is worthless in the real world.

Steven Bailey said :

To answer some of your questions – no, people of any age should not be able to drink alcohol and take drugs. Adults should be aware of the risks involved regarding the purchase of any service or product.

Of course I don’t believe in a society without safeguards.

Well that partly answers my question. If you agree that, sometimes, the government should protect people from themselves, then all there is to decide is at what point should the government step in.

And isn’t that what governments already do?

Steven Bailey said :

I am a democratic libertarian. I see freedoms being afforded to the corporate world whilst being taken from the public realm. I support the opposite.

And yet here you are fighting for a business whose product is demonstrably dangerous to the public.

If Monsanto was selling time in tanning beds, would you be defending their right to do so, given the data we have on the dangers. Is it only a matter of scale?

Steven Bailey3:42 pm 27 Sep 14

justin heywood said :

Just a quick refresher on the product this small business provides

– A single visit to a solarium could increase the risk of melanoma by 41%
– regular sunbed use by people under the age of 30 increases the risk of skin cancer by 75%
– risk of developing melanoma under the age of 30 increases 6 times for people who use solarium’s more than 10 times.
– A study in people diagnosed with early-onset melanoma recorded sunbed use in people as young as 14 years of age
http://www.pscml.com.au/media-events/community-news/2014/01/10/national-sunbed-ban-imminent

NSW announced that tanning beds would be banned back in February 2012, and the idea of banning them had been mooted years before that. Betty should have been at least aware that the curtain was likely to come down on solariums. I would argue that the business has not been ‘worth $280,000’ for quite some time.

But Steven I’m interested how this idea of governments having ‘no right to restrict our liberty’ even to harm ourselves. Should people of any age be able to drink and take drugs? Are any and all drugs OK? Should people be free to sell products to people who might not be aware of the risks? Are there no limits at all in the Libertarian world?

And if there ARE limits, who decides what they will be? And what if I don’t like those limits?

Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. Okay well, for obvious reasons, I don’t accept that there is any meaning in the language or the statistic that ‘a single visit to a solarium could increase the risk of melanoma by 41%.

The central point is that currently the industry is regulated such that people who are 14 years of age cannot use sunbeds. It is because of the cessation of the industry that the beds are being sold for private use – where they may be used by anyone without safeguards.

Just politely, it isn’t the prerogative of anyone in this forum to argue that Bety’s business was not worth what I say it is. The value of her business was simply based on her income and her assets.

To answer some of your questions – no, people of any age should not be able to drink alcohol and take drugs. Adults should be aware of the risks involved regarding the purchase of any service or product.

Of course I don’t believe in a society without safeguards. I am a democratic libertarian. I see freedoms being afforded to the corporate world whilst being taken from the public realm. I support the opposite.

braddonmonsta12:24 pm 27 Sep 14

Should James Hardie have got compensation to stop selling asbestos?
Should cigarette companies have been compensated when plain packaging laws were introduced?
Should Sydney’s nightclubs have received compensation when the lockout laws came in?
Should competitors (e.g. Uber) compensate the

As a business owner, I am fully aware that my business is 100% subject to regulation and competition. To survive, I need to be on top of this – and plan for expected changes, modifying my offering to maintain profitability.

It’s exactly the same as where a competitor enters the market with a better product. E.g. Uber is killing Cabcharge, but Cabcharge isn’t going to be compensated for their archaic business model. On the other hand, Nokia survived despite Apple because of their willingness to be innovative.

If tanning beds are “being sold privately like hotcakes”, maybe Betty should sell them and use the money to purchase other equipment (e.g. spray tanning), or perhaps even diversify into other beauty services. In terms of the lease, she may want to consult a lawyer (using the space as a solarium may be an implied term; if so the fulfilment of this term would now be illegal and hence the contract may be void – a contract is not valid if it governs illegal activities).

Bottom line is, there’s no right to a profitable business. Adapt or don’t bother.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back8:26 am 26 Sep 14

justin heywood said :

Just a quick refresher on the product this small business provides

– A single visit to a solarium could increase the risk of melanoma by 41%
– regular sunbed use by people under the age of 30 increases the risk of skin cancer by 75%
– risk of developing melanoma under the age of 30 increases 6 times for people who use solarium’s more than 10 times.
– A study in people diagnosed with early-onset melanoma recorded sunbed use in people as young as 14 years of age
http://www.pscml.com.au/media-events/community-news/2014/01/10/national-sunbed-ban-imminent

NSW announced that tanning beds would be banned back in February 2012, and the idea of banning them had been mooted years before that. Betty should have been at least aware that the curtain was likely to come down on solariums. I would argue that the business has not been ‘worth $280,000’ for quite some time.

But Steven I’m interested how this idea of governments having ‘no right to restrict our liberty’ even to harm ourselves. Should people of any age be able to drink and take drugs? Are any and all drugs OK? Should people be free to sell products to people who might not be aware of the risks? Are there no limits at all in the Libertarian world?

And if there ARE limits, who decides what they will be? And what if I don’t like those limits?

Steven’s on record on RiotACT as having smoked dope, driven drunk and punching on in a pub when he’d had too many.

I suspect he wishes we could all do whatever we like.

justin heywood9:24 pm 25 Sep 14

Just a quick refresher on the product this small business provides

– A single visit to a solarium could increase the risk of melanoma by 41%
– regular sunbed use by people under the age of 30 increases the risk of skin cancer by 75%
– risk of developing melanoma under the age of 30 increases 6 times for people who use solarium’s more than 10 times.
– A study in people diagnosed with early-onset melanoma recorded sunbed use in people as young as 14 years of age
http://www.pscml.com.au/media-events/community-news/2014/01/10/national-sunbed-ban-imminent

NSW announced that tanning beds would be banned back in February 2012, and the idea of banning them had been mooted years before that. Betty should have been at least aware that the curtain was likely to come down on solariums. I would argue that the business has not been ‘worth $280,000’ for quite some time.

But Steven I’m interested how this idea of governments having ‘no right to restrict our liberty’ even to harm ourselves. Should people of any age be able to drink and take drugs? Are any and all drugs OK? Should people be free to sell products to people who might not be aware of the risks? Are there no limits at all in the Libertarian world?

And if there ARE limits, who decides what they will be? And what if I don’t like those limits?

if she doesn’t want the paltry $1000 offer per bed, then sell them to someone in NSW or elsewhere. You won’t get $11,000 for them obviously, but there must be someone else out there interested in buying them.

There are plenty of avenues she can try before just giving up.

Ben_Dover said :

Shame, there’ll be less bright orange people to laugh at now.

I think you’ll find far more bright orange people, as they’re the spray tanned ones, not the ones using tanning beds.

Personally I’m disgusted the government is happy to cripple small business owners financially in enacting this law, but are too gutless to do anything about Cigarettes except constantly raising the tax to make more money.

Nanny knows best children, you are not allowed to think for yourselves.

Shame, there’ll be less bright orange people to laugh at now.

Steven Bailey2:34 pm 25 Sep 14

Garfield said :

Your heading says “Major Parties” destroy another small business. Can you please clarify which parties voted for or against this? I suspect it was the Labor/Green alliance government voting for and I’m hoping the supposedly pro-business Liberals voted against it.

In my experience, one of the things people hate most about politicians is the spin and half truths. If you have indeed over egged the heading on this article, I hope you bear that in mind for future ones.

Hi there Garfield, thanks for your comment. The reason I have included all three major parties in the title is that the ban is occurring in States across Australia regardless of Labor, Labor/Green, Liberal/Nats or Liberal Governments. It isn’t something that needs to be voted on; it’s a matter of halting the licence that allows such businesses to operate. Additionally, Bety has written to politicians of all colours and none have responded. During last year’s election, Zed Seselja left letters asking for businesses to write to him expressing any of their concerns, and that he would respond. Bety did write to him (I read the letter), and she received no reply. The three big parties are too big to care about the little issues, and sometimes the little issues can affect people in a very big way.

I will just repeat what I said before

I believe that people should be free to do what they like to their own bodies. If you provide information on the proper use and of the dangers of high exposure and if you make it compulsory to sign a statement stating that you are aware of the risks – why can’t you be free to take it?

Following banning tanning beds perhaps they will ban alcohol, junk food, and other luxuries, services and goods we use for pleasure and comfort because they are not healthy and government and others know what is best for us. We cannot be trusted to take care of ourselves by indulging responsibly…

They have decreased in popularity because people are aware of the potential dangers of using them and if there are rules regulating their use already then I don’t see the problem.

Just for the record I have never used a tanning bed and I do not have any association with the business. I don’t like them but I think we should be free to use them.

100% agree with you on this issue Steven. Good article.

I agree with you on the matter of adequate compensation, but that is all. I am a small business owner, and there are all sorts of reasons why community values and health concerns are deemed to outweigh the needs of individual business owners, and that is one of the many risks of going into a business. These risks also change over time. The downtrodden are not the individual business owners, (except in the matter of financial compensation). It is not a social injustice, as you claim in your mailout. It is a financial injustice. The downtrodden are those who feel they need to do this to their bodies. There is no underground market, because personal choice is still legal in this matter. Tanning through this method has simply been deemed as an inappropriate thing to offer on a commercial basis. I am surprised you have felt compelled to write about this matter, when there are so many wider and less debatable social injustices. My question would be one of disclosure. Do you truly feel driven to put this forward as a matter that hurts your soul, or do you; a) have a pre-existing relationship with the business owner, b) have a pre-existing relationship with someone else who does, c) are you seeking to lobby the local small business community for votes in a future political bid, regardless of ethical concerns? All the reasons could be valid……if we knew about them. Or, do you really just feel strongly about the compensation matter, and your other reasonings were just thrown in to support that? I support the view that government regulations should always take personal freedoms into account, and be sensitive to the pressures and risks that small business owners go through. I understand them too well. Is a tanning salon really the best example of this issue?

Your heading says “Major Parties” destroy another small business. Can you please clarify which parties voted for or against this? I suspect it was the Labor/Green alliance government voting for and I’m hoping the supposedly pro-business Liberals voted against it.

In my experience, one of the things people hate most about politicians is the spin and half truths. If you have indeed over egged the heading on this article, I hope you bear that in mind for future ones.

I’ll declare my hand here before I start.
Never been on a tanning bed, never likely to go near one.
That’s my choice.

Now, it seems to me that if the govenment has allowed someone to build up a decent business running a solarium for a number of years and then imposes legislation to shut the industry down, then surely the business owner is entitled to some form of compensation greater than the $1000 a bed offered.
Wouldn’t the fair thing to do be to buy out the business at market value, including recognising the goodwill and clientelle built up? Something that recognises the average annual income of the business?
Given the potential savings in healthcare that will be made, purportedly, isn’t this feasible?

I’m a bit torn on this issue Steven but it is good to see that you care about the downtrodden. I think there are going to be some announcements on this issue soon. ‘It’s the do-gooding b*stards’, you certainly know how to let rip when you want to. I do feel for Bety.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.