Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Part of the Canberra community
for over 30 years

The Cancer Council guns for Canberra Solariums

By johnboy - 27 January 2009 31

The ABC informs us that the ACT Cancer Council is piling on the pressure for unilateral action by the ACT on solarium operators.

At issue is that the national standards, which include age restrictions and safety warnings, are still voluntary.

Chief Minister Stanhope is hoping to take part in a national approach but has indicated he’ll look at going it alone in forcing standards compliance if the multilateral process stalls.

With all the lotions and spray tans out there do the UV lights really offer anything over and above?

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to
The Cancer Council guns for Canberra Solariums
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
p1 12:19 pm 29 Jan 09

You think that taxing something into oblivion is less nazi than banning it?

Nah, was drawing a sarcastic parallel to the governments approach to tobacco control.

deezagood 11:54 am 29 Jan 09

I would be interested to see the statistics on the average user age of tanning salons – does anybody under 20 actually use them? I would be surprised if they did, as this generation of kids have had ‘slip, slop, slap’ drummed into them since birth, most schools have a ‘no hat, no play’ policy, the current generation of kids are smothered in sunblock and rashy tops at the beach and even the young surfer dudes seem to take pride in their facial zinc application. My kids are still little, but do teenagers these days actually covet a tan or have they learned from the mistakes of their parents?

jakez 11:17 am 29 Jan 09

p1 said :

Banning them does seem a little Nazi. Perhaps if the government made them put pictures of skin cancer on every packet then just taxed them into oblivion…?

You think that taxing something into oblivion is less nazi than banning it?

Skidbladnir 10:59 am 29 Jan 09

Against logic, warning labels and graphic pictures of consequences stimulate the craving centres of the brain amongst the addicted groups.
Putting them on damaging things makes those people who already have an interest in the damaging activity, even more likely to do them.
(So perversely, the graphic warning labels on cigarettes might prevent some people from taking up the habit, but keeps the addicted smokers smoking)

p1 10:24 am 29 Jan 09

Banning them does seem a little Nazi. Perhaps if the government made them put pictures of skin cancer on every packet then just taxed them into oblivion…?

jakez 9:41 am 29 Jan 09

I for one would care because I’d have to start getting illegal solarium tans as a civil protest, and I don’t particularly want to do that.

Gives you cancer you know.

sepi 3:43 pm 28 Jan 09

Novocastrian is saying that fighting for personal freedom should be about more important things than Tanning Salons. Too True.

I’d ban them outright – would anyone really care? Phase them out over 5 years or something.

People should be able to use their own common sense, but there is a certain sector of people who think ‘it must be ok, or the govt would have banned it.’

jakez 3:26 pm 28 Jan 09

3 post nutbag (I really have to stop doing this)

Finally, if our veterans were not fighting for peoples freedom (and the right to vote for your master is a pretty crappy definition of freedom), then they weren’t fighting for the right reasons.

jakez 3:24 pm 28 Jan 09

…millions of small chisel movements. Not my best metaphor. Our freedoms are very slowly eroded is what I’m trying to say, they are rarely stamped out in a day by a rampaging nazi horde.

jakez 3:23 pm 28 Jan 09

Essentially Novocastrian is saying that we must only focus on the big issues of liberty (which apparently is multiculturalism), and that we must let the smaller issues (as Novocastrian defines them) slide. Because these are smaller issues, they don’t count as the initiation of force and the abrogation of freedom, but are ‘nuts and bolts good government’.

Apparently libertarianism isn’t about fighting against the initiation of force by Government or other people, but is about joining Novocastrian on….some thing that he/she is pissed off about.

As the resident hardcore libertarian I say this:
1, The small freedoms matter as liberty is destroyed like rocks on a beach, with millions of small chisel movements.
2, People do have the right to burn themselves silly and accept the consequences of their actions.
3, Ayn Rand was a sexual deviant…good for her I guess.
3, Finally, tanning salons don’t kill people, people kill people 😉

To be serious though, tanning salons are not my pet issue. I do think that tanning salons kill people and that it is a foolish endeavour. However that is my opinion and it applies to me and me alone. I have decided that the benefits of a tan from a tanning salon are not worth the costs. Some people may decide differently. I will try to pursuade them, however at the end of the day their priorities are not my priorities. I will not commit violence to stop them. It’s not my habit but it may be someone elses, and yes I will put my life and future on the line (hypothetically as strategy dictates that this would not be the optimum move) to defend their right to engage in acts that harm only themselves.

That is libertarianism, and anything less is not acceptable to me.*

nb, I reserve my right to accept less in order to further my political career in a mad grab for power. Yes I am a hypocrite 😉

Granny 9:25 pm 27 Jan 09

jessieduck said :



Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site