re: #535 RogueOne

Maybe we’re talking in circles. I’m not talking about tanning specifically, I’m talking about your philosophy in general. The added tax and thoughts of an underage ban is all about limiting activity the government deems unhealthy. Is that something you would agree is appropriate?

Ideally laws are created with reason in mind. We don’t allow people under a certain age to drink. This, because we know from science that drinking while the brain is still forming is very bad & we know from experience that just informing kids about this isn’t successful. Hell, even making it illegal isn’t very successful, but opens up a way to prosecute anyone trying to sell booze to kids in a large way.
Going from drugs (which most people think should be regulated) to tanning beds (which most people might think inconsequential) is of course an easier way to sell the “personal liberty” idea. And everyone would agree that there’s a limit to the micromanaging that can be done in the name of what’s “best for society”.
I can’t say what’s best in this instance. The dermatological damage will certainly be visible “earlier”, the younger someone starts to use tanning beds (a short term gain for long term damage problem).

However, just saying that “everyone is responsible for themselves, and it would be wrong to interfere” is a very simplistic world view. I can understand how it would be easy & comforting to employ it, but I think it’s selling humanity short.

_{(if I have sold your philosophy short in that statement, please expound)}