Obviously smokers are now shunned and shunted into corners for their dirty, sinful behavior. At one time I held strong to the belief that I would be last smoker on the planet, now I can't use all of the coupons Camel sends me before they expire. Through the course of my lifetime smoking has transitioned from the social norm to outsider rebellion to the mark of a social pariah, but everyone always knew that it killed you. Regardless of whether we deluded ourselves into rationalizing the risks to facilitate our habit, the boldly printed labels and fanatic PSAs have been inescapable. We were all making an informed, if not healthy, life decision.
Now, in the wake of underage tanning bans sweeping through Canada, the question is begged - "Are the risks posed by tanning beds mitigated by the narcissistic vanity their use feeds?" Or to say it in a way that seems eerily reminiscent of smoking, "Is looking cool worth putting your life in danger?" Last year the World Health Organization "tagged tan beds as 'a known carcinogen' and reported [their use] to reduce immunity, mutate DNA, caus[e] eye damage and [wrinkle] skin."
Now, I don't use tanning beds, but from all I've heard there are no neon signs indicating the dangers posed the intense UV exposure. I expect the same backlash from "tanners" (ooh, a new group to ostracize) that I gave as a smoker. You become accustomed to something and then fight like hell to defend your behavior against the slights of pedantic Samaritans. I am in now way in favor of legislating personal behavior at the expense of individual freedom (Hi G-Dubs!), but if you're going to tan, and it's going to kill you, you should probably read that memo.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday
