TO THE EDITOR:
I recognize the dangers of using tanning beds, but seeking their prohibition from private residential developments is not the appropriate response. This type of action is part of a larger trend in the United States of trying to regulate things that ought to be left to the discretion of citizens. It is also a misleading attack on the use of private property. I am open to a debate about the merits of a single-payer health care system and increased efforts to inform citizens of environmental and behavioral health hazards. However, I believe that government cannot be a substitute for personal responsibility.
Indoor tanning is dangerous. But so are outdoor tanning, cigarettes, alcohol, driving a car, and eating too much. Legislatures in America increasingly attempt to discourage unhealthy habits through direct prohibition or behavioral economics. A new regulation requires chain restaurants to display nutrition information for their menu items. While large chains will easily cover this additional burden, similar regulation of smaller businesses would impose significant costs. Legalism is not always the best option.
I disagree with Ms. Zeitany and The Daily Tar Heel’s use of the term “free” tanning. Residents of those communities are paying for a dwelling space, which includes an amenity in the same way it includes lawn care and paved parking lots. Using local ordinances to prohibit private tanning is a waste of the town’s resources and, more importantly, may not be legal.
If Ms. Zeitany feels very strongly about the consequences of tanning, then she should initiate a public awareness campaign. If her concern relates to the health care costs of indoor tanners being shouldered by others, then she should take up the cause of health care reform. Infringing on property rights through a town ordinance is not the way to prevent undesirable health outcomes related to tanning.
John Anagnost
Graduate Student
City and Regional Planning ‘16
