Is Tanning as Bad as Smoking?
Posted in Health by George
In today’s society, getting a tan has a positive connotation, where smoking a cigarette has a negative one. However, the two are remarkably similar: they both cause cancer!
Furthermore, both have used, or are currently using, marketing strategies aimed at high school students. Virtually everyone is familiar with marketing strategies of tobacco firms. Many of these firms specifically targeted younger people so that they could be addicted early. They did this by using cartoon characters and other aspects that would appeal to youth.
Tanning salons are doing the same thing. Studies have found that tanning salons are marketing heavily towards the younger generations, even putting advertisements in high school newspapers. Further studies have found that tanning can be addictive. So, like a cigarette firm, the tanning salon business can get children hooked early, and have them as a customer for life.
The question is, should we go ahead and restrict tanning advertisements to protect children from becoming addicted to something dangerous and carcinogenic? Is a tanning bed really as deadly as smoking a few cigarettes?
I do not believe that tanning advertisements should be restricted. Although tanning can, in theory, be deadly, the amount of skin cancer that tanning beds actually cause is questionable. Secondly, tanning, unlike cigarettes, does not negatively affect others around the person tanning. If Sally is getting a tan, her boyfriend Joe doesn’t have to smell the tan she is getting or breathe in anything harmful from that tan. If anything, he receives a positive benefit because his girlfriend’s skin looks darker (which society typically considers a plus). Finally, I believe tanning salons are a fad that will pass in time. Thus, creating a controversy over tanning advertisements in schools is unnecessary.
See: Here comes the war on tanning By William Saletan
And: This Study
April 26th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
So…this article consists of observing an unusual position and then concluding that it doesn’t matter?
For the sake of argument, though:
- A tanning salon ad in a high school newspaper is nowhere near the level Joe Camel. High schoolers are far enough along that they couldn’t be considered “impressionable children.” Most are exposed to more harmful things than tanning salon advertisements. And when I was in high school, very few of us read the school paper anyway.
- Tanning salons are not the only way to get a tan. There are ways to use tobacco beyond smoking cigarettes (pipes, chewing tobacco, etc), but it’s all coming from tobacco companies. A tan, on the other hand, can be acquired for free by laying in the sun. Perhaps not as professional or precise, but most tans are not acquired in salons.
- Is this consistent with your position on obesity? If I’m not mistaken, George, you usually bring up arguments about the costs of medical treatment spilling over to affect others. Doesn’t the same danger exist with skin cancer? Cancerous tanning and general obesity are both negative personal health choices that have no physical externalities.
- I have a hard time believing that tanning is addictive.
And that’s more response than an article about problem tanning deserves.
April 26th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
In regard to addiction, consider this. Suzy gets a tan and everyone comments on how beautiful she looks. Then winter rolls around and Suzy’s skin starts to get pale. “Oh no!” she remarks!
Suzy decides to fix this problem by going to a tanning salon over the winter, so that she can stay nice and tan year round. When she doesn’t have a tan, she feels less pretty, so she is seemingly addicted to tanning.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
ha…its funny that you post this on the same day as my risk analysis class went over the perception of risk. This one guy, Peter Sandman, talks about what the public thinks about risk.
In his thinking, the general public sees second hand smoke, like you george, as a higher risk. Not because it actually has a higher risk than tanning, but because there is an outrage associated with it.
Personal Smoking was originally fine with the public. Then people started to die of lung cancer, and the public got confused, the tobacco company continually denied the effects of tobacco. There was a huge outrage…so the public’s view of risk was very high.
Tobacco (personal) 50 years ago
-Risk: High
-Outrage: Low (no real reports of connection w/ cancer)
Overall: little impact, no perceived risk
Tobacco (personal) At the point of discovery of risk
-Risk: Still High
-Outrage: Super High -> denial by tobacco cos…proven by science
Overall: Huge impact, everybody knows
Tobacco (personal) Now
-Risk: Still High
-Outrage: Not as much. People are informed of the risks, and this makes their smoking more of a personal choice. There is some outrage by marketing to young people.
Overall: Slightly less of an impact then previous, but higher than 50 years ago
Tanning?
-Risk: Documented (I don’t know the exact figures)
-Outrage: Not too much. It is still seen as a personal choice. Again the outrage, is pretty much constrained to what is the marketing strategy.
Overall: Probably not a priority except for a few people who have a personal history with skin cancer or tanning and cancer
Tobacco (second hand)
-Risk: Much lower than personal tobacco use
-Outrage: Very high. Not because the risk is super high, unless you live with a smoker, but because it is not controllable by the “victim”.
Overall: It is big enough that they are banning smoking indoors in public places in NJ, NY, many other states…
April 26th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
i’d like to amend my previous statement. I do not wish to make assumptions about the risk of secondhand smoke vs the risk of tanning…i have no idea what the actual numbers are on this..
April 27th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Good description of perceptions of risk. We’ve talked about that a lot in a few econ classes I’ve been in over the last few semesters. We’ll see what the public thinks about things in a few years…
April 27th, 2006 at 4:37 am
I don’t buy your argument for addiction george, not one bit. Consider this:
Suzy deciding that her tan is attracting tons of guys decides to get a jennifer anniston style hair cut. Everyone at school remarks on how nice his hair is. 6 months later her hair has gotten too long and so she again gets in cut ala jennifer annistons hair style. Is she addicted to this hair style?
In the above situation she took an action affecting her appearance and received the same type of praise as in the initial example. However, no one is even remotely going to pretend she is addicted tot his hair style.
Besides really tan ppl in winter just look strange. I and others comment on their strange looking and unnatural appearance which would seem to undo the looking nice all the time aspect of your earlier example.
And for what its woth in India and other Asian Countries they put a premium on fare skin rather than tan skin.
April 27th, 2006 at 5:48 am
I’m with Mike on this one George: entirely unconvinced. The haircut was a good example. I would ask if she is addicted to wearing make-up. Repetitive behavior, even with positive reinforcement, does not constitute an addiction.
April 27th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Ok, regardless, this further proves my point that advertisements for tanning salons shouldn’t be restricted.
April 27th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Which doesn’t seem like it needed any proving–your argument was for the status quo against a problem that most of us don’t recognize. I’d still like to know why you think that a cancer-tan should be treated differently from obesity.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
The “epedemic” caused by tanning salons should be treated differently from the obesity epedemic because of the degree of the problem. The amount of cost and strain on the healthcare system from tanning is miniscule compared to the cost and strain of dealing with obesity. If tanning were responsible for even half as much cost as obesity, I’d consider thinking of them in the same way.
I wrote this article because I thought there could be an interesting comparison made between cigarettes and tanning. And yes, obesity has its similarities, but it should not be treated the same way.
April 27th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Well the healthcare angle I think is certainly pretty interesting. Healthcare spending in the US is far ahead of other nations and is increasing. So we must examine the question of why. Several possible explanations exist:
Privately provided medical insurance and delivery is doomed to higher costs because of third party payment problems, etc.
America is richer than most countries and so since healthcare is a normal good they spend relatively more on it. (this is true but we still spend more than countries with equivalent GDP per Capita).
Technological Advances. Some economists argue that the increase in HC is the result of huge breakthroughs in medicine and treatment. Still others argue that increased spending is driving the advancement (See Newhouse “Medical Care Costs: How much Welfare loss”)
Inherent health factors (read obesity): This is an interesting argument and is the one george is making. In general Americans are more obese than their euro counterparts although that is starting to change. However, even back in 1960 Americans spent more money on Healthcare than Europe. Since 1960 the rate of growth of health care costs has been pretty much the same among all.
I agree that obesity is putting a strain on the healthcare system but I wonder as to what extent. Certainly everyone would be better off if obesity rates were lower. So I leave you with questions and no answers. (By the way george one of my econ books was reviewed in part by Pereria)
April 27th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Just one more word about tanning being addictive. I think for it to be truly addictive it would have to have a chemical basis. People can get addicted to cigarettes because of the nicotine in it. They crave nicotine. The same can happen with other drugs or with alcohol; it becomes a dependence on that chemical. There is no chemical that you can become dependent on in tanning. Smoking comes with a whole host of problems besides cancer, which makes it much more serious than tanning beds. You can pay money for cigarettes and you can pay for a tan, but why would you waste your money?
April 27th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
An aside regarding obesity:
American obesity is up to 50 percent more prevalent than previously reported. A review of data indicates that from 1988 to 2002, male obesity rose from 16 to 29 percent, and female obesity rose from 22 to 35 percent. And that’s not even counting all the overweight people. Least-obese states as of 2000: Colorado (18 percent of men and 24 percent of women) and Montana (21 percent men and 16 percent of women). How did we screw up the initial estimates? By interviewing people on the phone. Women lied about their weight; men lied about their height. (For Human Nature’s take on junk food and the war on fat, click here.)
(from http://www.slate.com/id/2140494/fr/rss/)
April 28th, 2006 at 9:41 am
okay, so sunlight releases certain chemicals or hormones or something into your bloodstream doesn’t it? and tanning beds are like being really close to the sun. so if said chemical or hormone is something that makes you feel happy, might it be possible for someone to become addicted? I don’t know really, cause i don’t feel like doing research. i don’t really believe that it could be highly addictive, but some people just have addictive personalities and/or no will power and can become addicted at the drop of a hat. But the sooner they get cancer and die, the sooner we can be rid of that genetic trait. Who’s with me?….anyone?
April 30th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
“Just one more word about tanning being addictive. I think for it to be truly addictive it would have to have a chemical basis.”
I am not necessarily supporting George’s argument that tanning is addictive. However, to suggest that a particular behavior could be classified as addictive only if it has a chemical basis is perhaps a stretch.
For instance, what would you say about the millions of people who are addicted to gambling or pornography or food/eating? Are these behaviors derived from some sort of chemical influence? I would say, probably not. But they would certainly qualify as addictions, wouldn’t they?
May 25th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Some information stating that tanning might be addictive:
http://cancer.about.com/od/skincancermelanoma/a/ta...