Ban on teen tanning heads to governor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

New restrictions on teen tanning are one step from becoming law after legislation passed the Indiana Senate and moved to the governor on Thursday.

Senate Bill 50, authored by Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, bans youth under the age of 16 from tanning at commercial tanning facilities. The bill also requires anyone between the ages of 16 and 18 to provide parental permission before being allowed to tan at professional facilities.

“I think it’s very important because so many physicians, dermatologists and others are concerned about the amount of skin cancer being caused by exposure to tanning beds,” said Miller. “And this is particularly true in our younger population.”

Miller said that those who tan and are under age 30 are more likely to end up with melanoma, a malignant form of skin cancer.

“The intent is to try to reduce the number of young people who are now going to be exposed to cancer,” she said.

The bill passed the Senate earlier this year in a similar form but it also included a study committee on the issue. The House stripped out the study and on Thursday, the Senate voted to accept that change.

Miller attributed her support for the bill to testimonies heard over the summer given by those who have been personally affected by tanning-related cancer.

“We had this summer some young people come and testify – particularly a young woman who came who had had melanoma, and she told of her experience and sort of the devastating affect it had on her to get this diagnosis and the kind of procedure she had to go through,” Miller said. “And she was encouraging other young people, ‘Please don’t tan.’”

The bill passed 26-12.


  • Tanning instead of Jobs
    I am so glad the Indiana State Legislature is spending its time tackling the vitally important issue of teen tanning. Now that such an important issue has been addressed, maybe they can focus on the minor things, such as jobs, economic development, infrastructure improvements and education.
  • Tanning
    I like how the provision only applies to commercial tanning facilities that can be monitored while personal tanning beds are not. As someone who had severe acne, the tanning bed under doctor supervision reduced the amount of scaring and soreness without having to take more harmful drugs like acutane. That being said, there should have been an exemption for tanning (under 16) if prescibed by a doctor to treat acne, vitamin D defieciencies, etc. Simply to ban it for commercial businesses but not for private residences is a shame. The rich can tan but the poor with severe acne could not even when a doctor recommends it under this law.
  • Tanning is no different than smoking
    Tanning is not healthy as the tanning bed owners would advertise. It is destroying and mutating skin cells and long term produces skin cancer and accelerates aging. Tax it heavily and restrict it to over 21

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

    2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

    3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

    4. If you only knew....

    5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.