Austinist: Darque Tan Owner Makes Two Astounding Discoveries

truecraig

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:28:16 -0600

Courts don't maintain compliance, and they don't repeal anything. Those are the duties of other government branches.

joshmiller602

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:24:42 -0600

QUOTE: "...but once again, the American public proves to me just how dumb it is." - LoudMouth Although a clever post, mocking "scooby's", i would have to disagree. Firstly, she IS a busy body...she went out of her way to not only report this business, but to contact the owner, and then the media. If you actually read all of the emails sent back and forth, she didn't report it for the public health, it was a "the law is the law" argument, and her wanting to prove herself. The fact that he doesn't agree with the law gives him the RIGHT to challenge it, that's a right...Welcome to the US :) According to you, business owners should adhere to the law whether or not they agree with it right? You must be British :) Looking at the actual content of the advertising, which you can find some of it online if you are outside of TX, it doesn't state any benefits, only that tanning produces Vitamin D, which i cannot see where that would be a violation of the code. ALSO, why is there a law that prevents someone from stating the TRUTH? Tanning does produce Vitamin D...that is NOT in dispute by ANYONE (including doctors, dermatologists, or even this law student). Shouldn't these laws be focusing on lies, not truths?? Why are we limiting speech to companies? Because we are afraid of companies lying and swindling people in order to make a quick buck...i don't think that is the issue here, or is something that a wise company, that has been around for decades and is nationwide, would do just to make a quick buck. They are usually in it for the long haul and will need their reputation in order to continue to grow. The truth will always come out. But that is NOT the point with this story anyway, this is not about blocking companies from lying...tanning DOES produce Vitamin D, undisputably. Laws should not block speech by companies or individuals...especially if its the TRUTH. Sorry that's just the Libertarian in me, i'm sure many democrats and republicans would disagree. If he doesn't like the law, he should...and should be empowered to, have it challenged. If the courts feel it is unjust, they will repeal it, if not...they will make sure he's in compliance.

LoudMouth

Mon, 05 May 2008 14:54:02 -0600

Imagine that... a full-of-hisself, busy-body 55-year-old perverted tanning salon owner. I don't necessarily agree with the law student's continued discussion with him when it looks like she's got a great case, but I disagree more with business owners that think they're above and beyond the law just because they don't like it. I thought you'd have to have more brains to run a business but once again, the American public proves to me just how dumb it is.

Scooby

Mon, 05 May 2008 13:45:01 -0600

Imagine that... a full-of-herself, busy-body 2nd year law student. I don't necessarily agree with the tanning salon tool's comparison of this silly law with great injustices (fugitive slave act, Nazis, etc.), but I disagree more with simplistic fools who think that tautologies (i.e., "The law is the law!") are valid arguments. I thought UT Law was a bit more selective than that.

hackerstorm7

Sat, 03 May 2008 10:42:07 -0600

mdahmus

Fri, 02 May 2008 17:23:55 -0600

The distinction appears to be that UV may cause non-melanoma skin cancers, which are a comparatively Small Deal, but they actually don't cause and may even help to prevent melanoma and other cancers. We were, after all, evolved to get a lot more sun than some sunophobes get these days.

Joel Nihlean

Fri, 02 May 2008 15:43:55 -0600

According to the American Cancer Society: "Many people believe the UV rays of tanning beds are harmless. This is not true. Tanning lamps give out UVA and frequently UVB rays as well. Both UVA and UVB rays can cause serious long-term skin damage, and both contribute to skin cancer. Because of these dangers, many health experts advise people to avoid sunlamps and tanning beds."

mdahmus

Fri, 02 May 2008 15:01:16 -0600

Laura, your blood shouldn't be boiling quite so much - there is some evidence percolating now that skin cancer isn't quite as cut and dried as people thought, since some folks with nearly zero sun exposure are still getting melanomas. http://thehealthyskeptic.org/throw-away-the-sunscreen/ That article's tone's a bit much for me, but it does refer to some good studies. I've also read something recently that asserts that the rise in detected melanomas is entirely attributable to the fact that we screen so much for it now whereas we didn't before.

Laura D

Fri, 02 May 2008 13:50:00 -0600

I was just recently diagnosed with melanoma on my left thigh...this article gets my blood boiling. I got burned many times as a kid in the sun, so to think that people actually put themselves in harms way for the sake of appearances makes me wonder where their head it at. The first thing my dermatologist asked me was my history of sun exposure/burns. Melanoma (and other skin cancers) are caused by mutated and damaged DNA in melanocyte cells, which can only be done by UVB band exposure, as it penetrates all layers of the skin. There is no other way to get UVA/UVB exposure except through the sun...or tanning beds. This company should perhaps try to think about the public health message they are sending. Oh yea, and damaged skin ages faster.

M_Twilson

Fri, 02 May 2008 13:17:45 -0600

There's actually not really much to comment about, its obvious the owner of darque tan is a genius.

popo

Fri, 02 May 2008 12:49:22 -0600

This just in: Beer makes you skinny!