Yesterday, as I was clicking through my usual routine of stories on CNN.com, I came across one of their highlighted stories in their health section, “Teens should be banned from tanning booths, doctors say.” I know this story may not seem to spark the initial relation to “human rights,” but the piece enticed me to think about some deeper controversial topics. One of the controversial topics that struck me as I examined the debate presented in the expose was the idea and use of “sin taxes.” With this thought, I couldn’t help but wonder if “sin taxes” were a violation of human rights. “Sin taxes” can be widely defined as a state tax that is placed on objects or services that can be thought of as a “vice” such as alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling.
In the article several predominant people voiced their concern and thoughts on the issue that is allowing significant amounts of American youth to be at risk for cancer. Dr. Sophie Balk, lead author of the statement written by an American Academy of Pediatrics committee said, "We are looking for legislation that prohibits kids from going to tanning salons. It's protecting our youth from something potentially harmful.” Do you think that the government has the right to intervene in an individual’s life to prevent potential health risks?
It would seem logical that if we were at a large risk for a health problem we would steer clear from the problem at hand. However, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article twenty-four, it states, “everyone has the right to rest and leisure.” Although some of these objects and services may be leading to health problems, some people would classify these activities to be “leisure’s.” The first problem that arises from this situation is, who is to decide what constitutes as “leisure”? From the average teenage tanning bed user, these taxes would be a violation of human rights because the taxes forbid her from her right to leisure. Some of the newly examined items up for possible “sin tax” include junk food, which includes sodas and personally I have several friends who would have a hard time letting go of even a small “leisure” such as DietCoke. Junk food and soda do not seem like a human rights issue and one would never connect the two together if it were not for the “sin taxes.” So are “sin taxes” a violation to human beings right to “leisure” as stated in article twenty-four or does the government have a right to step in when people and youth are unable to steer clear of potentially dangerous objects and services?
The article can be found here
I think you're precisely right when you ask the question, "who is to decide what constitutes as 'leisure'?" To me, the argument to ban tanning salons from teenagers is laughable. Sure, there have been medical studies that may or may not show evidence that tanning beds cause skin cancer (I for one believe that they do, and that's why you'll never catch me near one). But why tackle tanning beds? If you're going to take the stance that you need to ban something from teenagers that causes harm to them, then ban cigarettes, candy, cars, fast food, theme parks, roller blades, etc. Tanning, like the other aforementioned "leisure activities," are practices that are willfully and voluntarily entered into (with the hope of parental discretion). The negative effects to these vices should, however, be made very clear (just as cigarette boxes have large Surgeon General's warnings on them, so should tanning beds). So, in short, I do think that this sort of government intervention is contradicting the UDHR, but it is the government's responsibility to make their consequences very clear.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is a problem with the implementation of "sin taxes" as they are simply making these "vices" a little less convenient rather than forcibly removing them all together. I'm also not sure that I agree that banning teens from tanning booths is unconstitutional due to its classification as a leisure activity. Teens are "banned" from drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, but seem to be leisure activities just as much as tanning. We may be reading too much into the UDHR when we propose that its reference to leisure encompases certain leisure activities. All that is really stated is that we have the right to rest and leisure which may simply mean that we should not be forced into any perpetual labor that allows for no rest. However, if we do embrace the notion that there are specific activities that must be associated with leisure, then I agree that we must first find a suitable way of reliably defining both leisure and leisure activities.
ReplyDeletePerry makes a good point about the difference between making "vices" less accessible and completely banning them. If the government really wanted to keep people from drinking, smoking, or using tanning beds, then I don't think "sin taxes" would be the way they'd go about it. Since all these behaviors are addictive, an increased cost would be unlikely to dissuade most users, although perhaps it may prevent new people from starting. Therefore, I think it's difficult to say that these taxes are necessarily designed with a public health interest in mind. Perhaps if the sin tax revenue supported preventative health initiatives or rehabilitation programs, then that argument could be made.
ReplyDeleteI think that Perry has brought to point the main issue regarding this point, that being the actual definition of leisure and what is meant to be protected by this article. I think that I would agree with his conclusion that its meaning, especially thinking about when it was written, pertains more to a system that does not allow for the perpetual forced labor of individuals, not necessarily certain activities. However if we are to examine this post as such, I would argue that it is the states job to not only enforce such taxes, but set stricter laws for teens and whatnot in order to ensure their safe development into maturity.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, I think that this brings up a similar question to Manali's post about students' suicides in India; What happens when a state's active efforts to promote or preserve on right actually interferes with the fulfillment of another right? In the case of teen tanning, legislation is being sought which will presumably help ensure the physical safety and well-being of young Americans. And yet, simultaneously, it disallows young people from engaging in the enjoyment of a nice tan.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it, though, the more I side with legislation that would prevent teen tanning. Smoking and drinking aren't incredibly dangerous or life-threatening on their own, but they can potentially have deleterious health effects. There is a minimum age to engage in these activities. Tanning seems to be similar, and a minimum age for tanning booths doesn't seem to infringe on anyone's rights.
I think this is ridiculous. Pretty soon, I won't be able to sin "a little" without someone trying to charge me for it. It is an infringement on my human rights! Government should stop making all these rules and start governing.
ReplyDeleteIt is similar to cigarette smoking in public parks. Either cigarettes are legal or illegal. If they are legal (which they are) then government shouldn't be able to infringe on my right to enjoy them in a place like a public park. Maybe, for me, obese people infringe on my right to enjoy that same park. What it comes down to, is politics. Gag!
It is politically dicey to go after some things (like alcohol) where cigarettes and now tanning booths are easy prey. I haven't seen many tanning booth lobbyists prowling around Washington. Cigarette companies lost their clout. Alcohol wins. If politicians think they can speak out on a subject and gain voter approval (without much opposition) then they are all for it. They could care less about human rights or the infringement of such. Hate to be so cynical. Plus, a sin tax on tanning booths would probably bankrupt half the politicians I see on televsion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSin tax on tanning beds might just be the epitome of a white girl problem. Sorry, I had to it out. Otherwise, I find this thread extremely interesting. I think sin taxes are a clever method for the government to squeeze a little extra revenue off unnecessary commodities and especially potentially harmful commodities it wishes to minimize or regulate. But be careful, just because a steep sin tax on something you don't partake in seems justifiable, doesn't mean the taxed parties won't throw a tea party.
ReplyDelete