Tanning ban, charter grant not in budget

Posted July 31, 2014

Tanning bed, tanning salon

— While much of Thursday's focus will be on what's in the budget bill, there are several notable items that have been left out. Some of these missing items are policy measures that were included in an earlier version of the budget, while other spending provisions were simply dropped. 

The following are among those missing provisions: 

  • House budget writers had included a $300,000 grant to Parents for Education Freedom in North Carolina to foster charter school development in rural areas. That grant does not appear in the budget money report. 
  • Language from a bill that would have banned anyone under 18 years old from using a tanning bed had been included in the House budget. It was left out of the final report. 

    "It's a sad irony that we received the news about North Carolina tanning bed bill the same week as the U.S. Surgeon General issued a national call to action on skin cancer," said Dr. Brent Mizelle, president of the North Carolina Dermatology Association. "The Surgeon General, 11 states, virtually every health organization in North Carolina as well as the major tanning industry association in the U.S. all support protecting children from the dangers of indoor tanning. We are disappointed that North Carolina teens will not be among those who enjoy this protection."
  • The Senate budget would have closed the Wright School in Durham for children with emotional and behavioral problems. The final budget does not. 
  • The House budget would have eliminated fees on ferries and created an advertising program to replace that revenue. The final budget does not have that language. 
  • Gov. Pat McCrory would have eliminated a tuition tax break for out-of-state students who receive full-ride academic scholarships to University of North Carolina system schools. That provision appears to absent from the final budget bill.

This blog post is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Jackson Smith Jul 31, 2014
    user avatar

    Seems like they forgot a number of things. The Tanning ban proposed by Jim Fulgham should have been included. I guess they did not care for his legacy of protecting people as a Dr. on NC for years.

  • iopsyc Jul 31, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Did you read the proposed committee substitute?

  • Jerry Sawyer Jul 31, 2014
    user avatar

    North Carolina needs to incorporate an SS police state to monitor and take away people who tan on the beaches beyond the allotted time limit.

  • miseem Jul 31, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Yeah. And I'm wondering why kids under 18 (or 21) cannot smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol, buy handguns, work in hazardous job sites or join the military. It's just that nanny state again.

  • Bunky Jul 31, 2014

    I just read the latest version of S 744 on the Legislative site. Page 97 has a part that would raise the age for using a commercial tanning bed from over 13 to 18 and older. Who do I believe - WRAL or the NC Legislature?

  • rocket Jul 31, 2014

    Why stop with tanning beds? If we must protect teens from themselves let's make it illegal for them to tan under the real sun too.