California, where the sun shines, beaches are numerous and celebrities roam about. For those of us who live in the heart of the state, our version of California is a little less glamorous. The summer months are excruciatingly searing, winter fog antagonizes Valley drivers and unfortunately, the sun isn’t always beaming.

Yet, on any given March day, when gloomy, frigid days have dominated the region since September, one can spot countless numbers of young women (and men for that matter) with skin that looks as bronzed as it does during the Valley’s heat wave in July.

Those unseasonably year-round tans may quickly leave some pale if the tax on tanning salons goes through in the Senate’s new health care bill. The 10 percent tan tax aims to discourage the use of indoor tanning and would apply to all venues that offer the service. Sunless tanning options, such as spray tans and lotions, are excluded from the tax.

The tanning tax replaces the Senate’s initial “Bo-tax” (a play on Botox) which was an attempt to add a five percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery procedures. The American Academy of Dermatology lobbied against the “Bo-tax” and in place recommended the tan tax.

President of the American Academy of Dermatology Dr. David M. Pariser said his organization proposed the sin tax on tanning beds because of its established health risks and rising health care costs.

“We made the case this will reduce health care costs by hopefully reducing skin cancer in the future ”” that’s the point ”” and also raise a little revenue now,” Pariser said.

The tax is expected to raise $2.7 billion over 10 years while the “Bo-tax” would have garnered $5.8 billion, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated. The disparity of generated revenue is argued against by claims that all sin taxes aim to cease unhealthy habits and cut costs associated with those behaviors as opposed to increased financial gain.

One can imagine that tanning devotees and salon owners are hot over this issue. They declare the tax singles out women who are the owners of many tanning salons and are the majority of the tanning clientele.

In a state that advocates synthetic beauty, those Californians who consider a proper tan ordained by God must be in an uproar.

Despite the numerous medical findings that correlate the increased use of tanning beds to the rise in skin cancer, there’s something about that insatiable lust for a sun kissed glow that makes people turn a deaf ear.

And although the cancer division of the World Health Center declared tanning beds definite causes of cancer, joining the list with tobacco, the Hepatitis B virus and chimney sweeping, the most frequent tanning bed users won’t let a little thing like cancer scare them. The World Health Organization went as far as to deem tanning beds carcinogenic to humans, alongside asbestos, arsenic and mustard gas.

Even an analysis of about 20 studies that concludes the risk of skin cancer, more notably the deadliest form melanoma, increases by 75 percent when people start using tanning beds before the age of 30 will not deter the most staunch tanning fanatics from sandwiching themselves in a bed that emits ultraviolet radiation.

If countless doctor and medical warnings won’t stop men and women from consciously climbing into bed with a cancer risk, why should a 10 percent tax?