 |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||||||||||
|
Vol. 1. No. 4. ISSN 1073-5461 July 1997 |
|||||||||||
|
ATTENTION |
|||||||||||
|
THE PENNSYLVANIA LICENSURE COALITION IS PROMOTING A MASSAGE LICENSURE BILL TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM HARM. |
|||||||||||
|
BUT THE COALITION HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE THAT MASSAGE HARMS PEOPLE. |
|||||||||||
|
IF MASSAGE IS NOT HARMFUL, THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE STATE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM HARM. |
|||||||||||
|
WHY FIX SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BROKEN? |
|||||||||||
|
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS REQUIRE EVIDENCE THAT: |
|||||||||||
|
1. The unlicensed profession is a serious danger to the public health and safety. 2. State licensing will adequately protect the public health and safety. 3. No other means can protect the public health and safety. |
|||||||||||
|
ONE ATTORNEY SAYS |
|||||||||||
|
"Legislators are currently disinclined toward licensing of new professions and have learned that the old arguments about protecting the public more than likely really mean 'Secure me a vested interest.' |
|||||||||||
|
"It seems that proponents of licensing are hopeful that a state license would mean more money, status, and power." Jerry A. Green, Attorney for the California Coalition on Somatic Practices |
|||||||||||
|
THE PENNSYLVANIA LICENSURE COALITION |
|||||||||||
|
1. Has been working to create a bill which protects the public from harm. 2. Says that licensure is first and foremost to protect the public from harm. 3. Says state licensing will create educational requirements for that public protection. |
|||||||||||
|
WHAT HARM? |
|||||||||||
|
If massage causes no harm, state regulation is not needed to protect the public. |
|||||||||||
|
If massage causes harm, state legislators have to know how many people are injured and how serious the injuries are in order to decide whether state regulation is needed to protect the public. |
|||||||||||
|
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATORS SHOULD ASK THE COALITION: |
|||||||||||
|
WHERE'S THE HARM? |
|||||||||||