Washington, DC may institute 24-hour waiting period for tattoos and piercings

You gotta love this, all elected officials think they are elected because they know whats better for us than we do.
Can't wait to see if this goes national.

news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


It is so refreshing to see the government step in and take action again us making our own decisions. Our ability to make decisions, eve bad ones used to be a freedom.

In Oklahoma only recently it became legal to tattoo. That's a plus. However, now... Arkansas wants to ban certain body mods such as dermal and scarification. More Nanny, from either side, state infringement on people as well as money from fines, or jail time. People will still do them but if that were to pass illegally in the time frame wanted, out of shop. That overall is not good stopping Hep and other disease. Been seeing talk of lately the request of stopping sales on the net of inhibiting tattoo equipment and inks. Overall don't see much positive coming from any of it, except maybe society will stop using it as a trendy weekend fasion, in turn giving it less attention to greedy power and money hungry control. In a sense still moving backward because they are more accepted in society now days, which some places of employment and such.

Submit.

Obey.

I bet if you wanted that as a tat you woldn't have to wait for it.

peace

“We’re making sure when that decision is made that you’re in the right frame of mind, and you don’t wake up in the morning . . . saying, ‘Oh my God, what happened?’ Washington DC Health Department Spokeswoman Najma Roberts told the Washington Post.

In other words, the potential new regulation would largely be aimed at stopping people from getting a tattoo while drunk, or under the influence of other drugs.

Let's tell the whole story, ok.

reply to post by elevatedone


The freedom to make decisions must also include the freedom to make BAD decisions.

Or else it isn't a freedom anymore.

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


Let me take this one step further...YOU are NOT permitted to do ANYTHING to "your" body that could affect costs to the collective ObamaCare exchanges. Think about it...tatts, piercings, etc run the risk of infection which could need medical attention, which could take assets "away" from others.

Welcome to the outer rings of ObamaCare (but it's just so you don't make a bad decision...right?)

First they came for the smokers, but I didnt smoke...

reply to post by elevatedone

The 'whole story' is being told loud and clear. Here we find Washington - again - implementing MORE government in our lives where it does not belong.

Our bodies. Not theirs. Period.

Once more Government insinuating it’s slimy self because - oh nooooo - we’re not capable of making a decision without having our little hands held and Big Sis there to give us the go ahead.

Guess what? So what if someone is blue gilled drunk - let them get the tat!

Maybe when they wake up and have to deal with real life ACCOUNTABILITY they’ll think twice before getting wasted next time.

Remove all responsibility and no one ever learns accountability!

And perhaps - just perhaps - we can give a little credit to the tattoo artist who knows he’s going to get his head beat in when the guy wakes up the next morning with a hang over and new tat he/she doesn't recognize.

As for hepatitis and other transmittable diseases? A needle today, a needle tomorrow - a waiting period makes no difference.

No, what's glaringly obvious is they're after every inch of us. Every day a new stranglehold and regulation. Every edict another attempt at the micromanagement of our lives, our bodies, ourselves. Our children. That is what’s ‘loud and clear’.

peace

Originally posted by elevatedone

“We’re making sure when that decision is made that you’re in the right frame of mind, and you don’t wake up in the morning . . . saying, ‘Oh my God, what happened?’ Washington DC Health Department Spokeswoman Najma Roberts told the Washington Post.

In other words, the potential new regulation would largely be aimed at stopping people from getting a tattoo while drunk, or under the influence of other drugs.

Let's tell the whole story, ok.

I'm unclear as to your point? Are you saying the nanny state is a good thing when they determine it is for your own good because you are drunk and can't determine what is best for you (why don't they ban booze)? If this is the case, then it there is a clear way to make all 'drunk' purchases illegal. So State must prevent you from going to the store after a night and by too much eye makeup, or too many kayaks if you've had too much too drink.

Either they State regulates everything you do, or nothing. Oh, crap, they do regulate everything you do, everything single thing you do, there is not one thing they do not regulate, not one. So I guess this makes sense as it is simply an extension of their control over their property. I agree with the law.

Originally posted by elevatedone

“We’re making sure when that decision is made that you’re in the right frame of mind, and you don’t wake up in the morning . . . saying, ‘Oh my God, what happened?’ Washington DC Health Department Spokeswoman Najma Roberts told the Washington Post.

In other words, the potential new regulation would largely be aimed at stopping people from getting a tattoo while drunk, or under the influence of other drugs.

Let's tell the whole story, ok.

Maybe Spokeswoman Najma Roberts isn't aware that a reputable tattoo shop employee, that's who will be targeted if this goes through, will not tattoo an obviously drunk and or under heavily influence of drug/s an person who is "not in the right frame of mind". This will just more leave it up to those doing tattoo on the side who may not care if the person is under an influence, thus making them more susceptible to mistake, disease and regret.

Tattoos are dangerous. You should be required to have a background check before getting one also. This must be part of the new gun law they are trying to pass, never know if someone is going to have a tattoo of a gun put on their hand and use it in a robbery

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE

 

It is so refreshing to see the government step in and take action again us making our own decisions. Our ability to make decisions, eve bad ones used to be a freedom.

why do you even say that in sarcasm! Gawwwwwwdddddahhh

reply to post by dreamingawake

Precisely. One of my friends is a piercer in a tattoo shop, and guess what none of them do? They don't tat or pierce someone obviously not sober, and will NOT tat or pierce same-day. If you really want one, you make an appointment to come back. It's the business' way of making you think an extra day or two & make sure you REALLY want that buttcheek tat, or nose ring.

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


I think this is directed at drunks that impulsively get stupid, ugly ink. Sober they could have made a different decision.

Personally I have made many decisions drunk that I have lived to regret.

I say the longer you wait on that the better off you'll be. Tattoo's last a loooong time.
Make sure that your sure that your sure that's what you want.

I tell my hard headed daughter who thinks she wants a tattoo to get a fake one and wear it a while. That might help her to make sure she wants it first. I think she really just wanted to argue about it. If I had told here "absolutey no! Your not getting a Tattoo", she probably would have showed up the next day or shortly there after with one just to defy me as a parent.

In fact I think Tattoo artist should do more fake Tattoo's. That way they don't fill up their canvas with unusable area. Just wipe the canvas clean and do something else a while.


There's good money in it obviously, Tattoo artist are living higher on the hog than I am.

I understand you can get them removed with expensive skin surgeries.

Some Tattoo's look cool but you can really mess your self up if your not careful.

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


The article refers to decisions tempered by alcohol and drug use. Is that was this is about? No.

There is already legislature in place for such events. Laws concerning tattooing vary from state to state, but on every consent form that I've ever seen the applicant must acknowledge that they are not under the influence of intoxicants. (...along with a laundry list of other disqualifying conditions like pregnancy, or need-to-know medical information like epilepsy, diabetes, or infectious blood-born pathogens...)

A respectable professional tattoo artist or shop wouldn't allow drunks to hangout in the lobby, much less fill out a consent form or actually complete the procedure.

Having to wait will encourage many to get their tattoos in some homegrown scratcher's dirty kitchen... where both can drink up.

SlackOps
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE

 

The article refers to decisions tempered by alcohol and drug use. Is that was this is about? No.

There is already legislature in place for such events. Laws concerning tattooing vary from state to state, but on every consent form that I've ever seen the applicant must acknowledge that they are not under the influence of intoxicants. (...along with a laundry list of other disqualifying conditions like pregnancy, or need-to-know medical information like epilepsy, diabetes, or infectious blood-born pathogens...)

A respectable professional tattoo artist or shop wouldn't allow drunks to hangout in the lobby, much less fill out a consent form or actually complete the procedure.

Having to wait will encourage many to get their tattoos in some homegrown scratcher's dirty kitchen... where both can drink up.

DC has barely any regulations on the tatoo industry. They have only had some very basic regulation on reusing needles and getting a lisense and such for a couple of years. Beyond that its pretty much open so whatever the shop wants to do. The better ones turn aways drunks but the less than honest ones make a living at it.

elevatedone

“We’re making sure when that decision is made that you’re in the right frame of mind, and you don’t wake up in the morning . . . saying, ‘Oh my God, what happened?’ Washington DC Health Department Spokeswoman Najma Roberts told the Washington Post.

In other words, the potential new regulation would largely be aimed at stopping people from getting a tattoo while drunk, or under the influence of other drugs.

Let's tell the whole story, ok.

Its still not their decision to make. I am one of the only people I am aware of that doesn't have a tattoo but I have never judged those who do. If they want to protect people from themselves might as well make alcohol illegal again. I know the tattoo parlor near where I live has a policy that it won't give them if your inebriated. Saw their sign when went with friend to get ears pierced. Leave this to the businesses' and people. Otherwise it just leads to more parenting of the public.

Plus - this would only encourage more illegal and therefore unsafe ways to get it done.

reply to post by dreamingawake

How is that any different? Not every tattoo artist does that, and I think it's a good idea. I would prefer even more regulation to prevent people from getting so #ed up that they can't make rational decisions, but that's not happening. I'm not as insanely conspiracy-inclined as a lot of people on this site, but for once I think the law is a good idea. Complete freedom doesn't work, anyways.

reply to post by Dianec


If you're so messed up that you resort to being unsafe, you deserve everything you get. Also, if the idea is to prevent disease and such, having someone go a dangerous route means more money for big health care.