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

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


Being quite covered myself, I think it might not be such a bad thing. I don't know about DC but here in Aus, if you've got a good artist, the wait is usually weeks to a month or two, sometimes a year depending on the artist to wait after booking in anyway. Gives you time to ok what they've drawn up and fine tune it. This could stop the god awful flash ones :p.

but obviously a person should have the right to put whatever on their body, whenever they choose to.

I had read about this a few days ago and it is stupid.

It is a classic example of Washington being a day late and a dollar short and attempting to pass reactive legislation that is roughly 50 years late.

Facts are, most reputable tattoo parlors will NOT tattoo a person who has been drinking, much less drinking enough to be in a state of "black out". It thins the blood causing the person being tattooed to bleed more, which makes it tougher for the ink to take. This could potentially cause a problem with the finished tattoo, which then could get a shop owner sued in civil court.

This was not the case back in the 1950's, 60's, 70's or 80's. Back then it was common to get drunk and get tattooed, especially with Military. It just does not happen much anymore, at least not with a reputable business, but Redneck Joe who is doing tattoos on his homemade gun from the back room of his trailer on the other hand, will.

Bottom line.. if you are stupid enough to get drunk and get tattooed and you wake up regretting it later. Then too bad! It's a good lesson on personal responsibility. Your actions have a consequence. Deal with it and blame yourself.

I'm glad someone is thinking about passing such an ordinance. Tattoos are unsightly and many people regret getting them.

It's unfortunate that a law is necessary to protect people from their own stupid decisions.

This is a good idea, sure it's a inconvenience but so is getting a tattoo based off an impulse which you may regret.

Like the article says, it's aimed at drunk or high customers who don't know what they're doing.

suz62
I'm glad someone is thinking about passing such an ordinance. Tattoos are unsightly and many people regret getting them.

It's unfortunate that a law is necessary to protect people from their own stupid decisions.

edit on 9/9/2013 by suz62 because: (no reason given)

The same can be said of people that become obese from eating too much junk food. It's not pretty or very clever... and can be harder to shake than a bad tattoo.

Do you want anyone telling you what or when you can or cannot eat based on how offensive it might make you look to others and the possibility that you might one day regret eating one too many items off the value menu?

It's not necessary. It's Draconian.