24 hour waiting period for tattoos

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568
24 hour waiting period for tattoos

Washington D.C. Tattoo Parlors Threatened by Proposed Body Art Waiting Period - ABC News

Washington, D.C., lawmakers are considering a plan to save people from themselves by putting an end to those late-night stumbles into a tattoo parlor for some fresh ink or a piercing.

The city's department of health proposed a 24-hour mandatory waiting period for people who want to get a tattoo or a piercing, citing public safety issues, according to draft regulations released Friday.

The law would force body art businesses to "ensure that no tattoo artist applies any tattoo to a customer until after 24 hours have passed since the customer first requested the tattoo," according to the draft regulations. The same would apply for body piercings.

Prospective customers would need to sign a questionnaire to disclose conditions that might affect the healing process, including pregnancy, diabetes and herpes, the regulations said. Body artists would also need to provide proof that they have been vaccinated for hepatitis B and would have to undergo biohazard training.

Tattooed Celebrities: See the Photos

While the proposal could protect customers from health risks as well as from regrets about impulsively going under the needle, some local body artists are worried the mandatory delay may affect their bottom line.

"One of the cornerstones of the body art industry has been the walk-in service," Fatty Jessup, the owner of Fatty's Custom Tatooz told ABC News. "By eliminating the walk-in service, you're essentially killing the business."

Even customers are crying foul, saying people need to take responsibility for their own decisions.

"If somebody wants to come in as a walk-in, they're going to pay for the service. That's on them." one customer said. "If they regret that decision down the road, that again is on them. It shouldn't be up to the shop to regulate people's poor decisions."

But parenting expert Tammy Gold told ABC News the proposal could be advantageous when it comes to talking with your kids about getting inked.

"This wait and hold time will do such wonders for [children's] ability to protect themselves if they're not sure they if want to do it, and a parent's ability to protect them, to say, 'Let's register and then let's give ourselves 24 hours to really talk about it.'"

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposal before it could potentially become a final regulation.

City officials have not immediately responded to ABC News' request for comment.

Debate - Good idea? Bad idea?

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Prospective customers would need to sign a questionnaire to disclose conditions that might affect the healing process, including pregnancy, diabetes and herpes, the regulations said. Body artists would also need to provide proof that they have been vaccinated for hepatitis B and would have to undergo biohazard training.

Normally I think people have to be responsible for themselves, so if you want to get a tattoo/piercing and you are an adult go on with your bad self.

But these rules above should be standard everywhere. It shocks me that they are not. Also, if a bar can't serve someone who is intoxicated, a tattoo shop shouldn't be able to either.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6568

I go back and forth on this. I have never really contemplated a tattoo before, so I do not really know. It does make sense to me that you think a tattoo through before getting one, however, I am not sure that it should be mandated, just common sense.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

Prospective customers would need to sign a questionnaire to disclose conditions that might affect the healing process, including pregnancy, diabetes and herpes, the regulations said. Body artists would also need to provide proof that they have been vaccinated for hepatitis B and would have to undergo biohazard training.

I also thought this was the only part that made sense, or also adding in that they should refuse people who are clearly intoxicated, although that's a tough one to enforce.

Otherwise I think it's pretty ridiculous. I agree, you can't mandate common sense. And who's to say that someone who walks into a tattoo parlor hasn't ALREADY thought about it?

I'm not into tattoos -- I don't even have my ears pierced! -- but I'm the exception for sure. I know a ton of people with them. It's not a freaky thing anymore and people absolutely think about it before they do it. And if they don't? Well that's their issue.

I think it's silly.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

Lord, this would just kill 'Bad Ink'.

I think the questionnaire is a good idea and absolutely refusing anyone who comes in under the influence. Other than that I agree with the others who said that people need to be accountable for their actions. Sometimes I think it's good that people have a lifelong reminder of their stupidity.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4103

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I also thought this was the only part that made sense, or also adding in that they should refuse people who are clearly intoxicated, although that's a tough one to enforce.

If your signature in person matches the signature on your ID, then you're OK. If you can't manage a reasonably matchable signature, then take a nap & try again in a few hours. That's what spurred my sister to change her signature on her ID, she'd been renewing by mail for so long, it still had her swoopy 18yo signature when she was 26 and the tattoo parlor didn't accept it. She went out to her car & practiced it a few times, went back in & got her tattoo.

I'd be fine with a waiting period for a minor in those states that allow minors to get tattooed. But not for adults, sometimes you just have to deal with buyer's regret.

Joined: 05/13/13
Posts: 34

I do not agree that there should be a 24 hour waiting period. It just sounds silly, as if the lawmakers are trying to legislate common sense. If you want a tattoo, are mentally intact and old enough to acquire one then you should be able to get one. If you regret it later on the line, it is what it is and you have options. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have regretted a tattoo years down the line that loved it at first and may even have thought about it for more than 24 hours.

The questionnaire mentioned doesn't sound so different than a typical form to fill out prior to getting a tattoo, or at least in my experience. I have never been in a tattoo parlor that would tattoo anyone under the influence, either. Of course, I haven't been everywhere. It just seems odd to try to put such a restriction on tattoos/piercings.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Don't agree with it. Any reputable tattoo parlor will not tattoo someone that was impaired with alcohol or drugs. If they aren't reputable...well you have a whole other set of potential problems to deal with.

If we legislated against bad decisions what's next? The chicken nugget meal you buy at McDonald's because you are drunk? Wink

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

The phrase "mentally intact" made me giggle. Biggrin

I agree with everyone else. They shouldn't tattoo drunk people (if they know they're drunk) but beyond that, you can't legislate common sense so you may as well let people make their own mistakes.