D.C. Council Worries You Aren’t Thinking Enough About That Tattoo, Wants You to Wait a Day

"One the one hand, I'm in the mood for pizza. On the other hand ... "Source: Ugliest TattoosWhat if you have a falling out with Mom and don’t love her anymore? Are you sure that Chinese symbol means “freedom” and not “noodles”? Do you really want to spend the rest of your life with a video game character inked on your thigh?

Maybe you should take a moment to make sure. That’s what the Washington, D.C., council is considering forcing on its residents and tattoo parlors. The city is considering a mandatory 24-hour waiting period for tattoos and piercings. The Washington Post detailed the extremely thin public health justifications for what is obviously Nanny State government mothering:

City officials insist that the rule will protect the public. Najma Roberts, a spokeswoman for the Health Department, said the new regulations were mandated by a law the council approved last year and are mainly intended to prevent “serious health risks.”

The rules include mandatory hepatitis B vaccinations and biohazard training for all tattoo artists and body-piercers as well as strict requirements on the use of needles, inks, gloves and other equipment. With the exception of certain ear piercings, tattoos and piercings would be banned for those younger than 18.

None of that has anything to do with a waiting period, clearly. The waiting period is getting the most attention, but the draft regulations also run 66 pages long and include everything from the aforementioned health safety management rules but also typical government regulatory mandates about permits and licenses, bathroom rules, and even what sort of walls they should have (easily cleaned). There are nine separate licensing demands in order to run a tattoo parlor, some for the building, some for the workers and operators. And, of course, it will subject parlors to unannounced inspections by city officials.

According to the Washington Post, D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray has doubts about some of the proposed regulations, but Council member Yvette M. Alexander is all for it. Here’s what Alexander thinks of you, D.C. residents and visitors:

“They can’t be responsible for themselves, as well as the person doing the work on them,” she said. “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?’ ”

Why can’t they be responsible for themselves? Tattoo parlor operator Paul Roe said a smarter regulation would be to require shops to turn away visibly intoxicated customers:

“Simple regulation is effective regulation,” he said. “Overregulation will kill the profession and drive it underground and make it less safe for everybody.”

Indeed. And that might make for some really regrettable tats, too.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Adam330||

    I'm sure it will never occur to anyone to drive 2 miles to VA or MD rather than waiting a day. There's really no way this reg wouldn't put every DC parlor out of business.

  • ||

    That's the point.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Neither individuals nor businesses ever leave localities to escape disincentives imposed by the govenments of those localities, nor do such disincentives ever cause businesses to go under (unless that's the intent, since intent is magic). This is what nanny-statists actually believe (or at least expect you to believe).

  • Cascadian Ephor Xenocles||

    Every time my wife or I have gotten a tattoo it has been a custom one that took a week or two to draw out on paper. I don't know how much the higher-end artists rely on flash for their business but it might not be so bad for them.

  • Brett L||

    On the other end, my brother seems to like being tattooed more than he cares what is being inked. NTTAWWT. He is a very successful adult who makes different choices than I would. But I know for a fact that he's gone into the tattoo parlor on slow days and let the artist choose for a discount.

  • Steve G||

    LOL. read this on Sun and immediately thought nanny of the month. They sell this as a "public health" initiative, but in reality it's just to prevent the regret of a bad tattoo.

  • Juice||

    I'll bet a councilman (or more likely their kid) got a tattoo that they regret.

  • Mainer2||

    Bingo

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Make sure you truly qualify as a tramp before getting that stamp.

  • sarcasmic||

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Damn you for getting this stuck in my head again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pgPq4FGWfk

  • sarcasmic||

    I really really wish I could unsee that.

  • sarcasmic||

    What's wrong with a glowing Burns?

    http://cheezburger.com/7778876928

    I like that one!

  • Juice||

    What?! No Jack In The Box?

  • Doctor Whom||

    They can't be responsible for themselves, but they can elect nannies like Yvette Alexander and thereby be responsible for their fellow DC residents. That makes perfect sense.

  • creech||

    New regulation: when elected to D.C. Council, you must have "busybody" tattooed on your forehead.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    They can’t be responsible for themselves

    And there you have it. But remember, liberals and progressives and whatever the fuck else these people call themselves are fundamentally "optimistic" about human nature.

    What a steaming load of horseshit. You're too pathetic and feckless (and dangerous) to be allowed to run your own life, is what they really believe.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're too pathetic and feckless (and dangerous) to be allowed to run your own life, is what they really believe.

    Ever notice that the very same people who wouldn't trust the average person with a salt shaker are the first to celebrate democracy?

  • Rich||

    ^THIS^.

    The city is considering a mandatory 24-hour waiting period for tattoos and piercings recording votes.

    "Uh, yeah ... Since I was drunk and mad at my boyfriend I'd like to a do-over."

  • John||

    They are totally optimistic about human nature. They thing their nature is fucking fabulous. It is everyone else' nature that needs to be controlled.

  • ||

    It's interesting that the same people that they don't trust people to make a rational decision about a tattoo are the ones they think are completely reliable when it comes to voting.

    Getting a tattoo only affects one's own life (it's an open question whether that affect is negative or not). Voting can fuck up the lives of thousands.

  • John||

    They seem to believe that taking a government job magically transforms someone from being irresponsible to being an totally uncorruptable agent of the people.

    They really don't think anymore. They, as sarcasmic describes them, emote. Their views are not longer even internally consistent. Worse still, it is not that liberals have embraced illogic. They don't even know what logic is anymore and it never even occurs to them to even consider if their views are internally consistent.

  • Aresen||

    “They can’t be responsible for themselves,...

    That is the entire sum of statist thinking, whether it is Yvette Alexander talking about tattoos or anti-porn crusaders on the right. They think of themselves as our 'parents'.

    "What a steaming load of horseshit."

    As a horse owner, I object to that slur on horses.

  • robc||

    ...On the gripping hand, I might die from too much fast food.

  • Brett L||

    It does make me feel much better about my brother's choice of finger tattoos.

  • crazyfingers||

    "Tattoo parlor operator Paul Roe said a smarter regulation would be to require shops to turn away visibly intoxicated customers"

    I assume all but the very shadiest/least professional shops already do this, if nothing else then for liability purposes.

  • Floridian||

    He is missing the root cause: alcohol. We should prohibit alcohol. Why hasn't anyone tried this?

  • Brett L||

    Umm. I thought everyone already had that law in place. I had to be 18 and not (visibly) intoxicated when I got my only tattoo in TX over 15 years ago. I had been drinking all day, but just cheap beer at a festival. My primary problem was being stupid in the presence of other stupid 18 year olds.

  • Zeb||

    I think that is already the law in most states.

  • ||

    I'm surprised Eduard hasn't popped in here to point out the hypocrisy of the council imposing a 24 wait time for tattoos, but a 24 wait time for abortions are verboten.

  • Floridian||

    Waiting periods are idiotic no matter what the reason.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Or required counseling.

    "Listen, you little tramp. Tats make you uglier. Are you down with that?"

  • Floridian||

    I like trampy girls with tats.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Playboy used to DQ a chick with a tat.

    Now they let a small one go.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    They let chicks get away with much more than a small one these days.

    Not safe for work. And tragic.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Not seeing the problem here.

  • ||

    The boobs are nice though.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yeah, that tat is not worthy of the canvas.

  • Floridian||

    Playboy is still a thing?

  • ||

    I don't disagree per se. Just think the hypocrisy is kinda funny.

  • sarcasmic||

    A thing just occurred to me. These people who want no restrictions on abortions are the same people who oppose guns. They want to kill as many unborn people as possible, in part because humans are a cancer on Mother Gaia, but they don't like guns. Doesn't make sense.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    I'm not Eduard, but I was going to ask whether waiting periods for tats violate that Constitutional Right to Privacy I'm always hearing about.

    You know what, though? Forget abortion talk. It's movie reference time!

    “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?’ ”

    Remember Randy Quaid in Kingpin? Ha!

  • ||

    Kingpin was simultaneously the worst and best movie I ever saw.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    We don't have a cow.

    We have a bull.

  • Cascadian Ephor Xenocles||

    The Privacy Amendment only covers abortions and politically correct sex.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    You would be punctilious in assuming that.

  • Zeb||

    What we really need is a Mind Your Own Goddamn Business amendment.

  • ||

    I'll second that.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Will they waive these waiting periods for when we get our Citizen ID tats?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Tattoos are so 1940s dude. We'll all be implanted with RFID chips. For our own good, naturally.

  • SIV||

    SoCons run amok in the Theocratic State of California

  • ||

    Not sure what's socon about saying that as long as you have a penis, you use the little boys room.

  • SIV||

    ^Transphobia, straight up^

  • John||

    A six year old is totally competent to decide he is really a girl in a boy's body. Nothing irresponsible at all about encouraging and enabling that decision.

    Liberals are just sick. They are just sick, evil people.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah, you conservatives were sent here by Allah to set us liberals straight.

  • John||

    You forgot the CHRISTFAG!!

    Even your spastic fits are not hitting the right talking points anymore.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Not really related to legal competence, but a lot of transgender people do come to the realization at that age.

    I read up on it the first time the story of this kid came up. My gut reaction was the same as everyone else's here--"No way a child can know that." Turns out a lot of them do.

    That said, it can certainly just be a phase. But parents who accept their child's word are hardly evil.

  • John||

    Except that pretty much the entire psychological basis for gender modification has been proven to be crap. The people who get sex changes have been found to, after a short bit of happiness, end up just as unhappy as they were to begin with. In fact, the doctor at John's Hopkins who perfected the procedure stopping doing it in the early 00s because he concluded that it wasn't doing his patients any good.

    The desire to reassign gender is apparently a manifestation of other psychological problems which are not solved by changing genders. So, yeah, they are not doing their kid any favors here.

  • anon||

    The desire to reassign gender is apparently a manifestation of other psychological problems which are not solved by changing genders.

    duh.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Changing (social) genders can be done, given controlled social settings--that is, by hanging out with people who acknowledge which gender role you identify with.

    Changing sexual organs is the part that doesn't pass the cost/benefit test.

    Until we get a way to either turn off gender dysphoria or really reconstruct people's bodies to change their sex for real, we don't have any perfect solutions.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    You are assuming the cause is psychological. That science is far from settled, and in fact there is a lot of biological evidence.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So when you were six, you didn't know you were a boy and just went along with it because that's what your parents told you?

  • John||

    That is a classic SD post. It almost sounds clever but is actually completely stupid. When I was six I didn't have such issues. But if I woke up one day and decided I was Napoleon, my parents would have done well to discourage such thoughts instead of buying me a coat and tri cornered hat.

    It is the same thing here. It is a bit early in life to decide that this kid really needs to change his sex.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    SIV is Red PB.

  • ||

    Don't be ridiculous. He's obviously Gillespie in disguise, trying to gin up pageviews.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    So who's Tony?

  • ||

    Sudermannnn!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Not sure what's socon about saying that as long as you have a penis, you use the little boys room.

    Vaginal privilege?

  • ||

    Damn vagina's, walking around all privileged like they own everything.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    Agreed. Even if it is conceded that sex and gender are not the same thing, bathrooms where obviously designed to separate people by body parts and not by psychological makeup. I wouldn't want my daughter in a locker room with a naked penis even if its owner did claim to be transgender.

  • John||

    I think calling a six year old transgendered says everything you need to know about the adults involved and nothing about the poor child.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    This I agree with.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Absolutely. Projection rules the day.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know that projection even necessarily comes into it. I picture the parents congratulating themselves on having such an interesting child and for being so awesome and tolerant and understanding about it. It's kind of like how everyone has to be gluten free or have Asperger's or something. They want a really special kid and to show everyone what good and attentive and progressive parents they are.

  • John||

    I totally agree with you Zeb. It is not so much projection as it probably is the parents' desire to use their kid as a tool to show the world how wonderful and tolerant they are.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    As the parent of a child who actually has Aspergers, I can attest that it's not really something you want to be dealing with.

    And yes, I agree, everyone has to be special now, but not necessarily for their achievements. Instead everyone's special so you can make everyone else conform to your needs. It's sad.

  • Zeb||

    "As the parent of a child who actually has Aspergers, I can attest that it's not really something you want to be dealing with."

    No, I wouldn't think so.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know that projection even necessarily comes into it. I picture the parents congratulating themselves on having such an interesting child and for being so awesome and tolerant and understanding about it. It's kind of like how everyone has to be gluten free or have Asperger's or something. They want a really special kid and to show everyone what good and attentive and progressive parents they are.

  • ||

    Personally, I want my children to be highly glutinous.

  • Brett L||

    For a more subtle take.'

    To me, loving a child who is different, a target and seen as vulnerable is my role as a father and decent human being. He’s just as special to me and loved by me as my oldest son, whose most prized possession is a pocketknife, who plays football, likes fart jokes, and is starting to notice girls.

    I want to love him, not change him.
    I’m a father. I signed on for the job with no strings attached, no caveats, no conditions. I can name every Disney Princess and her movie of origin. I've painted my son's nails and rushed to remove it when he was afraid that he would get teased for wearing it. I didn't want to remove it, I wanted to follow him around and stare down anybody who even thought about teasing him. I only removed it because he started to have a panic attack. It was his decision and if he wants to edit himself to feel safer, I’ll do it. Every time. No questions asked.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Downright evil!

  • John||

    Yes. They are not doing that kid any favors. They are just enabling his under lying issues. And that is evil.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The law’s supporters, which include the California State PTA

    PTA = Union reps, at least in Cali

  • The Late P Brooks||

    We’re making sure when that decision is made that you’re in the right frame of mind

    You've got to git yore mind right, Son.

  • Brett L||

    "What's your dirt doin' in the Captain's hole, Luke?"

    "What's your dirt doin' on the Captain's ground, Luke?"

  • Floridian||

    I don't know boss.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    As stupid as getting a tatoo is, this law is even more stupid.

  • anon||

    I don't have tats, but I find women with tatoos are kinda like women that smoke.

  • anon||

    "Guys, people are actually making money selling a service we don't approve of. Quick, someone think of a way to eliminate an entire section of the service industry with minimal effort on my part."

  • BakedPenguin||

    Late to the thread, but the Oatmeal on tattoos.

  • Meerkatx||

    I can see next on the hit list will be having to wait a day if you want to eat at a Taco Bell or Burger King.

  • Agammamon||

    ". . .and you don’t wake up in the morning . . . saying, ‘Oh my God, what happened?’ ”

    And here I thought the whole tattoo experience was *supposed* to include waking up in a Mexican jail with no clear recollection of the previous evening and wondering why the hell you've got tweety bird drawn on your chest.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement