Jump to content

Talk:Legal status of tattooing in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

maryland

[edit]

I know that the required age is eighteen, although with parental consent, minors can also be tattoed, I do not know the sources, but my artist told me this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.35.164 (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I call the source used into question. The source, TattooJoy, is quoting from a proposed senate bill from 1998 regular session that would have made it illegal to tattoo a minor. However, If you check the bill record from the legislature [1], you will see that the bill did not pass. Therefore I think that source is invalid and out of date.
My own search into Maryland's law seems to indicate that there is no minimum age mandated by law. Now, tattoo artists have the legal right to refuse service to minors for purpose of civil liability, but there appears to be no actual law requiring this. Note that while an artist may say it's the law, it would certainly not be the first time a business lies in this manner to pass the buck so that the customer will not attempt to argue.Legitimus (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have confirmed my suspicion on consulting with several tattoo artists. There is no law, artists simply restrict their clientele to avoid lawsuits. They simply claim state law so that customer's will not try to argue with them.Legitimus (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: There is now a new regulation, though it is part of health code under COMAR, rather than the Annotated Code of Maryland. Changes pending.Legitimus (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 48 states...

[edit]

When I created this article, I know I didn't get to finish adding all the 48 articles.. kinda stopped half way. But, I see that it is at 23 states instead of 48 =S. Wth? Can anyone add the missing states in alphabetical order with credible sources. --Rmhs15 (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont?

[edit]

Does Vermont not have any rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.208.74 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like nobody added that, but yes their are rules there: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sections.cfm?Title=26&Chapter=079
I will add a paraphrase of the law.Legitimus (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better as a table?

[edit]

Would anyone object to me reformatting this article as a table? I feel like it would be much easier to read and find the information that readers are likely looking for that way. If no one objects over the next week or so I'll likely give it a go. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea. It might also help reduce the vandalism issue this page regularly suffers from (a column of 18s would make shenanigans stick out). What should the columns be? The most obvious is minimum age without parental consent, but there should also probably if parental consent is permitted for under age, what is required for parental consent (written, physical presence, notary etc), if artists require licensing, if violation is a criminal offense, the statute, and maybe a comments area for things like MA's history.Legitimus (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey just a quick update. I made a spreadsheet with all 50 states and DC and went through one at a time. It's patchwork at the moment, but I did confirm that all states have the min age without permission is 18. There are no "unregulated" states as of this writing, as several new laws were passed over the last decade. So some of these state entries are definitely wrong.
@Legitimus: Cool! I ought to have commented here earlier - I have also been working on a more detailed table in my my sandbox, focusing mostly on minor's ability to get tattoos since that seems to be what draws the most attention to the article. It's very slow going! Is there a way we can usefully combine our efforts to get this done faster? Sounds like your research suggests that the first column in my table would be "18" all the way down, which I guess might make it superfluous. Also I've been wondering if the scope of the article should be broadened to include branding and piercing (or maybe just "body art" in general) since most state's laws seem to regulate all of that together. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree that first column seems unnecessary now since it's always 18. Also yes I think piercing would probably be a good thing to include, bit I'm not sure how to integrate it gracefully. While they do regulate them together, piercing usually has slightly different rules (i.e. some states allow it while banning tattooing under 18 outright). If you don't mind I can add information I find to your sandbox. Though I did find this tool you might find useful in case we need to redo the columns (tables are so frustrating for me) [2].Legitimus (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah by all means go ahead and add stuff! Any help appreciated! I'll get to removing/re-jiggering the columns as soon as I can. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update: The table is coming along OK I think, I have added "type of offense" and "regulatory scheme" columns per the suggestion by Legitimus above - but I'm going to wait to remove the first column (age w/o parental consent) until the table is in the article. Hoping that AnomieBot will fix the orphaned refs when I do it and save me some work.
I will probably put this "live" in the article as soon as the basic info is filled in for each state and continue improving it in article-space. There are multiple inaccuracies in the current article so i think it's better to throw the table up sooner rather than later, even if there's still some work to be done. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevada so far is the only one I've come across that might be problematic. The state government doesn't regulate body art (or much else by my observation), but the counties do. Clark County (where Las Vegas and most major cities are) has regs fairly consistent with all other states, and the rest of the state probably doesn't matter because it's uninhabitable wasteland (kidding!). But seriously, if all the counties in the state still set the age at 18 it's functionally a statewide rule. But we can worry about getting that right later.Legitimus (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"currently"

[edit]

" tattooing the hands or face is frequently said to be illegal, even though no U.S. state currently has such a ban". - Is the sugestion that one or more US states previously had such a ban? 86.177.208.67 (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the original poster was implying when they wrote that (they have have expected that a law will come around later due to the increasing regulations over the past 10 years) but it's not a necessary work in that sentence.Legitimus (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table conversion

[edit]

I have removed the old list and added the table compiled by myself and Legitimus in its place. It is still a work in progress but I'm pretty convinced that this revision is an improvement that will help readers get what they need/want out of the article much more quickly and easily. For reference, this was the last version of the article before I swapped in the table. I am going to continue to work on:

  • filling in blank cells
  • filling out bare url references
  • double-checking accuracy (despite my best efforts to be accurate, Legitimus already found a few errors, so I'm keen to double-check)
  • looking for & entering relevant administrative regulations & rules, as well as laws. I think this is needed to get a complete picture/understanding of what the different states allow
  • figuring out how to treat states like Nevada (where this is all regulated @ the local level).

All of this will take time, of course. This will be a long-term project to make sure that this page is complete and accurate. Anyone who is interested should feel free to help out or suggest improvements! Fyddlestix (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tone is preachy

[edit]

In all jurisdictions, individual tattooists may also choose to place additional restrictions based on their own moral feelings, such as refusing any clients under a specific age even with parental consent despite it being legal, or limiting the type and/or location of where they are willing to tattoo (such as refusing any work around intimate parts of the body). They may additionally refuse to perform specific artwork, including if they merely find it inappropriate or offensive, or refuse to work on a client that they suspect may be intoxicated. Artists sometimes claim their personal business restrictions are a matter of law even when it is not true, so as to avoid arguments with clients.

Good intentions, and I agree with the sentiment, but it appears to be one practitioner's private philosophy of customer service. It's not attestable facts about the legality of tattooing. 2601:644:400:500:61E9:2640:6A3A:7503 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, a bit, but how would you phrase it? The intention of this paragraph was based on this: The likely readership if this article are curious young people who are unfamiliar with the legal aspects and likely have been told many untrue rumors or outright lies about the law. And a lot of the time, it's the tattooist who told them. I've even confronted several artists for telling clients "I can't do that because it's illegal," and they confessed they lied to prevent arguments. So, this is not some kind of anomaly, especially in areas that didn't have any tattoo laws until recently. I have very little respect or tolerance for people that lie about the law because they're too spineless to set some boundaries.Legitimus (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 June 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: TBD. Redundant. See Talk:Legal_status_of_psilocybin_mushrooms#Requested_move_8_June_2017 В²C ☎ 18:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Legal status of tattooing in the United States → Legality of tattooing in the United States – Several different formats exist for the titles of articles regarding the legality of a particular thing. I believe that all of these should be consistent with each other and that that format should be "Legality of X" (instead of "Legal status of X, Laws regarding X, etc.) Others have noted that "legality" is a more common term when referring to whether something is legal or illegal than "legal status". Michipedian (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Legal status of tattooing in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_status_of_tattooing_in_the_United_States&oldid=1176706399"