they want to own our bodies now, I guess?

[Skipjack]

http://www.fox16.com/mostpopular/story/ ... h-0Vw.cspx

Sponsored by this thing (I refuse to call her anything else):
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/ ... mber=Irvin
Fracking conservatives!

[Diogenes]

http://www.fox16.com/mostpopular/story/ ... h-0Vw.cspx

Sponsored by this thing (I refuse to call her anything else):
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/ ... mber=Irvin
Fracking conservatives!

I find myself agreeing with you. That seems stupid. What gives me pause is the 26-4 vote in favor.


I can see a small group of people being foolish. I can see a bare majority being foolish. When 87% of them all see it the same way, then I have to ask myself if i'm missing something, or is it really a situation where 87% of the voting body is that stupid.

Now i'm interested in hearing the majority's reasoning. It may still be a stupid reason, but at this point I want to hear what it is.

[hanelyp]

I too am curious of the "reasoning" behind the majority on this bill. Given the margin of passage I don't think blaming "conservatives" is supportable, the passage would be bi-partisan. I note that partisan breakdown of the vote is not reported in the story.

Granted that the people impacted tend to be freaks, as long as they don't try to impose their freakiness on the rest of us or ask us to pay the costs associated, let them be.

[quixote]

This is just baseless conservative bashing. The bill passed the Arkansas Senate unanimously 35-0. In the House, 9 of the 11 noes were from Republicans. In the initial vote, the only noes were from Republicans. Furthermore, the governor who signed it into law is a Democrat.

[Stubby]

I think you are mixing up your laws.
SB388 and SB387.

SB388 passed 35-0

and then the OP is talking about

SB387 passed 26-4


both pertain to tattooing.

[mdeminico]

http://www.fox16.com/mostpopular/story/ ... h-0Vw.cspx

Sponsored by this thing (I refuse to call her anything else):
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/ ... mber=Irvin
Fracking conservatives!

Odd... why would that many conservatives vote for that? Doesn't seem smart, like there's something we don't know about it (aka the whole story isn't being told)

So, I go and read the text of SB387. I don't see anything in there where it is "banning" those things. It looks more like a regulatory bill for limiting who can do such things, and/or requiring a certain specialized skill set.

edit: It also then prohibits "artists" (those defined in the code) from inserting "subdermal implants". Subdermal implants is not a tattoo or body piercing, it is inserting something under the skin for purposes of decoration (as defined in the bill). Basically, you can't take a diamond and put it under someone's skin for decoration. This does NOT include piercings (as also defined in the bill) or tattoos (as also also defined in the bill).

The news article is biased and skewed.

[Diogenes]

The news article is biased and skewed.

So is Skipjack.

[quixote]

I think you are mixing up your laws.

I assume you're talking to me.

Here are the votes for SB387.

http://openstates.org/ar/bills/2013/SB387/#votes

First the final votes.

Mar 28, 2013
(Senate) Read the third time and passed.

•••Yes: 35
•••No: 0
•••Other: 0

Mar 26, 2013
(House) Read the third time and passed and ordered transmitted to the Senate.

•••Yes: 62
•••No: 11
•••Other: 27

And now the initial vote I was talking about that showed only Republicans voting against it.

Mar 5, 2013
(Senate) Read the third time and passed.

•••Yes: 26
•••No: 4
•••Other: 5

[Skipjack]

No, my point was the the orientation of these people was conservative, not their party association.
And this law is stupid. People should be allowed to do these things if they want to. This does not hurt anybody. It is simply because the people that signed the law dont like it for some stupid reason. My guess is because they are conservative (in nature).

[mdeminico]

No, my point was the the orientation of these people was conservative, not their party association.
And this law is stupid. People should be allowed to do these things if they want to. This does not hurt anybody. It is simply because the people that signed the law dont like it for some stupid reason. My guess is because they are conservative (in nature).

Because an "artist" isn't trained medically enough to be able to ensure someone's safety when IMPLANTING SOMETHING UNDER SOMEONE'S SKIN.

Now, making a law like this that says the "artist" has to disclose that they are not medically trained would be ok. Making it outright illegal, eh, that's getting a little overbearing, but liberals or conservatives would have voted for it. Libertarians wouldn't have.

[Teemu]

No, my point was the the orientation of these people was conservative, not their party association.
And this law is stupid. People should be allowed to do these things if they want to. This does not hurt anybody. It is simply because the people that signed the law dont like it for some stupid reason. My guess is because they are conservative (in nature).

Or they don't like the idea of paying bills over botched amateur implants.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... LIMBS.html

Doctors had no idea how to treat the botched implants and told her she might have to live with the agony, but when they finally operated the injections became so badly infected she was induced into a coma.
It was only when she awoke two months later that Apryl, now 46, discovered the lengths medical staff had gone to to keep her alive.

--
Doctors induced Apryl into a coma and carried out 27 operations, including a buttock amputation and a quadruple lower arm and lower leg amputation.

Two months, 27 operations, quadruple amputee rehab, other support to the amputee etc, that's probably somewhere between 5-10 million dollars over her lifetime.

[TDPerk]

"Or they don't like the idea of paying bills over botched amateur implants."

That doesn't follow at all. What the most extreme piercing artists do is create a pocket which is entirely cutaneous, and not able to augment tissues neither is it advertised as such.

The "ass bigger" injections this woman had done are already illegal.
Neither does licensing confer actual concern for sterility or professionalism.

And frankly, injectables for silhouette alteration do work, when done by a professional (surgeon I presume).

By way of a train wreck chain of Youtube(TM) clicking one night, I discovered this person, who is evidently an intact male, physically.

Mentally...???

NSFW. Rule 34. What has been seen cannot be unseen. Fnord. Brain bleach doesn't come in a strength for this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MGGvbGAsQ8

That chain of email searching started with a story like the one Teemu cites, BTW.

[GIThruster]

I think the point is, that scarification is dangerous, and artists have no training in how to deliberately destroy healthy tissue (something a doctor would never do) and yet prevent infection. According to wiki:

"Scarification produces harm and trauma to the skin; thus it is considered to be unsafe by many. Infection is a concern.[6] Not only does this hurt, the materials for inducing the wounds need to be sanitary, but the wound needs to be kept clean, using antibacterial solutions or soaps often, and having good hygiene in general.[7] It is not uncommon, especially if the wound is being irritated, for a local infection to develop around the wound. The scarification worker needs to have detailed knowledge of the anatomy of human skin, in order to prevent tools cutting too deep, burning too hot, or burning for too long. Scarification is not nearly as popular as tattooing, so it is harder to find workers experienced in scarification. Precautions are made for brandings, such as wearing masks, because it is possible for diseases to be passed from the skin into the air when the skin is burning, that can lead to death from the tool they use."

One presumes that we only know these things "can lead to death" because they have led to death.

Surely such things need the simplest protections? I can recall as a kid that tats on the wrist and neck were illegal because it was believed these had higher incidence of infection and other health risks. If anything, we have gone much further down the road of people modding their bodies, often done by those who have no salient health skills. Requiring those who do such things to have the necessary skills is no different than requiring people to have certification in cosmetology before they cut people's hair.