3 ms·
Seems so odd to me that cosmetologists are always brought up in these conversations, when IMHO licensing for them makes absolutely perfect sense. Just two off t
by 1_2__3 10y ago
Seems so odd to me that cosmetologists are always brought up in these conversations, when IMHO licensing for them makes absolutely perfect sense. Just two off the top of my head:
1) Dyes/bleaches/etc. are often extremely dangerous industrial (as in, cannot be purchased easily at home) chemicals that used wrong could easily cause severe burns or at best an inhalation hazard.
2) Without properly cleaning cutting tools (scissors, clippers, razors, etc.) you run a high risk of spreading disease. With hair and nails the concern is often fungal, but if the last guy who got a buzz cut had lice you're in for a bad time if nobody cleans the clippers.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 10y agoThis might make sense if "cosmetology" wasn't an extremely broad category of services, many of which "dyes, bleaches, and chemicals" have nothing to do with. These are the crazy assholes, after all, that shut down businesses that do nothing but cornrow braiding for lack of licenses. As for "the spread of disease", they aren't back-alley abdominal surgeons. The only disease that runs any real risk of being spread are lice... and there's no need to license that. Licenses don't help prevent that. Nor does anyone need 1400 hours of training to know how to identify them, or how to clean combs and brushes. Sloppy people with licenses will still spread them, careful/clean people without licenses will never spread them. Enforce health codes instead of insisting on licenses that just put large barriers of entry in front of people trying to make a living.