# Government creeping into Halloween



## MacEricG (Jan 5, 2011)

I know many here don't dig politics, but I thought this was important to see how over-regulation and nanny state mentality is slowly creeping into the Halloween industry.


----------



## EverydayisHalloween311 (Oct 14, 2011)

I wouldn't necessarily call that creeping into the "Halloween" industry but it does come across as unfair....Sorta. It IS a type if cosmetic.


----------



## BioHazardCustoms (Aug 5, 2009)

The two ladies are teaching FX makeup. That means that their students might end up in the Halloween/Haunt industry, or in the film industry. I do not believe that they should fall under the board of cosmetology. Cosmetology is the science of making someone "pretty" I haven't seen many people in haunts who were "pretty" with the makeup on. Pretty gruesome, yes. This is just one more instance of the government attempting to strangle entrepreneurs, in my opinion.


----------



## EverydayisHalloween311 (Oct 14, 2011)

Ya you gotta point. Well said. I agree


----------



## jaege (Aug 23, 2009)

I agree that make-up artistry is not cosmetology, it is an art form. Just look at the results. Looks pretty artistic to me. It would be like making a guy using oil paint to do landscapes join the local house painters union. 

None the less, many forms of teaching require some sort of license. You cannot teach grade school without being a licensed teacher. So I am ambivalent about the license, but against them trying to make it cosmetology.


----------



## nixie (Sep 17, 2008)

I think one of the artists summed it up pretty well when she said that her students do not require a license to perform their jobs as makeup artists, so she shouldn't need a license to teach them. I think it all depends on the field, and the capacity in which you are teaching. Outside of colleges and other accredited institutions, I don't think the government usually gets involved in art, dance, music, etc. schools. This situation seems way overboard to me, and I hope it all works out in the end.


----------



## RoxyBlue (Oct 6, 2008)

Perhaps part of the problem is semantic. Make-up artistry is considered a branch of cosmetology, which may be where the licensing board is coming from. Using the term "special effects" might have made it clearer to the regulators that they were not running a school for something that fell under the broad umbrella of cosmetology.

Interestingly, one site I looked at stated that states do not license makup artists.


----------



## BioHazardCustoms (Aug 5, 2009)

I can understand wanting professional teachers to be accredited. The thing that gets to me is the woman who has to meet certain building criteria before she can re-open her doors. That seems like a ploy to drain resources that she might not have at her disposal year-round. Buildings require maintenance, plus there is the cost of rent for the building, business taxes, licensing fees, and accreditation to continue to operate her school. It just seems to me like the state of Nevada and the city of Reno ( I think that's where the school was located) are conspiring to make sure that her business venture does not see a profit, which is why people go into business for themselves. We can bail out large car manufacturers, but let someone develop and build their own brand of car in a start up business, and we tax them into oblivion. If you ask me, the government has bigger worries on their plate than whether an entrepreneur who teaches aspiring make up artists the ins and outs of the business is in a building that meets a cosmetology board's very strict criteria.


----------



## fontgeek (Jul 24, 2006)

If you watch that video again, you will see that they aren't teaching just special effects makeup, but all kinds of makeup.
It's not just the fact that they are teaching makeup, it's that they are running a facility/school, and in most, if not all, states, those schools have to meet certain health and safety criteria and have to be inspected and approved by the state and meet FDA standards. There are a lot of potential health risks for both the artists and the persons being enhanced, and the potential for the city and state from someone suing them because they allowed unclean and or unsafe business's to operate is huge.
If your wife or loved one went in and had makeup done and had an allergic reaction to the makeup and couldn't get the makeup off because of the lack of facilities and or knowledge, they could die or be permanently damaged. You try to sue the school, but they've claimed ignorance and have no funds to compensate you, so what do you do? You sue not just the school, but the city and maybe the state too.
So why would you think that the government shouldn't be able to protect you and itself from someone who practices and teaches unsafe methods? The health inspectors that have to come annually, all of the clerks, etc., won't work for free, so the government collects their fees to cover the costs for them and to help when someone does file a lawsuit.


----------



## BioHazardCustoms (Aug 5, 2009)

You have a valid point, fontgeek. I did go back and watch the video again, and they are teaching beauty makeup as well as FX makeup. That being the case, they should fall under the board of Cosmetology, because they are teaching a cosmetological (is that a word?) skill, as well as an FX skill.


----------



## fontgeek (Jul 24, 2006)

Even if they were teaching just special effects makeup, the same responsibilities fall upon the city and state. And because so much of the effects stuff is experimental it makes it potentially even more hazardous than plain beauty makeup.
While it's nice to think people wouldn't sue the city or state, any lawyer involved would have the law suits go against every potential payer, and students tend to learn from what they see and hear, for better or for worse.


----------

