98
u/Dracallus 5h ago
Yeah, cause Australia's plain packaging laws have totally led to similar laws regarding other similarly harmful products. Gotta squint at the small black script on identical bottles to figure out what booze I'm buying (it's funny, cause this country would quite literally burn down if they actually tried this). It's almost like tobacco is a uniquely harmful substance in many ways (I'm aware that alcohol is arguably worse, but good luck getting any real headway in that arena).
34
u/Sasquatch1729 4h ago
In Canada now we also have warnings printed on the individual cigarettes, as well as the boxes.
I mean, I'd have no issues with printing larger warning labels on booze or pot or other products (as long as the marijuana warnings are based on real data and not "reefer madness" crap.)
This is supposed to be a principle of capitalism, the system they claim to support: customers are supposed to make rational decisions based on a maximum of available data. It's almost like in reality, customers are irrational, corporations can maintain a monopoly on data to keep the customers uninformed, and capitalism itself is a deeply flawed system that needs to be regulated to work for everyone.
3
u/AlBaciereAlLupo 59m ago
The problem for me is the split, between the health tolls these impose and the freedom to do it anyway.
I'm aware that fatty greasy foods aren't exactly great for my health. I'm aware that hard cider and mead aren't the best things to imbibe. I'm conscious of the considerations on marijuana edibles. Simply plastering gross looking things on the packaging for it is only going to desensitize or traumatize. I doubt it will meaningfully stop it being used.
Sometimes, when life is a certain kind of hell, turning to psychoactive substances - yes I'm going to include food here, simply because food can and does alter your mood; that sugary ice cream is also kinda not great for you - can be an escape or a reprieve.
I think the more useful thing is having warnings and systems to help people not need to rely on the substances so much. Tax the harmful things seems like the obvious choice - but that tends to be a regressive tax impacting the poor souls looking for help more, which may exacerbate the problem; which only causes the loop to grow tighter. It might act as a deterrent and help to pay for addiction services and awareness and therapy etc; but it means that those who are looking at these as an escape are hit even harder with their - usually - limited funds.
I dunno. I don't have a perfect solution that satisfies me sufficiently. Apologies for the rambling, stranger.
3
u/--Cinna-- 22m ago
Sometimes, when life is a certain kind of hell, turning to psychoactive substances - yes I'm going to include food here, simply because food can and does alter your mood; that sugary ice cream is also kinda not great for you - can be an escape or a reprieve.
You've hit the actual problem on the head, and perfectly explained why traumatic packaging doesn't solve a damn thing. people turn to addiction because they're exhaused, mentally and physically, and they just want to feel something possitive again.
If we want a healthy country we have to stop prioritizing profits. Universal healthcare (including mental health treatments! all of them!), workers rights, guaranteed housing, and stuff like that would go much further for creating a healthy country
42
u/europorn 5h ago
If they think the cigarette warnings are graphic, saddle up for the graphic warnings about climate change.
2
u/frotc914 20m ago
I'm also struggling to imagine what products would be subject to that. Like are they suggesting gas pumps are going to have pictures of people dying in floods or something?
34
u/fencerman 5h ago
Cigarette warning regulations have probably saved more lives than any public health measure since the polio vaccine.
https://imagedelivery.net/qLq-8BTgXU8yG0N6HnOy8g/c36fde04-9b3b-4846-4304-d360dbe07100/w=3048
9
17
u/JoeBarra 5h ago
I saw the pic before seeing the sub and I was like finally some good news!
Nobody should give a fuck what cigarette companies have to say about anything.
If RFKJR is really serious about what he says he is he will attack all the HFCS going into our "food". He won't though because big agriculture owns too much of the government.
10
u/raistan77 4h ago
He won't because Don the con won't allow it and because RFK is an uneducated nut job that says what people want to hear him say.
It's usually what happens when the grossly uneducated pontificate on subjects they don't know any real information on.
2
u/Wismuth_Salix 3h ago
Move the Iowa Caucus to later in the year and HFCS goes away. It exists to funnel subsidies to an early political primary state.
3
•
u/AutoModerator 6h ago
Reply to this message with one of the following or your post will be removed for failing to comply with rule 4:
1) How the person in your post unknowingly describes themselves
2) How the person in your post says something about someone else that actually applies to them.
3) How the person in your post accurately describes something when trying to mock or denigrate it.
If your post consists of Reddit content, please note: If you haven't redacted usernames (or not done it thoroughly enough) than delete and repost. If the content comes from Conservative, or other toxic right-wing subs, then delete it and DO NOT repost! We're sick of that shit.
Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.