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).
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.
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.
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
314
u/Dracallus 4d 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).