Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Consumer Protection

Dear Prodigal Bloggers,

Like many of you, I was inspired to resurrect my comfortably hibernating blog by Scope of Scope-Tech and his Cyber Monday mass blogathon idea. Since the Golden Age of Blogging, this blog has been inactive for three and a half years (save for two one-off posts you can see below this one) before today's slapdash1 (and late) edition.

Quite a bit has changed for me in that time, and I currently find myself in Australia. Culturally, Australia is very much like the USA in many respects and quirkily dissimilar in some minor respects. For instance, a six-pack of average beer costs $20 here, which has caused a major reduction in both swearing at televised football games and my waistline.

One particularly jarring difference is that cigarette packs in Australia do not display the logo of the manufacturer. Instead, every brand very2 graphically displays photographs of the health problems that can befall smokers. The pictures are truly disturbing, which is why I will link them here instead of posting them directly so that you can choose to look or not.

That brings me (finally) to my post for today. I wondered, if cigarettes are required to warn you very graphically about the dangers of smoking, why should other dangerous products not be subject to the same requirements? In this spirit, my crude Photoshop skills and I bring you:

Horrific Consumer Protection Packaging
As always, click pictures to embiggen.

I'm not sure those baskets are big enough for this meal. In other news, I kind of want to go to McDonald's right now.

If any word ever screamed out for quotation marks, it is the "real" in Real Housewives.

This warning may prove ineffective if you are pursuing a Real Housewife or watch excessive3 amounts of MTV.

To be fair, even though gin tastes like a pine tree air freshener, this warning may actually increase my consumption.

1. Terrible
3. Any