For example:
Should lottery tickets be legally obligated to print educational advertizing concerning Gamblers Anonymous and its website similarly to cigarette advertizing?
What about requiring alcohol bottles to print educatonal information pertaining to Alcoholics Anonymous and its website?
What about requiring Internet search engines like Google.com advertizing screen blocking apps and information on Internet and Gamers Anonymous?
What about prohibiting sex workers from advertizing on web pages that do not also advertize concerning the harms of the sex trade, sex addiction, SAA, crisis help lines, STD information, Government-funded trades and professional education, etc.?
What about requiring Internet service providers to make porn sites opt-in?
What about requiring at least the worst of junk foods like soft drinks to provide the website for Overeaters Anonymous?
Though this might seem nanny-stateish, wouldn't such educational advertizing save the taxpayer money in the long run? For example:
Rather than gambling himself onto the streets never having even heard of gambling addiction and never having fully understood what was wrong with him, a gambler could be informed of Gamblers Anonymous maybe even before gambling becomes an addiction. So the moment it starts to become addictive, he might already be visiting its site online, think about it, maybe even quit cold turkey before he even needs help. Or if not, he'd at least seek help in the early stages of the addiction. Or even if he's not an addict himself, his awareness that gambling could be a secret addiction to his friend might think twice about pressuring him to go to the casino and be more understanding of the matter.
The same with the alcoholic. It could save money on health care costs for obesity, diabetes, STD's, etc. too.
Of course 12-step addiction therapy is not as good as therapy dealing with the root causes of addictive personalities. But given that 12-step groups are free and member-supported, even if they tend to deal more with the addiction (i.e. symptoms) rather than the disease (usually PTSD, BPD, OCD, or similar mental health problems), they're still better than nothing. At least they allow the person to deal with the most harmful symptoms of his disease until he has access to a professional therapist (which will inevitably either cost much money or involve wait time of days or even weeks before one is available, the more extreme clinical cases getting priority.
Besides, which would a taxpayer prefer between helping the addict help himself and paying more for social housing, health costs, etc.
Quite often the only thing that stands between the addict and disaster os not money, but simply knowledge, education.
Should lottery tickets be legally obligated to print educational advertizing concerning Gamblers Anonymous and its website similarly to cigarette advertizing?
What about requiring alcohol bottles to print educatonal information pertaining to Alcoholics Anonymous and its website?
What about requiring Internet search engines like Google.com advertizing screen blocking apps and information on Internet and Gamers Anonymous?
What about prohibiting sex workers from advertizing on web pages that do not also advertize concerning the harms of the sex trade, sex addiction, SAA, crisis help lines, STD information, Government-funded trades and professional education, etc.?
What about requiring Internet service providers to make porn sites opt-in?
What about requiring at least the worst of junk foods like soft drinks to provide the website for Overeaters Anonymous?
Though this might seem nanny-stateish, wouldn't such educational advertizing save the taxpayer money in the long run? For example:
Rather than gambling himself onto the streets never having even heard of gambling addiction and never having fully understood what was wrong with him, a gambler could be informed of Gamblers Anonymous maybe even before gambling becomes an addiction. So the moment it starts to become addictive, he might already be visiting its site online, think about it, maybe even quit cold turkey before he even needs help. Or if not, he'd at least seek help in the early stages of the addiction. Or even if he's not an addict himself, his awareness that gambling could be a secret addiction to his friend might think twice about pressuring him to go to the casino and be more understanding of the matter.
The same with the alcoholic. It could save money on health care costs for obesity, diabetes, STD's, etc. too.
Of course 12-step addiction therapy is not as good as therapy dealing with the root causes of addictive personalities. But given that 12-step groups are free and member-supported, even if they tend to deal more with the addiction (i.e. symptoms) rather than the disease (usually PTSD, BPD, OCD, or similar mental health problems), they're still better than nothing. At least they allow the person to deal with the most harmful symptoms of his disease until he has access to a professional therapist (which will inevitably either cost much money or involve wait time of days or even weeks before one is available, the more extreme clinical cases getting priority.
Besides, which would a taxpayer prefer between helping the addict help himself and paying more for social housing, health costs, etc.
Quite often the only thing that stands between the addict and disaster os not money, but simply knowledge, education.
